How sure are we that Trump's State of the Union will be revelational? I always expect an amazing speech, hopefully some new patriots get on board, but is it possible there will be ops going on behind the scenes while Trump has all eyes on him?
Not trying to be negative, I just don't think we should get our hopes up for Trump to get on live TV and basically lay the skeletons bare. Q said it was important, but for its timing, not the content.
I don't think "being had" is in the realm of possibility any more. Too many confirmations by the president. Too many roll outs in the media that are clearly geared towards disclosure.
That's my point actually. Is that we were not promised an exposé of a SOU address, and I don't think we should hinge our morale here on it like you're suggesting.
Total tin foil moment: This kind of shit makes me wonder if in their satanic rituals (or maybe some weird secret quantum time viewing tech, who knows) they're able to see potential futures, and the cabal is attempting to sway the public consciousness to collapse into their desire future path, and account for contingency paths in the event of undesirable timelines.
All the videos where Oprah asks Trump if he wants to run for president…were they just probing him to try and feel out how likely such a future was? Something else?
All I know is there's something strange and mystical in the predictive programming that I can't quite rationalize as simply…educated guesses and conspiracy.
>There's always that, "Who/what created XXXX" paradox.
I find this is resolved with the "highlander" resolution. "There can only be one."
You basically have three options:
1) Matter and energy are inherently eternal
2) Matter and energy came into existence from a state of exclusive non-existence; nothingness.
3) There is an eternal source, independent of matter and energy, from which all matter and energy came into being.
I find 2 to be inherently problematic from basically every epistemological approach. And if we're in the realm of 1&3, we have the idea that something is eternal.
Don't want to slide the board too much, but I find rigorous and reasonable philosophical deduction combined with observational evidence makes 3 more likely, and in that event, find that the necessary pre-requisites for such an "eternal" source fits all the criteria of God.
Unless you mean "who created the devil/evil." The Biblical answer is that God created beings who could choose to be unaligned with the intentions and nature of God, and in doing so, we get evil and evil beings. Evil being like cold is to heat, more of an absence than an opposite. The absence of selflessness is selfishness, of care is harm, of love is hate/apathy, etc.
Awesome. Thanks, anon.
There is no math or physics in literal nothingness, because there is nothing to be in relation to anything else.
Unless you're defining "nothing" as "something" for some reason.
Otherwise, can you please explain otherwise?