would have been alot cooler if in the ending from the ashes of a ruined earth a single seedling emerges from the ground then another than another till a sea of green is revealed
wow...Satan is really cleaver. By hollywood he actualy says to the young generation that his son(antichrist) is comming and will give us a better world...nice try Lucifer but not with me. Jesus kick your ass 2000 years ago and he will kick it once again soon. God bless
@Noise509 well dude there a lot of rituals, kabalah, lots of magic im not one of them, just had a feeling since 4 years old that price William will be someone big, and its sorta happens that in age of 24 i found that there a lot of theories about him and this strange filling from childhood finaly make sense that this world is pretty fucked up, im not saying im right, in fact i hope Im creazy but world situation shows the other way...hope you understand dude, see ya
@qiovanni He wasn't lying, it wasn't the end. It was just the end of him and everyone else, except for those who were chosen. They could start anew, so it wasn't the end of everything.
When I see things like this, how would ANYONE survive. I mean there are always people like Mad Max that make it and others...how the hell do they make it out of something like this!!!!
That's Yggdrasil, the world tree... I guess the Norse were right after all... GOOD! Odin is the most bad-ass god ever anyway. He used to nail himself to a tree every Wednesday. Beat THAT judeo-christian god!
@snillocgromreturns You know they call Odin the All-Father, right? How many days in the week are named after judeo-christian mythology? None! Odin has his day every week, Jesus only once a year and no one even got that date right. That's right! Xmas is not Jesus' birthday, so really, we should be worshiping the Allfather EVERY WEDNESDAY and Xmas is just a pagan holiday, so you know party, food and fornication, awwww yeah! Norse gods = metal and you can't defeat the metal.
@punkwasher LOL at the part about the fornication and metal. That's kind of funny actually. Anyhoo, All-Father is his title but none of the myths actually described him as creator of the world in any capacity, unlike the Judeo-Christian God. And God isn't really a deity like Odin, it's practically cheating to call it a god. It' not a powerful supernatural being like Odin, it's beyond that, it's the One, the All, the Becoming and the ground of Being itself, hence the name: YHWH (I Am That I Am.)
@snillocgromreturns Odin is a god, Jehova is a god, it's the term we use to describe nigh all-powerful entities. What you're describing might as well just be the Big Bang. It's like the Great Old Ones of Lovecraftian Lore, so powerful and uncaring of mankind that they are more like forces of nature than a being with consciousness. Really, if you don't want to classify YHWH as a god, you might as well just say thing. Like the idiot-god Azathoth that just dreams our universe.
@punkwasher No, a god in polytheism is an anthropomorphic powerful entity, Odin, Thor, Zeus, etc. are more like superhumans. They wear clothes, use human tools (Thor's "hammer"), were BORN, and each have LIMITED influence over a PART of the world. In Monotheism and Henotheism, God with the capital G is the basis for existence itself, I didn't think that was a mystery. No monotheistic will tell you YHWH is a "god" like Odin.
@snillocgromreturns They would call him god, which is a title, not a name. Besides the judeo-christian god is anthropomorphized enough to be likened to the gods of other mythologies. Why else would an omnipotent being even bother with the trivialities of mortal existence? This is the way it has been defined, there is nothing you can change about it, you just don't want to admit that YHWH is just as plausible as Thor, which is meant to say not at all.
@punkwasher Actually the Hebrews never called him "God," that was the English translation of the Bible. He was referred to as YHWH or The Lord in the original text. If said omnipotent being created mortal existence, it can certainly care if it wants to. Why should omnipotence automatically restrict anything? I don't get that idea.
@punkwasher Why should a sentient mortal existence be "trivial" to ANY other sentient intelligence, omnipotent or otherwise? I don't see the logical reason to exclude "care" from any such being. I'm not changing anything, it's how the monotheists themselves have been defining it, since Scripture.
@punkwasher It makes no sense to compare a God with a god. You attribute anthropomorphic qualities to God because he deals with people, but being able to communicate and emote should hardly be attributes that are restricted to humans. Hammers, however, are (at least to humoids). Thor is infinitely LESS plausible. A blonde guy wielding a hammer that causes storms. Picture that, objectively. The Socratic Prime Mover is always much more plausible than supermen that look and behave like us.
@punkwasher I'm not restricting the God concept to Judeo-Christianity, obviously. I did mention Wahaguru, Brahman, Shangdi, etc. The only one among them who isn't immanent is Brahman. But they are all considered the source of all being. A non-specific, more general idea of a Prime Mover is even more plausible, all of these concepts are more plausible than any single polytheist god concept. I'm personally agnostic but while I can believe that a Creator God is possible, I can't believe a Thor is.
@punkwasher Not to drag on a God non god convo, but the arguements against there not being a god can be used against big bang theories, evolution and so forth. It just seems to me that there are a lot more people trying to disprove a God than there is trying to disprove scientist commenting about space when they havent been, and billion yr old evolution theory when over the past 2000yrs a fish or ape hasnt turned into a man. What happens if its a little bit of both?
@freddy333ful Only there is evidence for a big bang theory and evolution, there isn't a shred for a god. Not. A. Shred. There's redshift and fossils, but not one piece of evidence of a sentient all powerful being. Again, adding god to the equation unnecessarily complicates matters, especially because no one can actually define god's parameters, so how am I supposed to take it into consideration if people can't even define it properly.
@punkwasher The evidence for a transcendant, omnipotent God as the Creator and the ultimate Cause of Existence lies in logic, rational thinking and deduction. Causality as a primary constant of Existence is the main evidence for God as an absolute logical necessity.
@AkademicDesignLabs No it's not. That's not logical at all. You're just opening yourself up for EVEN more questions. Where did this god come from? Where did whatever created that god come from? If he is beyond time and space, how does causality even apply to him? It is ONLY logical to assume the NON-EXISTENCE of a god as there IS NO EVIDENCE and adding him to any EQUATION adds an unknowable factor making the equation unsolvable. God is not practical.
@punkwasher Failure. You're going into infinite regression. Infinite regression applies only to temporal entities. You've said it yourself: "how can causality apply to God?". It can't. If God is the Ultimate Cause, he is by LOGIC not subject to time, space and matter. Therefore, it renders Him eternal, non-material and transcendant. Which are the qualities that most religions attribute to their understanding of God.
@AkademicDesignLabs Yes, infinite regression is what happens when you add an unknowable to the equation, which is what you are doing. You're claiming god is logical at the same time that he doesn't posses any possible logical attributes. You can't see your own contradiction! If causality can't apply to god, he can't be part of a logical process! If he is outside of causality, he does not apply to us, nor could he possibly care. God is unnecessary, too complicated! Simplify!
@punkwasher He's not subject to causality, He's the initial Cause. There's absolutely no contradiction. You're trying to apply infinite regression to a timeless concept. You're the one breaking the rules of logic here.
I think what you've meant is "its too complicated for me". I'm not surprised, judging by your third-grade tone and knowledge of the subject.
You can submit anything you like to anywhere you want. What you've failed to see is I'm no fundamentalist.
@AkademicDesignLabs You sure sound like a fundamentalist. What with you assuming that god started it all. There is no way you can logically come to that conclusion. You're not using Occam's Razor, you're presupposing the most complicated explanation for everything instead of taking what you can know for sure and going from there. It's always the same, apparently I'm too stupid to believe in god, but the whole problem is the more I learn, the less likely its existence seems.
@punkwasher I see you have no idea what biblical fundamentalism means. It's ok. I'm not surprised.
I have shown you a clear logical pattern of deduction to conclude a necessity of the Ultimate Cause and its basic qualities. If you're able to point out logical inconsistencies in such reasoning, be my guest. If all you can do is cover your ears and repeat "there is no way you can logically conclude that", spare me.
@AkademicDesignLabs You're assuming the most complicated explanation, that's your logical flaw. God is the most complicated explanation possible, it doesn't actually explain anything, saying god started it all is as good as not answering the question as you have yet to define god, which probably can't be done. Use Occam's Razor, the simplest solution that requires the least explanations is probably the correct solution.
@punkwasher So it's a logical flaw to simply follow logic? Check your definitions. I'm guessing what you mean is, if it's complicated, it's not logical. That's a mistake. Occam's razor? Yeah, tell that to a professor of quantum physics. This is not a matter of "the simplest solution". This is a chain of deduction based on nothing but facts of existence.
Concluding a personal, transcendant Creator and defining His basic qualities through logic IS answering the question.
@AkademicDesignLabs Conventional logic doesn't apply to Quantum Physics, that's kind of the whole issue with it, but that's neither here nor there. When your solution only raises more questions, then your solution is not simple enough. Who created god? Who created the creator that created god? Already a problem with presupposing god, therefore it's a slippery slope to just presuppose a god. It's easier to leave him out of the question and focus on the definite and knowable.
@punkwasher I'll repeat. If God is the Ultimate Cause of existence (time, space, matter), He is not subject to the limitations of time, rendering Him eternal. Eternal = no beginning, no end. "Who created God" is by definition a logically invalid question.
@punkwasher So now we're off into the topic of religions? Make no mistake - concluding the logical necessity of God does not prove any religion. That's one's personal issue. Religions of the world offer their interpretations of God, it's a question of where do you find most sense. I have certainly found all the sense and all the answers in Orthodox christianity.
@AkademicDesignLabs And that is sort of the whole issue now isn't it. I don't see any evidence of the universe showing any conscious behavior or any bias towards any human, or species, which leads me to believe that if there is a god, he is uncaring to the point of being like a law of nature. So, if no one can agree on a god, then it can't be a universal truth, then it can't be logical, then that idea can't further human progress. God really is totally unpractical. QED
@punkwasher Dude, what the hell does being practical have to do with all this? Love isn't practical. Self-sacrifice isn't practical. Compassion isn't practical. What are you, a calculator?
Maybe for you, right now, as an unbeliever, God isn't practical. But for billions before you and now, Faith in God has been of practical and spiritual support, a basis for development, from social relationships to art and science.
You've really demonstrated nothing except for superficial thoughts.
@AkademicDesignLabs We don't need religion anymore, that's kind of the point I wanted to make. I enjoy other fiction, the main difference is that I understand the difference between metaphor and fact. Religion is a bunch of metaphors, completely useless in our time when communication is key, it was useful when we needed to convince stupid people to behave, but in our current time it's superfluous and only further confuses issues vital to human progress.
@punkwasher Spoken like a true dismissive ignoramus. But it's fine. Stick to your "communications" and see where it takes you. Just don't forget to thank christian monks for saving libraries of scientific literature in the Dark Ages.
@AkademicDesignLabs Like all those Christians who saved the library of Alexandria, OH, no... wait.. they burned that. Well, at least it wasn't like the bonfire of vanities in Florence, OH, no wait... those Christians burned books and artwork... WHOOPS! My bad, I thought there was some BENEFIT to superstition, but nope, it just really leaves room for interpretation and therefore abuse, but I guess I'm too ignorant to overlook the genocide committed in the name of superstition.
@punkwasher The Judeo-Christian God is pretty much like Azathoth or Yog-Sothoth in terms power (more actually), except there is a singular difference: that God is an intelligent architect and orchestrates both order and chaos and the interplay between them (God said: let there be light and separated the light from dark; showing active organization of positive and negative forces) whereas Lovecraft's Gods are "mindless" and are only chaotic....they actually have no true control.
@snillocgromreturns which is why it's all the easier and probably more logical to assume that the universe is unconscious and uncaring. Gravity will never bend itself to your will, the laws of nature aren't the expression of a caring, conscious god, they are the expression of pure chaos theory, or pure math, of numbers beyond our comprehension, bubbling up from the quantum foam to resemble something we'd like to call patterns, but really, we're just clouds of matter colliding with each other.
@snillocgromreturns or sentience is just a logical necessity for a being to survive. It needs to be self-aware to a certain degree, otherwise it couldn't preserve itself. Could have evolved naturally and considering there are varying levels of sentience, from bacteria to humans, this seems more plausible than having to introduce an unnecessary metaphysical element that would probably just bring up more unnecessary questions. God isn't practical, end of story.
@punkwasher Bacteria aren't sentient, they survive. Sentience isn't necessarily needed for mere survival, and one can argue that our "intelligence" can just as easily lead to our own demise. We've certainly got the capability to do so. Rather, sentience is a result of mechanics of natural selection, a series of improvements that granted specific evolutionary advantages in particular instances, it doesn't apply to living things in general.
@punkwasher and one can argue that "metaphysical" elements are necessary. Why have things that can self-organise and self-replicate and eventually develope sentience at all in the universe? There may not be a point, but there may be. I don't agree with the various Anthropic Principles really, but that doesn't mean they're impossible. God isn't practical, I agree with you. But he's not implausible.
@snillocgromreturns God is very much implausible, his existence in itself basically violates the laws of thermodynamics. A lot of faithful people claim he exists outside of our universe, so... so much for plausibility. Why use a supernatural explanation, which only raises MORE questions to explain something? It complicates matters unnecessarily.
@punkwasher I don't see how God's existence violates the laws of thermodynamics. Thermodynamics only applies to things inside this universe. The concept of a creator of the cosmos in any form must describe said creator as beyond our own space-time. Not supposing a first cause also raises questions: What made the Big Bang happen?
@snillocgromreturns Yeah, isn't that what we're trying to find out? What happened with the big bang? That's the interesting question, but the whole god aspect just opens more questions, is poorly defined to begin with and if it's outside of our universe it barely pertains to us. I just find the whole god spin a sort of a non-answer.
@punkwasher but the God "spin" 's purpose isn't to answer how the universe began. It's to answer the more intangible questions of the "human soul." It's a non-answer only if you're looking to quantify the event that led to the big bang. But in the end, ain't God and That-Which-Started-The-Big-Bang the one and the same, for now? Since we really can't legitimately SAY anything about anything before the big bang?
@punkwasher We now have a dozen theories that tries to explain that, including the various string theories which describe things that nominally "outside of our universe." I already told you that I don't believe in God. I don't see a requirement for the existence of such a fantastical being. So maybe it/he/she/they is "implausible" to you. I'm fine with that. I guess I should rephrase: the existence of a God is not "impossible."
@punkwasher I don't believe there is a God. I'm agnostic. But your original argument was that, in concept, a being like YHWH = a being like Thor, which, as I've stated, is incorrect, and I've provided reasons why. Although i'm not religious, I'd much sooner accept the possibility of a singular creator force than good-looking superhumans who screw and cheat on each other, ;)
@punkwasher Lovecraft is awesome, but his ideas are borne out of his unsatisfying life and its resultant nihilistic views. I'm not touting one religion over another here, but simply stating the concepts of a monotheistic/henotheism "Deity" like the Hindu Brahman, the Sikh Wahaguru, the Chinese Shangdi, and the Abrahamic God (the Ein Sof of Kabbalah) cannot be compared to that of "gods" in polytheism or to Lovecraft. These concepts are more like the "God" of Einstein and philosophers.
@punkwasher I love Norse myth, it's way cool, just so you know. Monotheistic myths are not that "cool" because their Gods are not people, they're pretty alien to us and does not reflect our desires and yearnings like the norse or Greek gods do. Whereas we can idolize Odin or Thor as "heroes", the closest thing we can relate to a capital G God is the role of a "parent," (strict one at that), which is not exactly something we as people.....like very often.
The ending confirms this has nothing to do with religion. An incredibly advanced alien species detected the coming solar flare, knew of Earth's imminent extinction event, and took samples of the Human race (the pairs of kids) away and to another suitable planet to rebuild the species anew. The aliens just acted as caretakers of Humanity, not as a whole but as a species in existence. Good for them. Although sucks BALLS for everyone else left behind.
can someone please explain to me where the kids go to, and what those crystal-looking things are... and is that the Garden of Eden??? PLZZZZ NEED HELP
Those kids should've saved a picture of New York City. Rebuild on that cool looking planet. The Garden of Eden would be Central Park and the Tree of Life in the lobby of the Empire State Building. Frank gehry aint got nothing on me
I'd be feeling pretty hard done by if I was Nick Cages character! all that work he did only to be left on the burning Earth! poor old New York! all I could think at the end of this film was Milena of human achievement and culture had been wiped out in seconds! screw the new world!
The whole point to this movie is... the world is created and goes on until it gets too fucked up for it's own good, so they destroy it and start again?
@Asgard72 No, that's exactly what I said too! It's like a movie that starts out sort of understandable and then does a complete 180 and switches to a whole different genre.
having to start again like that would be brilliant apart from the fact, unlike people around 1000 years ago, you'd know all the things you would miss like T.V., Good healthcare, X box, films like this one, Lego, the internet, Google, YouTube, all in the future....because you'll die before even a fraction of the roots of any of these is invented! (Its like people today sent back to start again as cave men)
The movie is really interesting especially at the end with the white tree. You wonder if the children are on the same earth or on a different world. I interpret they might be on a different world, because i noticed the tree is different than earth's. Also there appear to be other planets seen at the distance. The earth in the story is completely burned and destroyed that there is really no way life can recover, maybe thats why the children end up on another planet.
So.. the aliens raped and sodomized the kids, then they just gave them other clothing and then dropped them in another planet and then enjoy watching at them having sex at young age and then masturbate at this...?
NOT EVEN THE END OF THE WORLD FINISHED WITH PEDOPHILIA... THATS HORRIBLE!!!
I've got an issue with this ending. If they were to have kids etc. They would be so inbred after 3 generations, they would not be able to stand up straight
fuck that every time i see this movie i freak out...and then i see solar t-sunami on yahoo home page and im like fuck the world,somebody put a bullet through my head..lolz..
LOOK, the end of this earth is coming. We are so privaledged to be living is an era when the dread prophecies of the Bible and revelations are being fullfilled before our eyes. The move for Global government and a cashless society controlled by a microchip (Rev 13.16) ,in the hand is almost upon us. The earth will be detroyed by fire as depicted here but not before the rapture of all those who have professed faith in Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour.
First destructive solar flare was recorded in 1859. Telegraph poles were on fire and telegraph network were down. After careful study, next event was already foreseen with 90% life wipe out but Scientist coded the actual date in Religious way to prevent people from panicking (late 19th century). Micheal the Archangel was the key where he defeated Satan and save the Earth from burning in Hell. 2012 - 1859 = 153.
Search 153 that relates "Micheal the Archangel" in Google. You'll be surprised.
Pause this video at the :30 second mark and mute it
play I Don't Want To Set The World On Fire-The Ink Spots
resume playing this video at the same time
enjoy ;)
maromas02 3 days ago
I think the plot of the movie was God's plan to kill Nicholas Cage anyway possible. He had to resort to the apocalypse to do so.
Naedeslus 5 days ago
i wish i was that kid. No more school and job. Just plain SEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEX....
MrDaldagnuur 1 week ago 8
1:38 THE NEW WORLD
MyBlackButler 1 week ago
AND IN THE END THE ALIENS AND THE SUN REJOICED AS NICHOLAS CAGE AND HIS LUST FOR CHOCOLATE CAKE WERE FOREVER INCINERATED FROM THE UNIVERSE!
fucktardickis 1 week ago 9
@fucktardickis Amen!
Unit1262 1 week ago
would have been alot cooler if in the ending from the ashes of a ruined earth a single seedling emerges from the ground then another than another till a sea of green is revealed
NaturalWorldWiki 2 weeks ago
como fizeram isso
leandro62836 2 weeks ago
wow...Satan is really cleaver. By hollywood he actualy says to the young generation that his son(antichrist) is comming and will give us a better world...nice try Lucifer but not with me. Jesus kick your ass 2000 years ago and he will kick it once again soon. God bless
RealWorldMAJK 3 weeks ago
@RealWorldMAJK
so hollywood is of satan ?
NASSIRNO 3 weeks ago
@RealWorldMAJK Are you cereal?
anagron63 3 weeks ago
@RealWorldMAJK Wait, Lucifer is an angel, not a god. How could he possibly produce an offspring?
Noise509 2 weeks ago
@Noise509 well dude there a lot of rituals, kabalah, lots of magic im not one of them, just had a feeling since 4 years old that price William will be someone big, and its sorta happens that in age of 24 i found that there a lot of theories about him and this strange filling from childhood finaly make sense that this world is pretty fucked up, im not saying im right, in fact i hope Im creazy but world situation shows the other way...hope you understand dude, see ya
RealWorldMAJK 1 week ago
@RealWorldMAJK It wasn't until the age of 24 that you realized the world's fucked up?
Noise509 1 week ago
this movie :D
EliPotterKeane 3 weeks ago
is the tree ment to be something to do with adam and eve?
nasran2011 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THIS MOVIE WAS EXCELLENT.
But we humans can be soooo stupid.
It's the end of the world - and we're shoplifting ???
WTF !!!
vlweb3d 3 weeks ago
the lord is my shepherd i shall not want, even thought i walk through the shadowed valley of death i fear no evil : palms 23
bugs996 4 weeks ago
@bugs996 shutup
dazza2151 3 weeks ago
@qiovanni He wasn't lying, it wasn't the end. It was just the end of him and everyone else, except for those who were chosen. They could start anew, so it wasn't the end of everything.
CredeinIpsum 4 weeks ago
@CredeinIpsum they're talking about the afterlife, it's obvious.
qiovanni 4 weeks ago
Comment removed
qiovanni 4 weeks ago
@qiovanni Dude.... Chill the fuck out.
ADyingFetus 4 weeks ago
@ADyingFetus haha I can't we're in the middle of a solar storm
qiovanni 4 weeks ago
@qiovanni And you have all the answers right? You will find the truth through the inevitable. Enough with you're bullshit rants.
littleredwagonEP 4 weeks ago
@littleredwagonEP ok now go back into your hamster wheel
qiovanni 4 weeks ago
@qiovanni take you're ass back to the psych ward.
littleredwagonEP 4 weeks ago
@littleredwagonEP your turn this time
qiovanni 4 weeks ago
@qiovanni lol.
littleredwagonEP 3 weeks ago
@qiovanni lolwat?
Noise509 2 weeks ago
So fucked up yet so epic
blackeroni 1 month ago
Hope the stupid bastards left them pen and paper. Not like those Adam and Eve retards...
Kelly14UK 1 month ago
Then, the boy turns out to be gay.
DiabolicHeart 1 month ago
Sun: FUCK YOU EARTH YOUR MAKING ME LOOK BAD!
Rest of the worlds besides earth: Oh shit the humans are fucked.
Me: Earth you forgot to put on your lead shield.
ZackWake216 1 month ago
In future something more worst than this will happen... it will be unimaginable destruction... tat time ppl will know who is and what is god...
sparrow5293 1 month ago
It is Adam and Eve! XD
P2020pudding1 1 month ago
When I see things like this, how would ANYONE survive. I mean there are always people like Mad Max that make it and others...how the hell do they make it out of something like this!!!!
71kellyn 1 month ago
so...a sequel would be the Blue Lagoon in outer space?
#@!
SpammerOvTheGods 1 month ago
i wish the world was actually this vibrant...instead we polute it and and shit. fuck the human race
blackboisk8r 1 month ago
Yay i was the 100th like!
Chola18Bella 1 month ago
Nibiru?
Urdalibertine 1 month ago
who put them on dantooine
enchiladaproductionz 2 months ago
fornication is fake
SuperAzoz99 2 months ago
in real
in heaven people well be in 32
SuperAzoz99 2 months ago
in islam that is a part of true
SuperAzoz99 2 months ago
That's Yggdrasil, the world tree... I guess the Norse were right after all... GOOD! Odin is the most bad-ass god ever anyway. He used to nail himself to a tree every Wednesday. Beat THAT judeo-christian god!
punkwasher 2 months ago
@punkwasher well that's easy, how about creating the uh...u know, UNIVERSE?
snillocgromreturns 2 months ago
@snillocgromreturns You know they call Odin the All-Father, right? How many days in the week are named after judeo-christian mythology? None! Odin has his day every week, Jesus only once a year and no one even got that date right. That's right! Xmas is not Jesus' birthday, so really, we should be worshiping the Allfather EVERY WEDNESDAY and Xmas is just a pagan holiday, so you know party, food and fornication, awwww yeah! Norse gods = metal and you can't defeat the metal.
punkwasher 2 months ago
@punkwasher LOL at the part about the fornication and metal. That's kind of funny actually. Anyhoo, All-Father is his title but none of the myths actually described him as creator of the world in any capacity, unlike the Judeo-Christian God. And God isn't really a deity like Odin, it's practically cheating to call it a god. It' not a powerful supernatural being like Odin, it's beyond that, it's the One, the All, the Becoming and the ground of Being itself, hence the name: YHWH (I Am That I Am.)
snillocgromreturns 1 month ago
@snillocgromreturns Odin is a god, Jehova is a god, it's the term we use to describe nigh all-powerful entities. What you're describing might as well just be the Big Bang. It's like the Great Old Ones of Lovecraftian Lore, so powerful and uncaring of mankind that they are more like forces of nature than a being with consciousness. Really, if you don't want to classify YHWH as a god, you might as well just say thing. Like the idiot-god Azathoth that just dreams our universe.
punkwasher 1 month ago
@punkwasher No, a god in polytheism is an anthropomorphic powerful entity, Odin, Thor, Zeus, etc. are more like superhumans. They wear clothes, use human tools (Thor's "hammer"), were BORN, and each have LIMITED influence over a PART of the world. In Monotheism and Henotheism, God with the capital G is the basis for existence itself, I didn't think that was a mystery. No monotheistic will tell you YHWH is a "god" like Odin.
snillocgromreturns 1 month ago
@snillocgromreturns They would call him god, which is a title, not a name. Besides the judeo-christian god is anthropomorphized enough to be likened to the gods of other mythologies. Why else would an omnipotent being even bother with the trivialities of mortal existence? This is the way it has been defined, there is nothing you can change about it, you just don't want to admit that YHWH is just as plausible as Thor, which is meant to say not at all.
punkwasher 1 month ago
@punkwasher Actually the Hebrews never called him "God," that was the English translation of the Bible. He was referred to as YHWH or The Lord in the original text. If said omnipotent being created mortal existence, it can certainly care if it wants to. Why should omnipotence automatically restrict anything? I don't get that idea.
snillocgromreturns 1 month ago
@punkwasher Why should a sentient mortal existence be "trivial" to ANY other sentient intelligence, omnipotent or otherwise? I don't see the logical reason to exclude "care" from any such being. I'm not changing anything, it's how the monotheists themselves have been defining it, since Scripture.
snillocgromreturns 1 month ago
@punkwasher It makes no sense to compare a God with a god. You attribute anthropomorphic qualities to God because he deals with people, but being able to communicate and emote should hardly be attributes that are restricted to humans. Hammers, however, are (at least to humoids). Thor is infinitely LESS plausible. A blonde guy wielding a hammer that causes storms. Picture that, objectively. The Socratic Prime Mover is always much more plausible than supermen that look and behave like us.
snillocgromreturns 1 month ago
@punkwasher I'm not restricting the God concept to Judeo-Christianity, obviously. I did mention Wahaguru, Brahman, Shangdi, etc. The only one among them who isn't immanent is Brahman. But they are all considered the source of all being. A non-specific, more general idea of a Prime Mover is even more plausible, all of these concepts are more plausible than any single polytheist god concept. I'm personally agnostic but while I can believe that a Creator God is possible, I can't believe a Thor is.
snillocgromreturns 1 month ago
@punkwasher I don't know if you read comics but comparing YHWH to Thor is like comparing The Living Tribunal with The Silver Surfer.
snillocgromreturns 1 month ago
@snillocgromreturns Are you saying it's an apt comparison?
punkwasher 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@punkwasher "Are you saying it's an apt comparison?"
I'm saying The Living Tribunal wipes the floor with the Silver Surfer, like He does with Thor.
snillocgromreturns 1 month ago
@punkwasher Not to drag on a God non god convo, but the arguements against there not being a god can be used against big bang theories, evolution and so forth. It just seems to me that there are a lot more people trying to disprove a God than there is trying to disprove scientist commenting about space when they havent been, and billion yr old evolution theory when over the past 2000yrs a fish or ape hasnt turned into a man. What happens if its a little bit of both?
freddy333ful 1 month ago
@freddy333ful Only there is evidence for a big bang theory and evolution, there isn't a shred for a god. Not. A. Shred. There's redshift and fossils, but not one piece of evidence of a sentient all powerful being. Again, adding god to the equation unnecessarily complicates matters, especially because no one can actually define god's parameters, so how am I supposed to take it into consideration if people can't even define it properly.
punkwasher 1 month ago
@punkwasher The evidence for a transcendant, omnipotent God as the Creator and the ultimate Cause of Existence lies in logic, rational thinking and deduction. Causality as a primary constant of Existence is the main evidence for God as an absolute logical necessity.
AkademicDesignLabs 1 month ago
@AkademicDesignLabs No it's not. That's not logical at all. You're just opening yourself up for EVEN more questions. Where did this god come from? Where did whatever created that god come from? If he is beyond time and space, how does causality even apply to him? It is ONLY logical to assume the NON-EXISTENCE of a god as there IS NO EVIDENCE and adding him to any EQUATION adds an unknowable factor making the equation unsolvable. God is not practical.
punkwasher 1 month ago
@punkwasher Failure. You're going into infinite regression. Infinite regression applies only to temporal entities. You've said it yourself: "how can causality apply to God?". It can't. If God is the Ultimate Cause, he is by LOGIC not subject to time, space and matter. Therefore, it renders Him eternal, non-material and transcendant. Which are the qualities that most religions attribute to their understanding of God.
AkademicDesignLabs 1 month ago
@AkademicDesignLabs Yes, infinite regression is what happens when you add an unknowable to the equation, which is what you are doing. You're claiming god is logical at the same time that he doesn't posses any possible logical attributes. You can't see your own contradiction! If causality can't apply to god, he can't be part of a logical process! If he is outside of causality, he does not apply to us, nor could he possibly care. God is unnecessary, too complicated! Simplify!
punkwasher 1 month ago
@punkwasher He's not subject to causality, He's the initial Cause. There's absolutely no contradiction. You're trying to apply infinite regression to a timeless concept. You're the one breaking the rules of logic here.
I think what you've meant is "its too complicated for me". I'm not surprised, judging by your third-grade tone and knowledge of the subject.
You can submit anything you like to anywhere you want. What you've failed to see is I'm no fundamentalist.
Poor, uneducated troll.
AkademicDesignLabs 1 month ago
@AkademicDesignLabs You sure sound like a fundamentalist. What with you assuming that god started it all. There is no way you can logically come to that conclusion. You're not using Occam's Razor, you're presupposing the most complicated explanation for everything instead of taking what you can know for sure and going from there. It's always the same, apparently I'm too stupid to believe in god, but the whole problem is the more I learn, the less likely its existence seems.
punkwasher 1 month ago
@punkwasher I see you have no idea what biblical fundamentalism means. It's ok. I'm not surprised.
I have shown you a clear logical pattern of deduction to conclude a necessity of the Ultimate Cause and its basic qualities. If you're able to point out logical inconsistencies in such reasoning, be my guest. If all you can do is cover your ears and repeat "there is no way you can logically conclude that", spare me.
AkademicDesignLabs 1 month ago
@AkademicDesignLabs You're assuming the most complicated explanation, that's your logical flaw. God is the most complicated explanation possible, it doesn't actually explain anything, saying god started it all is as good as not answering the question as you have yet to define god, which probably can't be done. Use Occam's Razor, the simplest solution that requires the least explanations is probably the correct solution.
punkwasher 1 month ago
@punkwasher So it's a logical flaw to simply follow logic? Check your definitions. I'm guessing what you mean is, if it's complicated, it's not logical. That's a mistake. Occam's razor? Yeah, tell that to a professor of quantum physics. This is not a matter of "the simplest solution". This is a chain of deduction based on nothing but facts of existence.
Concluding a personal, transcendant Creator and defining His basic qualities through logic IS answering the question.
What else?
AkademicDesignLabs 1 month ago
@AkademicDesignLabs Conventional logic doesn't apply to Quantum Physics, that's kind of the whole issue with it, but that's neither here nor there. When your solution only raises more questions, then your solution is not simple enough. Who created god? Who created the creator that created god? Already a problem with presupposing god, therefore it's a slippery slope to just presuppose a god. It's easier to leave him out of the question and focus on the definite and knowable.
punkwasher 1 month ago
@punkwasher I'll repeat. If God is the Ultimate Cause of existence (time, space, matter), He is not subject to the limitations of time, rendering Him eternal. Eternal = no beginning, no end. "Who created God" is by definition a logically invalid question.
Try to follow me here.
AkademicDesignLabs 1 month ago
@AkademicDesignLabs Which god?
punkwasher 1 month ago
@punkwasher So now we're off into the topic of religions? Make no mistake - concluding the logical necessity of God does not prove any religion. That's one's personal issue. Religions of the world offer their interpretations of God, it's a question of where do you find most sense. I have certainly found all the sense and all the answers in Orthodox christianity.
AkademicDesignLabs 1 month ago
@AkademicDesignLabs And that is sort of the whole issue now isn't it. I don't see any evidence of the universe showing any conscious behavior or any bias towards any human, or species, which leads me to believe that if there is a god, he is uncaring to the point of being like a law of nature. So, if no one can agree on a god, then it can't be a universal truth, then it can't be logical, then that idea can't further human progress. God really is totally unpractical. QED
punkwasher 1 month ago
@punkwasher Dude, what the hell does being practical have to do with all this? Love isn't practical. Self-sacrifice isn't practical. Compassion isn't practical. What are you, a calculator?
Maybe for you, right now, as an unbeliever, God isn't practical. But for billions before you and now, Faith in God has been of practical and spiritual support, a basis for development, from social relationships to art and science.
You've really demonstrated nothing except for superficial thoughts.
AkademicDesignLabs 1 month ago
@AkademicDesignLabs We don't need religion anymore, that's kind of the point I wanted to make. I enjoy other fiction, the main difference is that I understand the difference between metaphor and fact. Religion is a bunch of metaphors, completely useless in our time when communication is key, it was useful when we needed to convince stupid people to behave, but in our current time it's superfluous and only further confuses issues vital to human progress.
punkwasher 1 month ago
@punkwasher Spoken like a true dismissive ignoramus. But it's fine. Stick to your "communications" and see where it takes you. Just don't forget to thank christian monks for saving libraries of scientific literature in the Dark Ages.
All the best to you.
AkademicDesignLabs 1 month ago
@AkademicDesignLabs Like all those Christians who saved the library of Alexandria, OH, no... wait.. they burned that. Well, at least it wasn't like the bonfire of vanities in Florence, OH, no wait... those Christians burned books and artwork... WHOOPS! My bad, I thought there was some BENEFIT to superstition, but nope, it just really leaves room for interpretation and therefore abuse, but I guess I'm too ignorant to overlook the genocide committed in the name of superstition.
punkwasher 1 month ago
@AkademicDesignLabs By the way, you've been submitted to Fundies Say the Darndest Things.
punkwasher 1 month ago
@punkwasher "THERE IS NO EVIDENCE"
Don't rant. You're not listening. The evidence for God is within Existence itself. Logic, rationale and common sense.
Use them.
AkademicDesignLabs 1 month ago
@punkwasher The Judeo-Christian God is pretty much like Azathoth or Yog-Sothoth in terms power (more actually), except there is a singular difference: that God is an intelligent architect and orchestrates both order and chaos and the interplay between them (God said: let there be light and separated the light from dark; showing active organization of positive and negative forces) whereas Lovecraft's Gods are "mindless" and are only chaotic....they actually have no true control.
snillocgromreturns 1 month ago
@snillocgromreturns which is why it's all the easier and probably more logical to assume that the universe is unconscious and uncaring. Gravity will never bend itself to your will, the laws of nature aren't the expression of a caring, conscious god, they are the expression of pure chaos theory, or pure math, of numbers beyond our comprehension, bubbling up from the quantum foam to resemble something we'd like to call patterns, but really, we're just clouds of matter colliding with each other.
punkwasher 1 month ago
@punkwasher "which is why it's all the easier and probably more logical to assume that the universe is unconscious and uncaring"
The logic can go both ways, it's not "more" logical to suppose an uncaring universe at all, just more convenient due to the problem of Theodicy.
" the laws of nature aren't the expression of a caring, conscious god"
I can also argue that the fact that the conditions in the universe allowed sentience to exist shows a "caring" Demiurge.
snillocgromreturns 1 month ago
@snillocgromreturns or sentience is just a logical necessity for a being to survive. It needs to be self-aware to a certain degree, otherwise it couldn't preserve itself. Could have evolved naturally and considering there are varying levels of sentience, from bacteria to humans, this seems more plausible than having to introduce an unnecessary metaphysical element that would probably just bring up more unnecessary questions. God isn't practical, end of story.
punkwasher 1 month ago
@punkwasher Bacteria aren't sentient, they survive. Sentience isn't necessarily needed for mere survival, and one can argue that our "intelligence" can just as easily lead to our own demise. We've certainly got the capability to do so. Rather, sentience is a result of mechanics of natural selection, a series of improvements that granted specific evolutionary advantages in particular instances, it doesn't apply to living things in general.
snillocgromreturns 1 month ago
@punkwasher and one can argue that "metaphysical" elements are necessary. Why have things that can self-organise and self-replicate and eventually develope sentience at all in the universe? There may not be a point, but there may be. I don't agree with the various Anthropic Principles really, but that doesn't mean they're impossible. God isn't practical, I agree with you. But he's not implausible.
snillocgromreturns 1 month ago
@snillocgromreturns God is very much implausible, his existence in itself basically violates the laws of thermodynamics. A lot of faithful people claim he exists outside of our universe, so... so much for plausibility. Why use a supernatural explanation, which only raises MORE questions to explain something? It complicates matters unnecessarily.
punkwasher 1 month ago
@punkwasher I don't see how God's existence violates the laws of thermodynamics. Thermodynamics only applies to things inside this universe. The concept of a creator of the cosmos in any form must describe said creator as beyond our own space-time. Not supposing a first cause also raises questions: What made the Big Bang happen?
snillocgromreturns 1 month ago
@snillocgromreturns Yeah, isn't that what we're trying to find out? What happened with the big bang? That's the interesting question, but the whole god aspect just opens more questions, is poorly defined to begin with and if it's outside of our universe it barely pertains to us. I just find the whole god spin a sort of a non-answer.
punkwasher 1 month ago
@punkwasher but the God "spin" 's purpose isn't to answer how the universe began. It's to answer the more intangible questions of the "human soul." It's a non-answer only if you're looking to quantify the event that led to the big bang. But in the end, ain't God and That-Which-Started-The-Big-Bang the one and the same, for now? Since we really can't legitimately SAY anything about anything before the big bang?
snillocgromreturns 1 month ago
@punkwasher We now have a dozen theories that tries to explain that, including the various string theories which describe things that nominally "outside of our universe." I already told you that I don't believe in God. I don't see a requirement for the existence of such a fantastical being. So maybe it/he/she/they is "implausible" to you. I'm fine with that. I guess I should rephrase: the existence of a God is not "impossible."
snillocgromreturns 1 month ago
@punkwasher I don't believe there is a God. I'm agnostic. But your original argument was that, in concept, a being like YHWH = a being like Thor, which, as I've stated, is incorrect, and I've provided reasons why. Although i'm not religious, I'd much sooner accept the possibility of a singular creator force than good-looking superhumans who screw and cheat on each other, ;)
snillocgromreturns 1 month ago
@punkwasher Lovecraft is awesome, but his ideas are borne out of his unsatisfying life and its resultant nihilistic views. I'm not touting one religion over another here, but simply stating the concepts of a monotheistic/henotheism "Deity" like the Hindu Brahman, the Sikh Wahaguru, the Chinese Shangdi, and the Abrahamic God (the Ein Sof of Kabbalah) cannot be compared to that of "gods" in polytheism or to Lovecraft. These concepts are more like the "God" of Einstein and philosophers.
snillocgromreturns 1 month ago
@punkwasher I love Norse myth, it's way cool, just so you know. Monotheistic myths are not that "cool" because their Gods are not people, they're pretty alien to us and does not reflect our desires and yearnings like the norse or Greek gods do. Whereas we can idolize Odin or Thor as "heroes", the closest thing we can relate to a capital G God is the role of a "parent," (strict one at that), which is not exactly something we as people.....like very often.
snillocgromreturns 1 month ago
@FireBoshy lol funny and of course he survived BUT don't forget he also brought his pet Goldfish.
jkoooooo12 2 months ago
The ending confirms this has nothing to do with religion. An incredibly advanced alien species detected the coming solar flare, knew of Earth's imminent extinction event, and took samples of the Human race (the pairs of kids) away and to another suitable planet to rebuild the species anew. The aliens just acted as caretakers of Humanity, not as a whole but as a species in existence. Good for them. Although sucks BALLS for everyone else left behind.
Archean217 2 months ago 13
@Archean217; so that means the little boy has to tax his sister??? wtf??
cyberbink 1 month ago
i think its a sad ending but yano abby looks just like her mother <3
vstealthyx 2 months ago
those Kids are Americans,Why does this not surprise me -.-
TheLurtzzzz 2 months ago
it's not the garden of eden there's more than one ship, more that two kids...
elreii2012 2 months ago
its more like kindergarten =)
th0ut 2 months ago 12
@elreii2012 Yeah anything else would be incest eeewww
Noodles37UK 1 month ago
The Grass on that planet looks like pasta!
BansheeGun 2 months ago
日曜ロードショーでこれ見た後、寝ようと思ってもなかなか寝付けなかった
何故？
The44051229 2 months ago
can someone please explain to me where the kids go to, and what those crystal-looking things are... and is that the Garden of Eden??? PLZZZZ NEED HELP
DM3383 2 months ago
Those kids should've saved a picture of New York City. Rebuild on that cool looking planet. The Garden of Eden would be Central Park and the Tree of Life in the lobby of the Empire State Building. Frank gehry aint got nothing on me
GreatAmericanSXtoy 2 months ago
Comment removed
sktktef 2 months ago
キリスト教原理主義者達の信じている未来は、こういうことだと具体的に描いてしまった作品。
tttooohhhrrruuu3nd 2 months ago
結局は虚しさだけが残って人を締め付けるんだ
希望なんて有りはしない
箱舟は一杯、全ての人を救うほど余地はないか・・・
tttooohhhrrruuu3nd 2 months ago
wrong day to forget the sun lotion
danne249 2 months ago
eye orgasm 0:50
TheSawman86 2 months ago
I'd be feeling pretty hard done by if I was Nick Cages character! all that work he did only to be left on the burning Earth! poor old New York! all I could think at the end of this film was Milena of human achievement and culture had been wiped out in seconds! screw the new world!
katakisLives 2 months ago
chuck norris woul survive....
bienenpabst 2 months ago 2
The whole point to this movie is... the world is created and goes on until it gets too fucked up for it's own good, so they destroy it and start again?
TenorCG 2 months ago
wait what the hell happen some one tell me did a black hole do that? or the sun?
godzilla98100 3 months ago
I like it when the dad says its not the end and Cage says "I know" but he means it in a different way.
LikerOfThings 3 months ago
you've got to be fucking kidding....
TheBroz 3 months ago
I'm I the only one who finds this daft?
Asgard72 3 months ago
@Asgard72 No, that's exactly what I said too! It's like a movie that starts out sort of understandable and then does a complete 180 and switches to a whole different genre.
Exstadrenaline 1 month ago
Dad: "This isn't the end son"
Cage: "I know"
World Ends...
Grog85 3 months ago
You reakon this is exctly what happened all those years ago with Adam and Eve???
MissCxxable 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Oh when this happens and it will them evil tits will be underground laughing at you dying you wait
doingitnowoncemore 3 months ago
f150 pickup was the real star of this film
jetcarman 3 months ago
Why it. Blow up!?!
MrThebrosky 3 months ago
@Fleedling oh my gosh, you're right! What if no one re-invented porn?
BornToSayTheObvious 3 months ago
@BornToSayTheObvious I guess you are "Born to say the obvious" lol :)
gandop2 3 months ago
0:54 I can see my house...get destroyed by the sun
BornToSayTheObvious 3 months ago
aliens always have to keep our race alive... good guys
MrTyoler 3 months ago
having to start again like that would be brilliant apart from the fact, unlike people around 1000 years ago, you'd know all the things you would miss like T.V., Good healthcare, X box, films like this one, Lego, the internet, Google, YouTube, all in the future....because you'll die before even a fraction of the roots of any of these is invented! (Its like people today sent back to start again as cave men)
Fleedling 3 months ago
its movies lik these that make people think the worlds goin to end LOL
jakkmcfadden 3 months ago
bunnies!
MrLegobuilder47 3 months ago
Cool story, bro!
ixonixas 3 months ago
my question, why does my yougurht expire in 2013, hmm, is 2012 a lie?
mrfirework2 4 months ago
The movie is really interesting especially at the end with the white tree. You wonder if the children are on the same earth or on a different world. I interpret they might be on a different world, because i noticed the tree is different than earth's. Also there appear to be other planets seen at the distance. The earth in the story is completely burned and destroyed that there is really no way life can recover, maybe thats why the children end up on another planet.
watertakken 4 months ago
So.. the aliens raped and sodomized the kids, then they just gave them other clothing and then dropped them in another planet and then enjoy watching at them having sex at young age and then masturbate at this...?
NOT EVEN THE END OF THE WORLD FINISHED WITH PEDOPHILIA... THATS HORRIBLE!!!
.
.
.
.
"I lied"
DarkStarshades 4 months ago
Best part of the movie!
AMFForumvideo 4 months ago
watch there are no snakes in that tree XD
immediatexrayposthum 4 months ago
I've got an issue with this ending. If they were to have kids etc. They would be so inbred after 3 generations, they would not be able to stand up straight
sondreAK 4 months ago
@sondreAK Watch the movie again. There were other ships with other kids around the world who they picked up.
asdfghjkl4099 4 months ago
melancholia is better
Directoroli300 4 months ago
fuck that every time i see this movie i freak out...and then i see solar t-sunami on yahoo home page and im like fuck the world,somebody put a bullet through my head..lolz..
TheBCELTICS21 4 months ago
That tree is totally gonna have sex with those kids. Possibly anal.
jimp1102 4 months ago
@jimp1102 HAHAHAHAHA! That's a terrible word...anal.
MrDreamhigher 4 months ago
LOOK, the end of this earth is coming. We are so privaledged to be living is an era when the dread prophecies of the Bible and revelations are being fullfilled before our eyes. The move for Global government and a cashless society controlled by a microchip (Rev 13.16) ,in the hand is almost upon us. The earth will be detroyed by fire as depicted here but not before the rapture of all those who have professed faith in Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour.
MrMaxTruth 5 months ago
Those rabbits are totally gonna fuck up the eco-system of that planet.
Shibbey2112 5 months ago 4
Lol that was kinda slow for a deadly solar flare to rip out our atmosphere...
ZacEffron 5 months ago
This is totally the tree in The Lovely Bones
wyattmarkr 5 months ago
three weeks later every kid is dead because they couldn't find mc donalds. aliens: ಠ_ಠ
Coke2go 5 months ago 4
This way we should avoid all today´s human slavery and all human misery to which we are subjected daily.
prodipe23 5 months ago
they landed on the Predators home planet
comicbookdude93 5 months ago
Angel: "My lord God, there is one human left"
God: "How can this be?!"
Angel: "I dont know but somehow he survived"
God: "What is his name?"
Angel: "His name is.....Chuck Norris"
God: O.o
FireBoshy 5 months ago 83
When they were running toward the tree I was like DON'T EAT THE FUCKING FRUIT KIDS
EdikShepherd 6 months ago 40
@EdikShepherd and never trust snakes :-)
twistmenot 3 months ago
this is the moment when world peace will come true! XD
Ibosz 6 months ago
Total bullshit!
yahshuah29 6 months ago
Spirit Bomb
Diamonddavej 6 months ago 2
As an atheist, I will fall down on my knees and praise God just as soon as he wipes out all this longing for Armageddon.
How sick
mindprism 6 months ago
They probably fucked like 5 seconds later.
trailerparkboys9 6 months ago
First destructive solar flare was recorded in 1859. Telegraph poles were on fire and telegraph network were down. After careful study, next event was already foreseen with 90% life wipe out but Scientist coded the actual date in Religious way to prevent people from panicking (late 19th century). Micheal the Archangel was the key where he defeated Satan and save the Earth from burning in Hell. 2012 - 1859 = 153.
Search 153 that relates "Micheal the Archangel" in Google. You'll be surprised.
pogpog28 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
i saw it as adam and eve, and it touched me,ohhh this is the best movie
debraBmaddox 6 months ago
Chuck Norris ÜberCharge
orange252 6 months ago
lol Vulcanus reborn
orange252 6 months ago
Who is going to understand God's plan ?
acerx171 6 months ago
2012 people the war aint over yet
sepkamrouz1 7 months ago
Comment removed
Webk1nzBee 7 months ago
The director mentioned combining science and faith.
jscottupton 7 months ago 2
its scary this could happen to us
CrysoFairy 7 months ago