2012

[Esau of Isaac]

You know, there is actually a relatively high chance(that being, above .67%) that the end of the world may come in 2012. This is because, espacially considerinfg the instability in the world today, that people will work themselves into such a frenzy about 2012 that they end up causing something to happen. In other words, it's possible that 2012 is one of those prophecies that would not come true without the meddling of a prophet.

I'd like to see where you're getting your "above .67%" statistic from.

Five bucks says it's your ass.

[Defeatist Elitist]

You know, there is actually a relatively high chance(that being, above .67%) that the end of the world may come in 2012. This is because, espacially considerinfg the instability in the world today, that people will work themselves into such a frenzy about 2012 that they end up causing something to happen. In other words, it's possible that 2012 is one of those prophecies that would not come true without the meddling of a prophet.

By end of the world I assume you don't mean actual end of the world, right? Because it would be pretty difficult for people, even in a frenzy, to bring about any shit like that. Practically impossible in fact.

[Sophius]

Various countries (such as Russia) have enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world 20 time over.

Edited June 29, 2010 by Sophius

[Crystal Shards]

Various countries (such as Russia) have enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world 20 time over.

Um, yeah, but you'd be an idiot to let it all off.

EDIT: I realize that you're pointing that out to Revan that it is possible. I'm just saying that doesn't mean there's a "high chance" the world is going to end.

Edited June 29, 2010 by Crystal Shards

[Defeatist Elitist]

Various countries (such as Russia) have enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world 20 time over.

You mean blow apart the world entirely? Or do you mean end all human life? I mean, even if somehow 2012 frenzy caused nukes to be fired (which is absurd), I doubt people will specifically target them in order to try to kill everyone on earth, and honestly, even if they did, SDIs might actually be able to prevent some areas from being completely destroyed.

And blowing the earth apart would be pretty crazy. I mean, theoretically I guess you could do it, but you would really have to be trying.

[Snowy_One]

While it's not impossible for the world to unexpectedly end in 2012 on December 21st, I honestly don't expect it to happen. Why? No evidence or anything to suggest it. http://www.cracked.com/article_17445_the-6-best-2012-apocalypse-theories-are-all-bullshit.html Yea, I loved Cracked, and I know they are a comedy website and whatnot, but I'm both too lazy and uninformed to do the research myself. Now, I don't think it's impossible, but certainly unexpected. Once again following Cracked, if the world was going to end on December 21st 2012, I would think it would be one of these. http://www.cracked.com/article_16817_5-cosmic-events-that-could-kill-you-before-lunch.html Once again, wouldn't expect anything coming.

If the world was going to end and there is no God, it would be either unexpected (like in the second article) or there would be clear signs (which we don't see). If the world was going to end and there is a god and/or deities... well... Every religion I can think of that has deities mentions a end-of-the-world type event and all of them have some sort of sign. Not a minot sign mind you, but usually world-wide events that I think would be noticed and have people pointing at them and claiming it was a sign of the end times by now.

[Phoenix]

Well, Snowy that's one of the problems. Signs are misinterpreted to begin with. When we see events in the world, half of everyone thinks they definitely are signs or thinks it's just another world event.

What if the largest volcano in recorded history appeared tomorrow? Some people would take it as a sign, and others wouldn't simply because given earth's history, there were probably volcanoes even larger in the past, and this would seem like a terrible disaster, yet not quite the sign of the end of the world. Just an example here.

Anyway, while I do agree that the world will not "end" in 2012, I don't necessarily believe that signs are going to do anyone any good if God just happens to start the biblical events dubbed "The Apocalypse", partially because of religious interpretation, and partially because of "the boy who cried wolf" effect(pointing out a sign and it not being one apparently). Everytime someone points out a sign of the end of the world, they have about three months to retract said statements or they're considered stupid/insane/wrong/etc.

[Sophius]

When I say "relatively high", I mean that in comparison to say this year, or 2008, or 2007, or ect. Let's look at the year 1000, which is another year everyone was saying would be the end. When it came and went with the earth still intact, crime and violence rose tremendously(obviously they couldn't take statistics back then). This means that there's a chance that when people wake up dec. 21 2012 and fire isn't raining from the sky, their relief could be expressed in mass violence, which could lead nuclear warheads being detonated. Or, one of those red giants that astronomers expect to supernova any time(if not already seeing how light takes time to trave and we wouldn't see the super nova until thousands of years after it goes up) now could send radiation toward earth. Even if it is too little to do any harm(which astronomers also say) people could go into a mass panic, and again, lead to the dentonation of multiple warheads.(Note that these hypothetical panics are started because of the prophecies that have been made for this date). And, the world doesn't nesccesarily have to end] dec. 21st, the events leading to the end could start that day. Meaning these mass panics or mass violences could happen after dec. 21. If every civilian on earth were to mob together, governments efforts to quell the masses would be ineffectual, besides bombing them. And how could that end I wonder.

Edited July 1, 2010 by Sophius

[Phoenix Wright]

An observation of when, for example, a gigantic volcano will erupt, is not the same as a prophecy. Scientists do not "see the future." California is due for an earthquake any day now, as scientists have observed. Scientists never give a date of when something will occur in the future, they only give general time periods, based on evidence, on when an event will occur.

People were most likely furious with the church at that time, not so relieved it caused them to be violent.

[Phoenix]

People will likely become violent long before the date even arrives. I'd say around November or so of that year you could expect some serious violence in certain places if there's still violence to be had.

[Sophius]

On the subject of your science point MGS, what if the prophets of old were basing their "prophecies" on their scientific observations. They because science at these points was not a widely accepted practice, let us consider that these "prophets" were forced to state their evidence in the form of prophecies in order for them to be accepted. Though this theory is not likely, let us look at Leonardo Da Vinci, who theorized and planned inventions 500 years before their time of invention(like the car and the submarine).(He lived in the 15th century). So, there may be prophets(like the 17th century Nostradomus) liek this.

Another possibility is that, like all practices where somthing is predicted to happen at a certain time( science, engineerial prouction, reporting) that the divinal methods(such as Nostradomus's astrological predictions) also have margin error. For an example, if I work in an engineering workshop, I can say I'll have product X by a certain time. However, complications can arise that prolongs the date, or a stroke of luck can shorten it. Why should it be any different for divination if it is in fact a legitimate practice?(which is unlikely but its still something to consider.)

[Phoenix Wright]

A couple things wrong with that. "What if" is just that: "what if?" It is just a small, insignificant chance of something happening. In general usage of the phrase, we generally mean it won't happen, but in the case it does occur ("What if I got hit by two trucks today mom?") we want to know what the person would do in such a situation. "What if" is just a hypothetical situation, basically. "What if" is also used for bargaining ("What if I gave you two dollars, and you buy me some Skittles?"), but that's irrelevant.

Astrology should not be used as a scientific observation (what Nostradamus used to "foresee" his prophecies) to prove anything. To most people, it's just bullshit that's kinda fun to read (horoscopes and all that).

What Leonardo Da Vinci did and what Nostradamus and all other prophets did are completely different. Leonardo's ideas came from HIMSELF, a prophet's prophecies either came from astrology, God, or something else supernatural and possibly superstitious.

Like I said, they're completely different things. In your engineering shop, you are assuming that if all factors remain constant, then X is how much you will produce as well as when you will produce them. It is (again) a very basic scientific observation. Nostradamus, on the other hand, stated what will happen, when it will happen, but NEVER why it would happen. There's no evidence for anything. Just silly statements.

Edited July 6, 2010 by MGS: Metal Gear Solid

[Sophius]

I'm afraid you misunderstand my points.

Though I say "what if" the scenario I mentioned is much more likely than a variety of other "what if"s and is a very relevant possibility. In fact, it is more likely to be true than th existence of "supernatural" prophecies. What I'm saying is that, if these "prophets" were indeed actually scientists, they would have to disguise their findings as prophecies in order for them to be accepted by the general public( as back then, science was not yet a defined practice. In addition, at the times which these "prophecies" were made, societies were markedly more theocratic then society today, or the 1900's, or the 1800's). My example of Leonardo Da Vinci is to say that it is possible that people discovered or invented things long ago that have not been today.

And, when I give my example of the engineering shop, it is to say that there can be margin error in all manner of predictions. If there can be margin error in rational scenarios, why shouldn't there be margin error in prophecies if they do indeed exist?

[Esau of Isaac]

Though I say "what if" the scenario I mentioned is much more likely than a variety of other "what if"s and is a very relevant possibility.

Can you prove this reliably?

[Phoenix Wright]

What I'm saying is that, if these "prophets" were indeed actually scientists, they would have to disguise their findings as prophecies in order for them to be accepted by the general public( as back then, science was not yet a defined practice. In addition, at the times which these "prophecies" were made, societies were markedly more theocratic then society today, or the 1900's, or the 1800's). My example of Leonardo Da Vinci is to say that it is possible that people discovered or invented things long ago that have not been today.

Who are you talking about specifically? I need examples, man.

Er, possibly, but it seems highly unlikely. Even Copernicus didn't try to "support" his findings with a prophecy (or something similar to it). He just hid it from everyone. Know why? He was afraid. Yes, even a church priest has to be afraid of the pope if he were to find out anything that conflicts with Church knowledge.

It sounds so dumb (no offense) that a scientist, of whatever time, would try to support their finding with a bullshit prophecy. It goes against what science stands for, to put it simply.

By "general public," do you mean the nobles? The peasants and serfs were fucking morons with no education, so I doubt they'd ever hear anything about "science" outside of their churches.

Furthermore, nobles didn't give a shit about theocracy. Whatever brought them farther from the king (ie, whatever gave them more power), they agreed with. The Church didn't, but most nobles usually did (take the Protestant Reformation for example). Nobles were very intelligent; in the time of Galileo, Voltaire, et cetera, nobles were reading their works, not ignoring them. Not only were they reading them, they were AGREEING with them. Yep, no need for prophecies.

And, when I give my example of the engineering shop, it is to say that there can be margin error in all manner of predictions. If there can be margin error in rational scenarios, why shouldn't there be margin error in prophecies if they do indeed exist?

Er, because it's rational? Why would you allow something irrational (like a prophecy) to have a "margin of error"? It's fucking irrational. It wouldn't make any sense to "cut it some slack."

If I said you were going to take a trip to New York in six days, would you believe me? Say you actually did, but in two years. Would it be fair to give me marginal error? Given that's not the best example, but no prophecy is a "good" example.

Example of reason and logic:

Let's say you're a human, and that it's cold outside. Humans wear gloves when it is cold. You have already been wearing gloves for a week now. Then I declare that you are wearing gloves today.

If it turns out that you aren't wearing gloves, I'm wrong. But, it was a reasonable guess, and I deserve some margin error for it.

Edited July 9, 2010 by MGS: Metal Gear Solid

[Laharl]

I believe the world will end on December 21, 2012 just as the Mayans predicted and I am already taking measures to ensure my survival. >=]

[Bohemund]

IDK about the end of the world, but the movie wasn't that bad for a sci-fi.

[Ignatius117]

It's coming! THE END TIMES ARE UPON US!!!!

...Wait, turns out the Mayans keeled over when they got to 12/21/10, Nostradamus was vague as hell, and Revelations doesn't support 2012 or any other apocalyptic date, and resetting calendars don't mean shit...

[Phoenix Wright]

and resetting calendars don't mean shit...

That's what I wish people (who actually believe this) would learn.

"OH NOEZ IT'S DECEMBER 31 AND OUR CALENDAR IS RESETTING. PLEASE, I DON'T WANT THE WORLD TO END YET!!!"

[volkethereaper]

I believe the world will end on December 21, 2012 just as the Mayans predicted and I am already taking measures to ensure my survival. >=]

As am I. I'm running into difficulties though. It's hard to find any cricket bats stateside.

[peener weener]

I fear for my family, and the obvious violence that will arise with the "end of the world". If you didn't think about it, well...

Fortunately, I live in a decently safe place. It's a closed neighborhood, and it is constantly watched. Besides, everyone thinks it is probably bullshit around here. That won't stop me from sleeping with a baseball bat or some sort of means of protection at hand. Yes, I am paranoid.