I am very confused by some of Q's fore knowledge of events of the Russia\Ukraine War. Of course, there are many events where Q has proved he knows what events will happen in the future, and makes posts exactly on the delta date of the event.
Q stated riots planned across the country exactly a few years before the BLM riots. He used the word Afghanistan, on the delta (3 years before?) the US chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan. He seemed to know the exact number of votes required to get McCarthy as Speaker, on the delta of finally winning the vote.
I get it that many of these events are just a show. Q said himself that he knows the future via "control."
What about the Ukraine and Russia war though? There are very small signs that Putin is aware of the Q plan and is playing along with it (like placing his watch on the table next to a pen. Like Putin having an interview with Tucker on the exact delta of the Q post saying "Russia, Russia, Russia. What happens with the media loses control of the truth?"
We all know by now, there are no coincidences. These were not lucky guesses are they?
This war is something that is not simply just a show of actors is it? Literally hundreds of thousands of Russian and Ukrainian soldiers have been dying in this horrible war. If the "White Hats" is allowing these people to die just to continue a show, they really don't seem like White Hats to me.
There are numerous obscure channels on YouTube and Telegram that regularly play endless videos of slaughter and warfare daily. Even with AI, I don't think it would be possible to create such fake content. There have been many eye witness reports from Russians and Ukrainian people that have lost loved ones. It is impossible for me to believe this is a show.
So, how then does it seem that Q war aware of how the Ukraine Russian War might be at this point of time? Maybe he really does have a science fiction computer "Project Looking Glass" that can see into the future.
What are your thoughts on this?
Does it actually matter? Can't you just appreciate the argument as it is intended without needing to find some potential error in rhetoric to set up a red herring that distracts from the intent?
I "adhere" to exactly nothing. I have no "system of beliefs." Everything I think is mutable based on the evidence.
If you are asking me what I think. I think, based on the evidence that I have seen so far, that there is a single Source of All Things, and that there are entities (real or imagined) that people call "God" or "the gods" that are not the Source of All Things, but pretend to be.
For example, there are several cosmologies (or if you prefer, "religions") from the past that make explicit claims that the creators of humanity, which they call "god" are aliens, or extra-dimensional beings (depending on which cosmology you are asking). Those aliens or extra-dimensional beings would not be the Source of All Things, but themselves derivative of it.
Because they have more power than humans, they can claim any godhood they desire. They may have even been the actual creators of humanity. They may have created not just humanity, but all life on earth. They may have created the earth itself. They may have created the whole of what we call "the universe," but that doesn't make them the Source of ALL Things.
There are many possible universes or planes of existence for example, and these entities may have played no part in their creation. There is whatever came before what we call "the universe" (what we can see or imagine is there in the "physical world") and again, these possible derivatives, these gods, may have not existed then.
The Source of All Things is singular and eternal (not subject to our likely false perception of time). Any entity with sufficient power (relative to us) can make the claim that they hold that title and we would never know, unless we appreciate what the Source is. But their claim doesn't make it so. If they are not actually the Source of All Things, then they themselves must be derivative. More of a sibling than the Source, even if they created us.
Again, I am not stating any beliefs here. I am giving you my thoughts. I think there is a single Source, from which All Other Things are derivative. I think from there, it is possible that there may have been other entities, also derivative, that have fraudulently laid claim to that title.
Well, of course I can, but then this would go against your previous recommendation of questioning everything.
If the "potential error" in any statement is self defeating in any way, then it would behoove us to not hold on to such a teaching or assertion. And the "intent" of your assertion is the very reason I asked the question to begin with - i.e for clarity. You needn't get all upset at someone asking you questions to test what you are saying or to uncover intent. I mean, surely you don't want me to take what you're saying at face value without thinking deeply about what it is you're trying to say? Believe it or not, every question I've asked you has helped me understand your intent more clearly.
Thank you for the rest of your thoughts on the nature of ultimate Reality. I will chew on them for a bit...
I realize after your response that I replied in the way I did not because it wasn't a good question, but because I wanted to be lazy; a thorough elaboration takes a bit of effort. For that I apologize. In thinking about it, a not so thorough elaboration is not that much effort.
What you are touching on is a fundamental flaw in logical processes (flaw isn't quite the right word, but see below) :
Yes, it applies to itself. It is not an error in logic, but a tautology. In fact it is the fundamental tautology from which we derive the process of reason, which I will show using how it was discovered in math.
It was once believed (and formally stated by David Hilbert) that math could tell us the absolute truth. This was disproven, using math, by Kurt Godel in his first Imcompleteness Theorem, which showed explicitly that logic was not complete, and in his second Incompleteness Theorem, which showed that it couldn't be proven that logic was consistent. This was followed up by Alan Turing, who showed that logic is undecidable. One of the problems is that we must start somewhere, and that somewhere is by its very nature, tautological. The statement you are calling out is not logically incorrect, it is simply a tautology, or rather, it would be if you took out the second part, which is an addition, and not a part of the beginning axiom, which is:
which itself is based on an unproven axiom (in this case it is unprovable).
This fundamental unprovability in the beginnings of all formal systems of reason (logos) is just one reason (cause) why it mustn't be trusted to tell us the truth.
The problem is in confusing what is truth (in an absolute sense) and what is useful.
Statements such as I have made, even though they are tautological, can be very useful for the creation of an argument. Not to say that I have presented one, but such an argument can even be profound and lead to deeper insight. In that way they are useful.
But the Truth is WHATEVER IT IS. It defies our attempts at defining it, or putting it into a box. So we can't trust our arguments, no matter how profound they seem, to be telling us the truth, because they can't, not even in principle. But we can use them to get closer to the truth, as that is their real design.
This doesn't mean that all arguments, no matter how well formed, nor how well they appear to align with reality, are actually leading us in the right direction. On the contrary, there are numerous examples of very good logical constructions or models that have been very useful and very persistent, but have ultimately been thought to be endeavors in the wrong direction from the actual Truth.
The confusion between "truth" and "usefulness" in our processes of reason suggests a flaw. But it's not a flaw, it's just a misapprehension of what the processes of reason are designed to do, and how they are constructed.