When I was a kid, I actually named one of my Pokémon Ba'al. That specific Pokémon makes it rain, so I named it after the god of rain, Ba'al.
I've always thought it was a beautiful name
Do you believe in God? (2022 edition)
- Thread starter Child_Of_God
- Start date
When I was a kid, I actually named one of my Pokémon Ba'al. That specific Pokémon makes it rain, so I named it after the god of rain, Ba'al.
I've always thought it was a beautiful name
To me, humans are piles of DNA which houses energy. If I can get with another pile of energy (woman) and create another pile of energy (child) then "I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High"
You ever become a Poke master?When I was a kid, I actually named one of my Pokémon Ba'al. That specific Pokémon makes it rain, so I named it after the god of rain, Ba'al.
I've always thought it was a beautiful name
IF A PERSON STUDIES TOO MUCH AND EXHAUSTS HIS REFLECTIVE POWERS, HE WILL BE CONFUSED, AND WILL NOT BE ABLE TO APPREHEND EVEN THAT WHICH HAD BEEN WITHIN THE POWER OF HIS APPREHENSION. FOR THE POWERS OF THE BODY ARE ALL ALIKE IN THIS RESPECT.
WHILE ONE MAN CAN DISCOVER A CERTAIN THING BY HIMSELF, ANOTHER IS NEVER ABLE TO UNDERSTAND IT, EVEN IF TAUGHT BY MEANS OF ALL POSSIBLE EXPRESSIONS AND METAPHORS, AND DURING A LONG PERIOD; HIS MIND CAN IN NO WAY GRASP IT, HIS CAPACITY IS INSUFFICIENT FOR IT.
IN OTHER WORDS, YOU ARE SO CAUGHT UP ON THE TECHNICAL ASPECT OF EXISTENCE THAT YOUR SOUL HAS ZERO CAPACITY FOR ANYTHING BEYOND WHAT CAN BE EXPLAINED WITH PHYSICS. ONLY SLIGHTLY BETTER THAN BEING A ROBOT. IF YOU’RE LACKING IN SPIRITUAL MATTERS, THAT IS SOMETHING YOU WILL NEED TO DISCOVER ON YOUR OWN, BECAUSE NO AMOUNT OF STUDYING WILL GET YOU THERE.
THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT SOME GOOD HAS COME FROM RELIANCE ON “EXPERTS,” BUT MOST OF THE BENEFITS HAVE BEEN ON A PHYSICAL LEVEL- AND MANY OF THESE HAVE ENGENDERED NEW SETS OF PROBLEMS. SPIRITUALLY, HUMANITY’S LOT HAS DWINDLED OVER TIME. THOUGH YOU MAY DOWNPLAY THAT SHORTCOMING, THIS IS A SERIOUS LAPSE OF JUDGEMENT. WERNER HEISENBERG DEMONSTRATED THAT WE MUST TAKE ALL ASPECTS OF REALITY INTO ACCOUNT IN ORDER TO GRASP THE TOTALITY OF ANY OBJECT OR EVENT, YET WE CAN NEVER KNOW ALL THE ASPECTS. THAT MEANS WE ARE IN THE DARK, NO MATTER HOW BRIGHTLY LIT THE WORLD MIGHT SEEM TO BE. IF WE HAVE THE COURAGE TO FACE FACTS, WE MUST SAY GOODBYE TO SCIENCE AS A SECURITY BLANKET, JUST AS WE EARLIER SAID GOODBYE TO WITCH DOCTORS AND CONJURERS. WE MUST RELINQUISH HOPE OF FINDING THE CAUSE OF CHAOS IN THE WORLD THROUGH OBSERVATIONAL MEANS, AND WE MUST CERTAINLY ABANDON THE IDEA OF ERADICATING CHAOS WITH THE SAME SEVERELY LIMITED MODALITIES.
THIS BEING THE CASE, WE MUST SIMPLY DEVELOP OUR SPIRITUAL POTENTIAL IN ORDER TO ESCAPE THE CHAOS OF A PURELY EMPIRICAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE UNIVERSE. THE ULTIMATE TRUTH IS THAT POWER DERIVED FROM CONCEALMENT AND THAT MERIT ON THE SPIRITUAL PLANE IS LINKED TO ANONYMITY IN THE PHYSICAL WORLD.
I’M SURE THIS WILL GO OVER YOUR HEAD AFTER YOU READ IT AND PRETEND YOU NEVER SAW IT, BUT I GENUINELY HOPE THIS MESSAGE FINDS YOU IN SOME WAY. IF NOT YOU, HOPEFULLY SOMEONE ELSE WHO IS QUESTIONING MAY READ THIS AND COMPREHEND THE MESSAGE. BUT THE MORE YOU THINK YOU KNOW, THE LESS YOU ACTUALLY DO.
You even gotta ask, nikka?
Said Peasant, "I will do as you wish. I will pass carefully."
--------
This is just...
A supernatural being by definition cannot exist within nature. The word supernatural means OUTSIDE of nature. Once that being enters nature, by interacting with it, it ceases to be supernatural.
There is evidence we interact with a digital world (we're doing it now). Where is the evidence your god has interacted with this world? Your faith is very specific, except for when it comes to specifics...
And here's the definition for you.
Definition of SUPERNATURAL
of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil; departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature… See the full definitionwww.merriam-webster.com
THIS IS SO UNBELIEVABLY DUMB THAT I DONT EVEN KNOW WHERE TO BEGIN
I CANT BELIEVE SOME1 IN THIS THREAD CALLED HIM INTELLIGENT
Yes
not to mention the "chance" presence of jupiter keeping earth safe(-r) (most of the time)
great design
maybe a solar-system where we were not subject to the vagaries of a proverbial shooting gallery might have been a better design ..
who knows
You do realize that our existence is only possible because an asteroid impact allowed mammals to overtake dinosaurs, right?
Also, without the moon (created via asteroid impact), our climate would be horrifically unstable due to the Earth's wobble on its axis and civilization would be difficult to maintain.
Also in line with that, the tidal impact of the moon's orbit is considered foundational to the energy transfers of early Earth, formation of nucleic acids and origin of life.
That's just off the top of my head, I'm sure there are a few other important benefits. So those occasional impacts have actually been profoundly useful for our society to develop.
I'd be interested to know - what do you think a "perfect well-organized universe" would actually look like? Would it still have consistent physical laws or is that too inconvenient? Would it lack all asteroids, meteorites, star development, etc.? What would make a universe "more well-organized" than the one we have, and why?
Again, that's nonsense. It's like saying that scientists' beliefs are based on the current state of science textbooks. You're continuing to completely confuse the faith with the recording of the record of the faith.
I honestly don't know where you got such a distorted view of Catholicism, but there are numerous very intelligent, highly educated Catholic priests who work in various teaching positions in universities. I suggest you copy-paste the relevant parts of our discussion here and send it to one of them, asking, "Does the faith practiced by Catholics fundamentally derive from a book, or does it derive from the church community?"
Or, if you want to make it more folksy, ask, "Do you think most Catholics get their faith from their Bible, or do they get it from their family, friends, and church community"?
Breh, the VAST majority of Muslims can't even read or understand that book, so how can you claim their faith derived from it? They became faithful Muslims because they were born into a Muslim community that taught them the faith, not because they read it in a book.
Are you aware of a single Muslim community, anywhere, that developed independently from non-believers reading Korans rather than being spread from people sharing their faith with each other?
The vast majority of adherents don't even read their Bibles, and most of them believed long before they could read their Bibles. Hell, until the KJV was printed in the 1600s, most Catholics had never even seen a Bible in a language they could read. They adherents believed because they were part of a believing community or because they had personal experience of God.
Even though Bibles are available now, do you really thing the entire basis of religious experience suddenly changed in the few recent years that a large proportion of the population became literate? The vast majority of people become Christians through community and personal experience, not through reading.
Breh, that's not how analogies work. You can't disqualify an analogy because two things are fundamentally different; in fact, you can ONLY make a decent analogy between two things that are fundamentally different - otherwise it would merely be a comparison, not an analogy.
For the most part scientists do in fact believe in the laws of physics, but that's totally besides the point and has zero relevance to the analogy. The point of the analogy was that you're confusing the textbook with the source. The textbook records what they believe, but the basis of those beliefs comes from elsewhere. Just like the Bible records what Christians believe, but the basis of those beliefs came from elsewhere. The Church existed BEFORE the Bible, it wasn't created by the Bible, so it's nonsense to claim that Christian belief originates from a book. The Bible was the place where they recorded the beliefs they already held, it wasn't what spurred the beliefs in the first place.
A better analogy is that you're trying to claim my English was derived from the Oxford Standard Dictionary, as opposed to having been learnt from a social process of conversations and dialogue of which the dictionary merely records the long-term results of. Sure, I might have read entries in a dictionary from time to time, but it would be ridiculous to claim that my ability and desire to speak English started in the dictionary itself. Just because the dictionary accurately records what the words mean doesn't mean that it is where those words originated, where most people learn them, or is at all fundamental to why people learn them.
If the Bible had never been put together into a book, and everyday Christians never had one in their home, the Catholic Church would still teach basically the same faith and people would become Catholics the same way - by being part of the Catholic Church, encountering those teachings from the mouths and pens of other Catholics, and having their own personal experience of faith. Just like they did before the Bible even existed.
Wow, you picked a REALLY bad example. Here's the actual position of the Catholic Church:
"The Catholic Church holds no official position on the theory of creation or evolution, leaving the specifics of either theistic evolution or literal creationism to the individual within certain parameters established by the Church. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, any believer may accept either literal or special creation within the period of an actual six-day, twenty-four-hour period, or they may accept the belief that the earth evolved over time under the guidance of God."
I have clearly been arguing from a fact-based perspective, and that's the 3 time you've misrepresented my argument for what happened before the Big Bang. The first two times I could have given you the benefit of the doubt and said that you misread me or made a bad assumption. At this point, I'm beginning to believe that you don't even fundamentally understand my argument yet. To prove otherwise, you need to stop claiming I said things that I've never said.
My argument is not "it's logical to invoke the supernatural since we don't know precisely what happened before the Big Bang." We could learn what happened before the Big Bang and it would remain completely irrelevant to my argument, because my argument doesn't rely on an accident of missing information, it relies on the fundamental nature of spacetime and reality.
You'd comprehend me better the first time if you stopped thinking that you're just rereading arguments you've seen elsewhere, and realize for a moment that I might actually know both more about physics and more about Catholicism than you do. In other words, while I doubt your mind will be changed about God, you certainly have the opportunity to learn plenty of things in this conversation if you opened up a little and stopped treating it like high school debate club.
Breh, the literal title of the thread is "do you believe in God", and we are clearly ALL discussing our personal beliefs. I think I've backed up my beliefs more rationally than you have, but I'm not going to deny that my beliefs are part of it. The fact that I'm arguing on belief has nothing to do with being emotional, ALL meaningful debates involve people arguing out of their beliefs. Don't even try to pretend that your personal beliefs haven't been just as relevant to your participation in this argument as mine are, because everyone is going to see right through that.