Y2K Delayed a Do-Decade

Before I begin, I must confirm what a Do-Decade is. It is twelve years. Similar to a dodecagon or dodecahedron, d0deca- means twelve.

Now that that's out of the way, I'll begin. Take a step back in time to 1998. The world was different then. No terrorist threats (at least to my knowledge), no Xbox vs PS3. Not even the PS2. Computers were rather basic in comparison to how they are now. And, of course, the threat of the Y2K bug. Being very young at this time, I got numourous rumours about how and why the Y2K bug was so scary. The most prominent was that all the computers would shut down, simultaneously launching all nuclear weapons, destroying all life on the planet! Strangely, I wasn't scared. I don't think I was old enough to understand the gravity of the situation. Still, with multiple levels of panic, I didn't know what was what.

Then came the inevitable money making schemes. Vast amounts of Y2K merchandise came out. I still own a few Millenium bugs, the little toy game which came out alongside a plethora of other items, made to get rich off of the hype. The funny thing was, those toys came with little bits of information about Y2K. The most important of which lowered my tension 3 months before everyone else.

I'll bet that even now, few people realise the problem wasn't New Year's Day 2000. It was the nineth of September, Nineteen Ninety Nine, or 9/9/99. On some of the older computers this would translate to 9999, the year in which they were set to shut down. At risk computers were either disabled or repaired, and when September 10 came around, I was relieved, though I seemed to be the only one. And even though I told people we were safe, no-one believed me. Who would've guessed.

And now come back to the present. What do have now? No Twin Towers. No national security. No trust in strangers. Online wars between consoles. And: 2012. "Oh, look honey, another end of the world. Get the camera, it may be the last one we'll see for a couple years."

We're getting in fast now aren't we. Already there's a blockbuster movie about it, and several documentries. I suspect within the next 12 months, there'll be toys, games, books and even scams relating to the newest end of the world. One thing I can't wait for is getting a "I survived 2012" T-shirt. I'm not going to quote apparent evidences for the destruction that is 2012, because it does not make sense. I will quote a couple I heard: Nostradamus' prediction (not the first by the way), and the end to the incan calendar. I wouldn't care to trust ancient civilisations predictions. What do they know that we don't? But I ramble.

I will start the scams. I am so certain that 2012 will not end the world I am willing to bet on it. If you are willing to bet against me, e-mail me to make your wager. I'll bet anything, because I won't lose. Give me your best shot.

(Psst. I don't expect anyone to take me up on this, no-one is that silly, right?)

Until next time,
Fui fides tantum in testimonium.

Youtube Channel

Hello my faithful followers, all three of you, I'm here to say I'm actually going to post a video on my Youtube channel soon. The only problem is that everything I think to do has been done. Everything I wish to debunk, or disprove, has a video debunking, or disproving it. So, seeing as I have no idea where to start adding to the ever growing pile of redundancy, I'm going to leave it up to to you.

Tell me what you want to see! When I'm done, I'll post a link to the video here. Then, maybe I'll get some more followers. Don't be afraid, I'll take all suggestions into consideration, and may even post videos of each, unless they're just completly retarded.

Also, my next post: Sexy Sexism in the Sex Industry... Sex, will be here soon, after I've finished my research. Any thoughts about that should be left to stew, so that when read it, you have a strong point to make. Thanks guys!

Fui fides tantum in testimonium.

Cosmology, and it's place in Theology

Hello again, my faithful few readers. I'm about to BLOW YOUR MIND! With information you've likely already seen, and understood.

First, I'll talk about something brought up by a Creationist, in one of my hour long discussions with them. The Cosmological Argument for God's existence. I shall point out that, while I'm no Physicist, I was able to figure a few things out just with logical thought. He, on the other hand, was a physics major, so I found it hard to believe he'd use this argument.

The argument is as follows: http://www.carm.org/apologetics/apologetics/cosmological-argument

1. Things exists
2. It is possible for things not to exist
3. Whatever has the possibility of non-existence, yet exists must have been caused to exist
a) Nothing can bring itself into existence, because it must exist to bring itself into existence, which is illogical.
4. There cannot be an infinite number of causes to bring something into existence.
a) An infinite regression of cause ultimately has no initial cause, which means there is no cause of existence.
b) Since the Universe exists, it must have a cause.
5. Therefore there must be an uncaused cause of all things.
6. The uncaused cause must be God.

There is little to nothing wrong with this... Excepting, of course, parts 2 through 6.

Things exist. Yes they do. If anyone says otherwise, they're an idiot, or they're insane.
But is it possible for things not to exist? Who says? Have we managed to observe things not existing? Or things changing from existence to non-existence? No? Then where is the validity of the statement.

Given that things can be non-existent, which we don't know, why can't they bring themselves into existence? They must exist to bring themselves into existence. Once again, HOW DO THEY KNOW? Bringing something into existence, be it matter, energy, or something completely different, hasn't occurred in an observable way, during our time. We can't say that something must exist to bring itself into existence, because we have nothing to base this off. Just saying it's logical doesn't make it so.

The main problem with this argument is the baseless assumptions. An infinite regression of causes would have no initial cause. But that isn't a problem. Imagine this: A man builds a time machine from some schematics he'd found. He goes back in time, and places the schematics back into the place he'll find them. Without him finding the schematics, he wouldn't build the time machine, and be able to give himself the schematics, so he can build a time machine to give himself the.... seems kind of silly huh? But, since he found the schematics, he will always build the machine, and always find the schematics. No paradox, just some uncaused schematics. The same analogy could be used with Shakespeare, except that one of his books is given to him in the past, so he can publish it to become famous, etc.

Therefore, there is no real need to add God as an uncaused cause.

One could also say that the Universe itself is the uncaused cause. It may have always existed. It may be caused by an outside force that is not sentient, or even "alive". Why, it could also be that WE create the universe, when we travel back in time to witness the Big Bang. We don't know, but it IS explainable without an imaginary friend. And that is all this describes anyway. That SOMEONE created everything, whether it be God, Allah, Zeus, The Flying Spaghetti Monster or Wolverine.

Anyone who has been fooled by this sly deception of logic, please, feel free to contact me, so we can let the healing begin. Eventually, I will actually talk about theology. Look out for that, cause I'll be bringing more mouldy old ideas, and cooking them till their digestible. I'll also bring tasty new ideas... if I have any.

Until next time, Fui fides tantum in testimonium.