PGA2.0

I like the atheist reason of a random chance universe coming into existence for who knows what as not magical. 

An unknown/unknowable "first cause" has exactly the same utility and explanatory power as "god(s)".

If I say "unknown/unknowable-first-cause" (noumenon) and you say "god(s)", THEN WHAT?

Which one of us knows "more" about our universe?

How are theses explanations FUNCTIONALLY DISTINCT?

Example B restated: (IFF) a creator god is the only thing that exists necessarily (AND) nothing exists that this god hath not wrought (THEN) everything is necessarily comprised wholly of bits of this type of proposed creator god.

Example B is somewhat like a pantheistic view of "god" as all and in all and on par with what is (i.e., not transcendent). It would be like saying that a painting is part of the artist instead of created by the artist, or the painting and the artist are one, or the painting is derived from the same substance. A painting does not have the DNA of the artist, does it? Granted, it requires the artist for its existence.

Imagine an artist, floating in a vast blackness of empty space.  This artist wants to create a work of art.  What do you think they will use to create this magnum opus?

Example A restated: (IFF) a god is fundamentally separate from the material realm (THEN) such a god cannot possibly interact with the material realm in any way whatsoever.

Why? 

God is separate in His nature from the material realm. God is also not created whereas the material realm would be. The universe is contingent [i.e., occurring or existing only if (certain circumstances) are the case; dependent on] on something else for its existence. God is not. 

A hypothetical god can (EITHER) be interactive and therefore fundamentally similar to all things in existence (OR) non-interactive and therefore fundamentally dissimilar to all things in existence.

An interactive god is necessarily and fundamentally 100% of existence.

A non-interactive god is necessarily and fundamentally indistinguishable from non-existent (it can't see or know us and we can't see or know it).

How would you know this God unless He had revealed Himself and He has chosen to do that by His word? The Bible reveals His word is powerful enough to create the universe, just by speaking it into existence. 

Powerful enough to create the universe, not powerful enough to find a way around the severe limitation of only appearing in a book from one of the least literate cultures in one of the least literate times in the history of humanity. If it's so important to him, he could reveal himself again, right?

 

The footnote helps explain something about the Scripture. 

That's one way to look at it. The other way is "it was added after the fact to make events fit into its otherwise incorrect timeline."

You can see how bringing it in, at the very least, means you're no longer talking about PURE scripture, right? That and the fact that the words that would have allowed for a more impressive level of specificity existed in the bible are a problem. If the Daniel X: YZ said "490 years from now, Romans will tear down our temple," you'd have a much better case. This is closer to the case I can cite.

If I can cite such a case, which I can, and told you the prophet said it was Xenu who told him to write it when he did, would you say Xenu is probably real?

Funny, I would argue (and have) the same attributes (1-4) for the God of Christianity

- Almost, but not quite. Christianity adds an extra couple things, Intelligent Omnibenevolent God, which the Quran does not decree.

yet the teaching of the Qu'ran and the Bible differ in many respects so do you think we are speaking of the same God or that one of us is not worshiping God as He truly is?

- I believe we are worshipping the same God, of course in different terms. Arab Christians & Jews call God Allah as well, just like Muslims: "To each of you We prescribed a law and a method. Had Allah willed, He would have made you one nation [united in religion], but [He intended] to test you in what He has given you; so race to [all that is] good. To Allah is your return all together, and He will [then] inform you concerning that over which you used to differ." (5:48)

What we have in common is what we as Christians call the OT. Both religions acknowledge the OT yet the teachings of both religions contradict each other many times. 

- That is true. Of course we don't believe in the Trinity, in the divinity of Jesus (pbuh), in his crucifixion or resurrection ; though we believe he is the Messiah & of virgin birth.

 

As a Christian, I believe that Mohammed was influenced by Christianity but here again the teachings differ from the NT teaching in what is contained in the Qu'ran.  

- The thing about Islam is that it does not deny in other religion. On the contrary, it approves of all God's religions, Christianity or Judaism or Zoroastrianism...etc. We believe these are actually all one religion, that is Islam, with slightly different paths, though most have not been perfectly preserved.

You forgot the footnote.

The footnote isn't in the scripture. Otherwise it'd just be in the text. It is outside the scripture, and by that definition you are not using the bible anymore.

It's no longer a biblical scripture, it's biblical plus something else that is not purported to be breathed by god himself. The bible features in other places the words "year", "week", "four" "hundred" "ninety", "Rome" and "Temple." If the prophecy used these words and not the interpretation ex facto of a story of someone else's dream about a statue with feet of clay, you might be able to call this a biblical prophesy. Of course, there'd be no way to tell if god was the reason it were true. AND you'd still have to square how this one part being right eliminates tons of other instances where it's objectively wrong. 

Again, your bias is evident. You do not want to hear the explanation as to why prophecy is an indication of the Bible (which says thousands of times that God spoke/said) as reliable and accurate, and extremely detailed from cover to cover, unlike any other religious writing.

I want to hear evidence. Not the repackaged claim. "The bible is true," you say, "and therefore this is the only god who's ever existed." Okay, say I, what evidence do you have of that? You say "The bible says it's true, and this one thing in it happened if you squint really hard, that means all other things in it happened."

I say "No, that's what the bible SAYS. I want to know how I can tell if it's TRUE." I've even bolded the part of your argument where you literally say that: the bible says god said this. That is not evidence that the bible is true, THAT IS THE CLAIM. I'm totally willing to talk about beliefs or whatever in another thread. This thread is about prophecy. Start a different topic.

 

What if I told you that someone successfully prophesied something that had literally NEVER happened before (there was no historical precedent, unlike Romans destroying temples in other cultures), essentially to the exact date that such an event would happen (closed ended on the time and eliminating any external retrofitting), that the entire world witnessed it and could verify the prophesy as having come to pass (is not contingent on any faith proposition), that math was not involved (so this example is not something that could have been derived through calculation as inevitable), there was written proof of the prophesy that literally anyone could (and can) go see, to this day, and there is absolutely no room or need for any interpretation? If I could show you that and you were convinced what I just described was true, would that mean the predictor was somehow inspired by one of the many gods who are reported to exist?

It would add reasons to the reasonableness of the claim of that god existing. Compile this with hundreds, even thousands of other prophecies plus the nature of the biblical account then it would be most reasonable to believe. Who do you know that can predict the future in such detail and with such accuracy? 

So if I could show you something that undeniably prophetic and the author said Xenu was the one who told him the details, would that mean Xenu was likely to be real in your mind? Would it make any dent in your belief? If not, then what's the point of prophesy as a tool to prop up your belief system? I literally know someone who did exactly what I described, and unlike you, I can provide evidence. I don't want to bother if you're just going to say "That was really Jesus in disguise." 

What you do continually is disingenuous. You challenge me to present why I think the Christian God has given evidence for His existence that is reasonable and logical to believe and when I start to do this you wriggle out of the discussion claiming before you hear the evidence that it will not stand. How reasonable is this

I say provide evidence that the biblical stories are true. You have only replied with long versions of "because the bible says it's true." THat's the claim, it isn't evidence. I'm more than willing to hear evidence that does not point at the claim.

But it's not as pithy, and less open to emotional attacks like "Should we then kill all of the people who have birth defects?!?!" which no one thinks. "Survival of the fittest" some people think means "survival of the animal in the best physical shape" when it literally means "most fit to survive."  

It's quite important to note that 'survival of the fittest' is a statement of what occurred in the past to produce the world as it is today.  What it is not is a statement of how things should be because science doesn't deal with 'should' questions - that is the job of philosophers and politicians.   

I feel like the answer is going to be "because it's so mysterious / mystifying, that's how it works and you don't understand it, just believe it first then you'll understand it is true."

(IFF) god is "magnum mysterium" or "ein sof" (THEN) you should never-ever attempt to describe or explain it to anyone ever.

Interesting. I wonder if that would lead then to "if I can't describe it to anyone, and they can't describe it to me, even if we agree, what are we even talking about, how would I know anything at all about this idea."

Which brings us right back to deism at best. And as I believe you pointed out already, if your deism is one where a god does not interact in any way with the material world in any way that makes its presence plain, and this god totally defies description, then I'm pretty sure it functions exactly the same as atheism. 

I feel like the answer is going to be "because it's so mysterious / mystifying, that's how it works and you don't understand it, just believe it first then you'll understand it is true."

There seems to be a logical conflict between,

1. One (unique & simple)

and

4. Transcendent (disjoint from HIs creation)

and

3. Absolutely Willing (omniscient & omnipotent)

Example A: (IFF) 4. (THEN) 3. is impossible.

Example B: (IFF) 1. (THEN) 4. is impossible.

Example B restated: (IFF) a creator god is the only thing that exists necessarily (AND) nothing exists that this god hath not wrought (THEN) everything is necessarily comprised wholly of bits of this type of proposed creator god.

Example A restated: (IFF) a god is fundamentally separate from the material realm (THEN) such a god cannot possibly interact with the material realm in any way whatsoever.

Speaking of highly accurate prophecy... [LINK]

- Interesting question. I don't know how Christians would answer this, but in Islam it be would redundant, for the proof of God's existence proceeds from the definition of God itself as stated in the Quran. From chapter 112 (Tawheed), Allah is: 1. One (unique & simple), 2. Self-sufficient (necessarily existent), 3. Absolutely Willing (omniscient & omnipotent), 4. Transcendent (disjoint from HIs creation). Once you prove that an omnipotent & omniscient, transcendent & singular God exists, that is Allah.

That people no longer exist in covenant with God after AD 70 because they cannot meet the agreement they made with God.

By  'that people' you mean 'Jews'.

 

"Jews no longer exist in covenant with God after AD 70 because they cannot meet the agreement they made with God."  

One notes that this suggests god did not extend his covenant to include the gentiles but transferred his patronage to the gentiles, casting the jews aside. 

To a secular cynic like me it appears that preterism/replacement theology arose sometime in the 16th century as a theological justification of anti-semitist.

The 'prophecies' in daniel are accurate upto about 200bc, which is understandable if they aren't genuine prophecies but forgeries wriiten after the events.   The accuracy stops about 150 bc - there is no mention if the maccabbean revolts for instance.

All that is very conventional - I'd say most scholars who aren't literalists say more or less the same thing; it's the line taken by Wikipedia for instance.

IMO Daniel was written to bolster Jewish nationalism during a period when they were heavily oppressed by the Seleucids who seriously threatened the continuation of Jewish cultural identity - the Hebrew language was losing out to Greek, for instance.   Daniel purported to say this dip in Jewish fortunes was long foretold, so the imminent restoration of Israels greatness it also foretold would be believed. 

The Book of Daniel purports itself to have been written by a Jew living in 6th century BC Persia, however I believe it was written much later, between 200 and 150 BC.   I'm sorry I didn't make myself clearer.  

If we disagree on when Daniel was written doubt we'll agree on anything else about it!

I've been looking into it,and there is no shortage of interpretations of Daniel's prophecy even amongst the faithful.

it's not easy to put myself in the position of a 1stC BC Jew so I can't be sure what it's intended audience would make of it.  I doubt many ordinary Jews read it for themselves, not only because of illiteracy but the lack of copies - no printing in those days!  How it was presnted to them would matter alot, but we can't know anything about it.

[1] I imagine most ordinary Jews of the time accepted that a man could predict events 500 or more years in his future.   I don't!  [2] Nor do I accept your interpretation of the significance of 70 AD.  [3] Theologially, it is a visible sign of the transition from the old covenant to the new, essentially a symbol of God breaking with the Jews and transferring his patronage to the gentile world.

I don't dispute the relevant events of AD70 happened

- but I think Preterism forces its interpretation of Daniel, not the other way round.

Daniel's people and city (Jerusalem) are given a time frame of seventy sevens or 490 years (70 X 7 = 490) to finish the six listed conditions - agreed from the text of Scripture? Yes or no?

No. Here's the scripture you quoted.

24 “Seventy [a]weeks have been decreed for your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to make an end of sin, to make atonement for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the 

most holy

 place.

There's no mention of years in this version. And...this:

How do you think the Jews of the first century thought about Daniel's prophecy? Do you think they were looking for a Messiah around this 1st-century period?

I accept a date between  c. 200 to 150 BC or Daniel, when the Jews were really sufffering under the Seleucids.  I think they were certainly hoping for a traditional messiah to restore the glory and independence of israel.

I admire your tenacity.

Daniel's people and city (Jerusalem) are given a time frame of seventy sevens or 490 years (70 X 7 = 490) to finish the six listed conditions - agreed from the text of Scripture? Yes or no?

No. Here's the scripture you quoted.

24 “Seventy [a]weeks have been decreed for your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to make an end of sin, to make atonement for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the 

most holy

 place.

There's no mention of years in this version. And...this:

How do such sources comply with reality, with what we see and with our logic and understanding?

Does the bible not make mention of demons? If the bible is the word of god then there are demons. If the bible is not the word of god then you will need some other evidence. Since you accept the bible as the word of god you must also accept the existence of demons. Demons therefore must comply with reality by the terms of your argument.

 

Why could the source not been dem8ns or aliens or indeed prophecy stolen from the actual creator of the universe by Yahweh for the purpose of tricking humans into worshiping him? I am afraid no amount of mental gymnastics will allow a claim to count as evidence for itself.

What are the reasons to believe they are those sources? 

What are the reasons not too?

I am not claimimg any particular source is more likely than the other.

You are the one claiming a specific source. You should be able to demonstrate this independently unless you are making an argument from ignorance or an appeal to special knowledge. Let's go through them one at a time shall we?

The first was demons. Are you certain that a demon could not either make or gain access to an accurate prophecy?

The Bible claims

This is THE MOST important thing that you said. Yes the bible claims. Claims require a burden of proof. Since the bible is the claim it cannot also be the proof. There must be some extrabiblical evidence or you have only the circular argument "the bible is true because the bible says so."

Why would I need to strike a balance with you if I am just a biological machine driven by the way my biological factors are determined to act? Why do I have to live according to what you deem as necessary or desirable? If all I am is strictly a biological machine and I act in selfishness in letting you live then consider it as only being done so that it would benefit me. That is not altruism. 

At this time I don't want to quibble over definitions or if altruism is only 'enlightened self-interest'.   My poinytis simply that pur behaviuor is the resut of competing 'drives' to be selfish on one hand and a dutiful member of society on rhe other.  Those drives exist because they are wired into our brains by a billion years of evolution.

For most of us - most of the time - the latter 'wins', but occasionally the former does.  Feelings such as guilt is one way evolution has arranged that we are encouaged to reject selfish behaviour. 

No, what makes the belief true is if it corresponds to God's word. Where it deviates it is in error. 

Let us say we accept this. How exactly do you know the word of god?

You claim that the bible is the word of god and that prophecy from the bible proves this. Now let us grant for the sake of argument that there is accurate straight forward undeniable prophecy in the bible. How then do we determine that god was the source of said prophecy?

Why could the source not been dem8ns or aliens or indeed prophecy stolen from the actual creator of the universe by Yahweh for the purpose of tricking humans into worshiping him? I am afraid no amount of mental gymnastics will allow a claim to count as evidence for itself.

No, what makes the belief true is if it corresponds to God's word. Where it deviates it is in error. 

Let us say we accept this. How exactly do you know the word of god?

You claim that the bible is the word of god and that prophecy from the bible proves this. Now let us grant for the sake of argument that there is accurate straight forward undeniable prophecy in the bible. How then do we determine that god was the source of said prophecy?

Why could the source not been dem8ns or aliens or indeed prophecy stolen from the actual creator of the universe by Yahweh for the purpose of tricking humans into worshiping him? I am afraid no amount of mental gymnastics will allow a claim to count as evidence for itself.

See how nice I am?

Have at it. My initial question:

If somehow some scholar you respected, like you thought this person was the pinnacle of knowledge on the subject, came out tomorrow and said "You know that weird prophecy we are all over? Well, I hate to say, but the truth is, we've discovered some pretty damning evidence that it just was not that way, ever. It's totally wrong," would you then STOP believing in God?

The evidence is better for Him than Zeus as being a real person. Currently, there are around two billion people, worldwide that believe in Him and that He was a real Person. That beats professing atheists if you are going strictly by numbers which is not necessarily an indication of truth. It is still the leading religion by profession (but not necessarily by the actions of its adherents) in the world.

Ad populum, and poorly executed: there are currently more people on earth that do not believe in Jesus than there are that do. By this argument, they're right. Clearly you don't think that. 

Those who claimed to be eyewitnesses of His life, death, and resurrection willingly died for what, a myth? Would not only you but hundreds of others be willing to die for a myth? 

So if anyone at any point was willing to die for something, then that something is more likely true than false? I'll let the 9/11 hijackers know. I'm not willing to die for any myth, what's that make me?

1. Mars is said to be the god of war, but so was Ares. Same with Neptune as opposed to Poseidon.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_war_deities

2. There are many other reasons why wars happen that can be explained other than Mars. 

So the conclusion does not necessarily follow because the premises are both flawed.  

Mars and Ares aren't exclusive to each other. And yeah, there are many things that cause wars, those things are just what Mars uses to cause them. I think you'd be familiar with a straw man. Can't you just explain why the causes of wars isn't Mars for sure, but it IS Jesus?

Who worships Zeus or Mars and who believes they are anything other than myth in our day and age? You made the claim. Support it with tangible evidence rather than opinion and assertions. 

How does this mean they're false?

Because they're old?

Wouldn't that mean that Mormonism and Scientology have a better chance at being real than Christianity?

They were born during the last 200 years. You're literally about five generations from the tablets or Moroni. I'm only observing that lightning bolts exist, and that the atmospheric conditions that produce them reinforce my presupposition that Zeus is using those atmospheric conditions to generate them. What's so weird about that?

 

Then prove Neptune did this by offering reasonable evidence. 

Many people believed it, and the stuff attributed to Neptune's activities goes on all the time.

I mean there are storms that swallow ocean liners, right?

Again, Neptune is not grabbing them by hand, he's just using storms to do that. I don't think you can believe in Neptune unless you believe he's probably there. I am open for you to convince me that Jesus is doing it instead, you won't bother.

A simple yes or no would have sufficed!  I think your saying it is impossible to be neutral - I agree we are biased; I am not quite assure it can't be overcome.

But I suggest that human behaviour is shaped by the need for each individual to strike a balance between selfishness and altruism because neither pure selfishness nor pure altruism is a practical stategy for a human being living in human society.  

What is not explained by that simple observation? 

The evidence is better for Him than Zeus as being a real person. Currently, there are around two billion people, worldwide that believe in Him and that He was a real Person. That beats professing atheists if you are going strictly by numbers which is not necessarily an indication of truth. 

Joseph Smith was a real person.

Lafayette Ronald Hubbard was a real person.

Ernest Holmes was a real person.

Helena Blavatsky was a real person.

Tenzin Gyatso was a real person.

Do you really think that if the Jesus was a real person, that makes the holy scriptures TRUE?

It is still the leading religion by profession (but not necessarily by the actions of its adherents) in the world.

Do you really think that popularity makes something TRUE?

Nearly half of all modern day christians are Catholic.  Do you believe this makes Catholicism true and all other denominations FALSE?

It is just a way of understanding it using a biblical reference and thought system. 

I'm pretty sure the holy scriptures don't say anything about which family situation is more likely to makes kids gay.

I find it reasonable. 

Based on what?

We have one member of our family who is gay. I have watched his father undervalue him and not give him the attention and love he desired. I have watched him become more and more feminine. 

If every kid who was sent to boarding school turned gay, then we'd certainly notice.

Your personal experience is not scientific.  It's called "anecdotal evidence".

CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION.

Stalin brushed his teeth every morning.  Therefore brushing your teeth makes you a vicious commie dictator.

I have heard cases of women who have been abused and been turned off of relationships with men. Abusive and hurtful actions can turn a person away from others. I understand this. 

Humans, whether abused as children or adults will tend to be anti-social.  I'm pretty sure this is not in dispute.  We're all firmly "anti-abuse" I hope.

You take your views from a secular society, not a godly worldview, so take it however you want. I can't change your mind.

Data will do it.  Got data?  I'd like some more data please.

It is not "logical" to believe something without concrete data

Well, what if you PRESUPPOSE it? Then can I say I arrived at it via logic? For example, "Jim's parents are divorced. And he's gay as a result of that. Now, let me look at my available data: Jim is definitely gay. And his parents are definitely divorced. What do you know! I'm right!" 

Is that valid logic?

The Roman gods are considered myths. How can you say they comport with reality? The Christian community, from its beginning, refuted charges against the biblical God as a myth or human construct. 

A tidal wave gives no more proof of Neptune that other explanations. In fact, other explanations explain the cause better. Now if Neptune said that a tidal wave would happen 490 years from now and destroy the city of Istanbul and listed six other factors that happened, that would be a better case for Neptune. 

Jesus is also considered myth by more people than believe he was real.

I explained how they comport with reality and you didn't refute it, you just said no they don't.

It's not even an argument.

 "No they don't" is missing "because XYZ" after it.

As it is, it's the contention of a child. Yeah, I know Neptune doesn't DIRECTLY cause the tidal waves. Sometimes an undersea earthquake does. But that's just the tool that Neptune USES to make it happen sometimes.

Yeah, I know a buildup of electricity in the air under certain atmospheric conditions cause lightning, but that's just the METHOD Zeus uses to make them. What, you don't believe me? Prove to me Zeus isn't there, then. THIS IS WHAT YOU ARE ASKING EVERYONE ELSE TO DO, and it's the result of an impenetrable presupposition. I am the one saying no, tectonic shifts often cause tidal waves. You are basically responding with the Neptune argument, except you're using Jesus. 

Are you saying it is impossible to start from a neutral position on God's existence and deduce whether God does or doesn't exist?

Is it logical to think that if you lack a father figure or a mother figure that you could tend to compensate? 

Without data, your statement is merely a hypothesis.

And to propose that single parenting is somehow a causal factor for homosexuality, without any scientific evidence, is a naked appeal to ignorance.

It is not "logical" to believe something without concrete data.

If you are in agreement I will continue, otherwise, let's discuss it further.

You are discussing a different topic. If you want to discuss that topic, go ahead and start a topic. THIS TOPIC, which for 20 pages you've skirted, is about proving if your version of god is the correct one.

We have tried this several different ways and you're talking about some scholar's interpretation of a prophecy that I'm pretty certain has no real impact on if you believe in god or not, scandinavian socialism, divorce rates, gay kids...just anything but this.

Show me a socialist country that does not exploit its people

Surely a country that exploits its people is not socialist?   I know of no socialist theorist who has put 'exploitation of the people' as the core principle of socialism!

African countries are not socialist - they are kleptocracies.

The number of single-family homes would be an explanation of such behaviour occurs (lacking one or the other role model), plus the constant promotion of a gay lifestyle 24/7 in our cultures.

For instance, the odds of homosexuality increased slightly when divorced parents remarried, bringing two step-parents into the picture. However, the likelihood of homosexual orientation actually decreased where there was only one step-parent. A 2008 US study by Andrew Francis found that having no involved parents was mildly associated with a same-sex partner for both boys and girls. However, single parent homes, whether with mom or dad were not associated with having a same-gender partner or romantic attraction to the same sex. [LINK]   

In contrast to reparative theory expectations, he reported that identifying as less than 100% heterosexual for males was associated with living with only dad. No romantic attraction or same-sex behavior was reported for males living with only mother. [LINK]

True, but I make a distinction as to my starting point from an atheist, agnostic or pagan. Core presuppositions are what worldviews are based upon - i.e., either God/gods or chance happenstance. Worldviews are based on a web of core presuppositions. My starting point is God. 

Interesting. I do not begin with a starting point I merely allow the evidence to inform my beliefs and therefore lack belief of any prospect that lacks sufficient evidence.

I believe that we deviate from the norm when we ignore God's word and example. That is the Scriptural teaching. I believe the sinful choices of the father affects the son, up to the third and fourth generation, through example (or lack of) or through gender confusion. If the person does not receive proper reinforcement from the father, or one parent, from a young age I believe they may seek it out in another male role model, or in the case of a girl, a female role model that she lacked. The number of single-family homes would be an explanation of such behaviour occurs (lacking one or the other role model), plus the constant promotion of a gay lifestyle 24/7 in our cultures. Some people just want to experiment. 

Thus, I believe, a person chooses to find what they are missing. I believe they choose to make themselves more feminine (or in the case of the female more masculine) to attract members of the same sex and try to find what they lacked.   

That's an interesting belief can you demonstrate that it is true?

How does looking after the poor coincide with ILLEGAL immigration? These people are breaking the laws of the land. Many are smuggling in illegal drugs and people. Terrorists can negotiate a crossing into your country unhindered. The cost to your country is billions of dollars every year.  

How many Swedes are crossing the US border illegally?

Stick to the already insane argument you were pursuing and leave your brain rattles at home. 

Many would argue that those societies have declined since socialism, as I already pointed out. I would agree.  

By every metric used to determine human well being the citizens of these socialist countries are better off than all other countries, that makes you and your mythical "many" WRONG.

How does looking after the poor coincide with ILLEGAL immigration? These people are breaking the laws of the land. Many are smuggling in illegal drugs and people. Terrorists can negotiate a crossing into your country unhindered. The cost to your country is billions of dollars every year.  

How many Swedes are crossing the US border illegally? Stick to the already insane argument you were pursuing and leave your brain rattles at home.