Do you believe in God? (2022 edition)

[Professor Emeritus]

Guess y'all never heard of Buddhists huh?

Regular asian buddhism in most countries where it is practiced is full of references to gods, and ancient buddhist texts like the Lalitavistara Sutra say that Buddha came from the gods and credit the gods with placing the specific trials before Buddha to remind him of his enlightenment.

 

[ba'al]

I CANT BELIEVE SOME1 IN THIS THREAD CALLED HIM INTELLIGENT

Arguing against God is foolish. But I think he shines in other aspects as well as yourself.

 

[010101]

@010101

can you pass without treading on the clothes?

¿*

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Do you not know that any of those examples can end life on this planet? A Supernova within 50Ly can kill us.

Do you not know that there are no supernova candidates within 150LY of Earth? The closest star that is even the right size to go supernova is IK Pegasi, which is 152 LY away, and it is moving rapidly away from us won't go supernova for another 5 million years, by which point we'll barely even notice it happened (in the very unlikely event we'll around to care).

So you're literally making up boogeymen just for the sake of it.

A Magnetar can rip our planet apart with its extreme magnetic field.

They're also exceedingly rare and the nearest one is thousands of light years away. Another pointless boogeyman.

Asteroids and comets can cause ELE events.

Or, as they have, contribute massively the evolution of life on earth. So far life on Earth has existed for over 4 billion years through numerous impacts without a single one ending all life (or even advanced life) on Earth, and the ones that led to large-scale extinctions were quickly followed by evolutionary radiation and did more to spur on the evolution of advanced life than to forestall it.

Blackholes can wander across our path.

We're as likely to randomly slam into a star - in other words, it's never going to happen. Normal black holes have no more power at a distance than any other star-sized mass, and the ultramassive black holes will never hit us.

Quasars can sterilize our planet from thousands of lightyears away.

And it's never, ever going to happen.

There is nothing orderly or well-made about our universe. We live in a soup of chaotic possibilities, and any one of them can be a benefit or bane under the control of no one.

Yet literally none of them have done that, and in fact asteroid impacts were critical to the advent of our civilization. Imagining virtually impossible future events as if they've already happened and thus are a reason to say the universe is made poorly is a piss-poor argument.

In fact, if you really want to play those games, you have to start asking why, in such a horrible dangerous universe full of boogeymen like you just described, we're so well-positioned to avoid all of them.

Also, multiverse theory covers the seemingly fine-tuned nature of our universe. In an infinite number of universes, some portion of that infinite will be able to sustain life.

You weren't reading my comment at all - I discussed multiverse theory clearly and pointed out what a cop-out it is. It's a complete handwave argument. There is zero evidence that we are part of a multiverse, nor is there any scientific rationale for how such a multiverse would come to exist, nor is there any rational for why the laws of physics would differ between multiverses and thus produce the infinitely varying possibilities that would thus allow the one perfect one that life could develop in. It's just the highest-level juelz to avoid dealing with the reality in a logical way.

 

[ba'al]

¿*

 

[Mandizi]

Yes, none of this would be possible without Him.

The good, the bad, and the indifferent.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Lol.

Spacetime is one of the basics of physics, my dude. Literally nothing in physics works without it, because gravity affects essentially everything. Everything that exists and has mass warps spacetime.

I'm well versed in spacetime, to answer your question.

Bullshyt. Just because something is fundamental to a field doesn't mean it's covered in the introductory courses. I'm still waiting to hear what physics courses a biologist would take that deal with the fundamental nature of spacetime. Gravity warps spacetime but you don't discuss what implications that has for the nature of time in your introductory physics course; in fact, the only place where "gravity warps spacetime" is even dealt with in anything more than a perfunctory sense is in general relativity courses (NOT the special relativity that you "might" have encountered in your 1st or 2nd physics course) and in advanced astrophysics courses that assume knowledge of general relativity.

What was the name of the course where you studied general relativity and the nature of spacetime? Did you discuss whether time is discreet or continuous, and how we could know? Did you discuss whether time preceded the creation of the universe? Did you discuss whether whether something could exist outside of spacetime and what the implications would be?

No, what you showed was there is discussion on the matter, as is par for the course in science. I can pull hundreds of practicing doctors in their fields of science that dispute evolution, even though we know evolution is a fact, and is scientific consensus.

Those links were not peer reviewed papers, they were people voicing potential hypotheses. You should know the difference.

You obviously didn't read the links, because they cited numerous peer-reviewed papers.

Now I will agree on one thing - while many of the papers were peer-reviewed, you are right that they contain nothing more than hypotheses without proof. That's because the only thing physicists have come up with to explain the existence of spacetime are potential hypotheses. There is literally no evidence whatsoever for an infinite universe. There is no evidence whatsoever for a multiverse. Before the Big Bang, we have nothing.

You cannot explain something by invoking the supernatural. That's what you're not getting; the supernatural isn't an explanation at all.

This is a textbook circular argument. You don't want the supernatural to explain anything, therefore you declare it isn't allowed to explain anything. The fact that you keep trying to say it louder doesn't suddenly make it true.

It's a textbook god of the gaps argument: we don't know what happened before the Big Bang, therefore, god did it (in this case, god= a supernatural force, being, higher power, whatever).

But that's not my argument. My argument isn't "we don't know what happened therefore God did it". My argument is, "the nature of reality doesn't even allow a valid naturalistic explanation for how spacetime could come into being".

By definition, evidence is something that exists in reality. If you are attempting to invoke the supernatural as a cause for the universe's existence, you have to provide tangible evidence for that. Something we can measure, something tangible.

You're playing with words. Evidence exists in reality, but "measurable" is not a requirement of it. For example, I have plenty of evidence my wife loves me, but there's no objective way to measure that, and any claimed measurement for to prove she "loves" me could also be explained away by other factors. The same goes for numerous concepts we all base our lives around (like free will, moral truth, any experiential feelings, or philosophy and logic in general), and yet we still base our lives around those beliefs based on the impossible-to-measure evidence that we've seen.

 

[Child_Of_God]

Glad to see there’s still believers on here.

 

[Th3Birdman]

@Rhakim

I'm gonna take it as you were typing before I asked you to take this to the DMs, so I could get some sleep. So I'll do you the courtesy of responding to this right now.

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

But the faith does not exist without that record. Those 1.3 billion people were not there for Christ's birth and death. They are here, today, and THEY base their faith on the book. This is just a fact, I don't know why you're even debating this.

And again, you are suggesting scientists BELIEVE in science; science is a verb, my guy-- you DO science. You cannot *believe* in it. This is a common tactic by the religious, attempting to equate science and religion. One is a fact-based methodology, and the other is the acceptance of something in lieu of evidence, and sometimes, in spite of the evidence.

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

Haha. I'm not the one with a myopic view here; you're basing everything you know off of personal anecdotes, as far as I can tell. I was a Christian for 19 years, and my grandfather was a hardcore Muslim. I'm well versed and rounded in these topics. I enjoy mythology, and spend a lot of time reading up on these things, as well as my studies as a former Baptist.

It's funny you mention educated Catholics; one of my professors was a Catholic. Roman, dyed-in-the-wool, confession-type. Has nothing to do with anything, just thought it was funny you mentioned that.

Breh, the VAST majority of Muslims can't even read or understand that book, so how can you claim their faith derived from it?

This cannot be a serious question.

Do you honestly believe that because someone cannot read a book, they have no knowledge of what it contains? Is this a hill you're prepared to die on?

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

Hold on-- I see what you're trying to do here. Let's back up and clarify something: the physical book isn't the point of the argument. The legend contained within that book is the point.

We can agree that audiobooks are still books, even though you're not physically reading it, and someone is telling it to you, yes? The point is to obtain what is inside said book. Muslim (Christian) teachers teach what is in the Quran (Torah/Bible), and the adherents follow those teachings. It's functionally the same thing, even if it is by proxy.

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.

You are confused.

The underlying logic of an analogy is supposed to be fundamentally the same.

I have no idea where you got the idea that analogies are supposed to be "fundamentally different". The *logic* is the point of an analogy, so that you can make an argument more clear to a reader/listener.

The logic you presented wasn't sound, therefore it's a poor analogy: you tried to say scientists *believe* in science the same way the religious believe in their faith. Those two concepts have zero in common, as scientists DO science, they don't *believe* in it. It is a fact-based methodology for cataloguing natural phenomena.

Definition of ANALOGY

a comparison of two otherwise unlike things based on resemblance of a particular aspect; resemblance in some particulars between things otherwise unlike : similarity… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

For the most part scientists do in fact believe in the laws of physic

Lmao, now I'm starting to doubt you're a physicist.

No, scientists do not BELIEVE in the laws of physics, they document them. The laws of physics *ARE*. They simply *EXIST*. You can confirm these concepts with math, and they are independently verified no matter what part of the universe you exist. They are repeatable, testable and can be used to make predictions, such as when the next eclipse with be, down to the minute. These laws are fundamental aspects of the universe and can be readily observed.

The point of the analogy was that you're confusing the textbook with the source

But your analogy is broken because there is no belief that is taking place. Science textbooks are documentations of things that can be shown to be true with experimentation and math. A holy book is a doctrine, one that must be taught, and taught against all contrary evidence, and must be believed despite all evidence. What experiments can be done from a bible? Name one!

How can you not understand the fundamental difference and flaw with your reasoning here?

A better analogy is that

...and let me stop you right there. I think I have thoroughly demonstrated that you don't know how to properly use analogies, so I think we (read: you) should lay off them for a bit. Let's stick to being a bit more literal.

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 will concede this point because I'm tired, and I don't feel like posting the relevant pew polls. I don't care about this. I have, myself, seen Catholics become less literal, so I know there's a trend towards non-literalism. They are still by and large literalists for most of what they believe, but as I mentioned earlier, they are becoming more progressive.

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.

Fortunately, this is a forum, and I can quote you

Here's what you said, and why I'm stating your position isn't fact based:

However, a supernatural being, which is not matter and thus not constrained to spacetime, can thus exist eternally, outside of time. It does not need to be created because there is no "start" outside of spacetime, it is eternal by definition.

Thus it seems perfectly logical that a supernatural being can exist outside of time and thus be eternal and non-created, but no natural, material realm can.

Both of these quotes belong in a philosophical debate, not one based on physics and physical reality.

I have you, in black and white, stating that it is logical for a *supernatural* being to EXIST. Existence is based on the natural, ergo, this is not a fact-based opinion, but a philosophical one.

You may think this is valid, but you do not have evidence of a supernatural being EVER EXISTING. Not a single shred, therefore, by definition it is NOT a FACT based opinion.

Here's the definition of a fact:

Definition of FACT

something that has actual existence; an actual occurrence; a piece of information presented as having objective reality… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

Tell me, Rhakim, what is the very first definition Merriam-Webster gives for the word fact?

Breh, the literal title of the thread is "do you believe in God", and we are clearly ALL discussing our personal beliefs

Yeah, but you took me off on a side-tangent, and now we're talking reality. You attempted to challenge me on the concept of a supernatural being existing outside of time, so now you got to stand on that.

I haven't given my beliefs in this thread, I'm talking facts, things that can be demonstrated to exist. You are debating me now, not everyone in this thread, and I'm asking you to stick to what you tried me on. Is that not a reasonable request?

I think I've backed up my beliefs more rationally than you have

Let me not get disrespectful.

I'll just say, you absolutely have not.

If I were to, say, post this thread on Reddit, Twitter, YouTube, or any other public forum, no rational third party is coming away with you as backing up anything you've said rationally.

You've committed several fallacies, confused analogies, misunderstood the definitions of words and have invoked the supernatural, suggesting it's logical.

This is a L, and you don't even realize it, fam.

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

Before today, it would have been feasible for me to believe that. I know my limits, and I'm reasonable enough to admit when I'm outmatched.

The problem is I'm absolutely out-classing you in this debate. I say that with no ego, and I'm not happy about it either, because I like you as a poster, a lot.

You just don't know what the fukk you're talking about right now.

 

[Sccit]

Arguing against God is foolish. But I think he shines in other aspects as well as yourself.

REALLY? TO ME HE JUST SOUND LIKE A VERY DUMB NERD WHO STUDIES A LOT DUE TO BEING SOCIALLY MALADJUSTED OUTSIDE OF THE INTERNET

THESE TYPES RARELY HAVE ANY NATURAL WISDOM

NO BETTER THAN BEING A COMPUTER

 

[10bandz]

@10bandz

PEEP THIS THREAD BRO

THE 2 FAGOT CLONES ARE GOIN AT EACH OTHER

DANKSTER VS URKEL

This Coli debate champ shyt all these dorks got

Urkel getting shytted on too

Notice how he wants to take it to DMs to avoid further embarrassment

 

[Sccit]

@Rhakim

I'm gonna take it as you were typing before I asked you to take this to the DMs, so I could get some sleep. So I'll do you the courtesy of responding to this right now.


But the faith does not exist without that record. Those 1.3 billion people were not there for Christ's birth and death. They are here, today, and THEY base their faith on the book. This is just a fact, I don't know why you're even debating this.

And again, you are suggesting scientists BELIEVE in science; science is a verb, my guy-- you DO science. You cannot *believe* in it. This is a common tactic by the religious, attempting to equate science and religion. One is a fact-based methodology, and the other is the acceptance of something in lieu of evidence, and sometimes, in spite of the evidence.




Haha. I'm not the one with a myopic view here; you're basing everything you know off of personal anecdotes, as far as I can tell. I was a Christian for 19 years, and my grandfather was a hardcore Muslim. I'm well versed and rounded in these topics. I enjoy mythology, and spend a lot of time reading up on these things, as well as my studies as a former Baptist.

It's funny you mention educated Catholics; one of my professors was a Catholic. Roman, dyed-in-the-wool, confession-type. Has nothing to do with anything, just thought it was funny you mentioned that.


This cannot be a serious question.

Do you honestly believe that because someone cannot read a book, they have no knowledge of what it contains? Is this a hill you're prepared to die on?



Hold on-- I see what you're trying to do here. Let's back up and clarify something: the physical book isn't the point of the argument. The legend contained within that book is the point.

We can agree that audiobooks are still books, even though you're not physically reading it, and someone is telling it to you, yes? The point is to obtain what is inside said book. Muslim (Christian) teachers teach what is in the Quran (Torah/Bible), and the adherents follow those teachings. It's functionally the same thing, even if it is by proxy.



You are confused.

The underlying logic of an analogy is supposed to be fundamentally the same.

I have no idea where you got the idea that analogies are supposed to be "fundamentally different". The *logic* is the point of an analogy, so that you can make an argument more clear to a reader/listener.

The logic you presented wasn't sound, therefore it's a poor analogy: you tried to say scientists *believe* in science the same way the religious believe in their faith. Those two concepts have zero in common, as scientists DO science, they don't *believe* in it. It is a fact-based methodology for cataloguing natural phenomena.

Definition of ANALOGY

a comparison of two otherwise unlike things based on resemblance of a particular aspect; resemblance in some particulars between things otherwise unlike : similarity… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

Lmao, now I'm starting to doubt you're a physicist.

No, scientists do not BELIEVE in the laws of physics, they document them. The laws of physics *ARE*. They simply *EXIST*. You can confirm these concepts with math, and they are independently verified no matter what part of the universe you exist. They are repeatable, testable and can be used to make predictions, such as when the next eclipse with be, down to the minute. These laws are fundamental aspects of the universe and can be readily observed.


But your analogy is broken because there is no belief that is taking place. Science textbooks are documentations of things that can be shown to be true with experimentation and math. A holy book is a doctrine, one that must be taught, and taught against all contrary evidence, and must be believed despite all evidence. What experiments can be done from a bible? Name one!

How can you not understand the fundamental difference and flaw with your reasoning here?




...and let me stop you right there. I think I have thoroughly demonstrated that you don't know how to properly use analogies, so I think we (read: you) should lay off them for a bit. Let's stick to being a bit more literal.


I will concede this point because I'm tired, and I don't feel like posting the relevant pew polls. I don't care about this. I have, myself, seen Catholics become less literal, so I know there's a trend towards non-literalism. They are still by and large literalists for most of what they believe, but as I mentioned earlier, they are becoming more progressive.




Fortunately, this is a forum, and I can quote you

Here's what you said, and why I'm stating your position isn't fact based:



Both of these quotes belong in a philosophical debate, not one based on physics and physical reality.

I have you, in black and white, stating that it is logical for a *supernatural* being to EXIST. Existence is based on the natural, ergo, this is not a fact-based opinion, but a philosophical one.

You may think this is valid, but you do not have evidence of a supernatural being EVER EXISTING. Not a single shred, therefore, by definition it is NOT a FACT based opinion.

Here's the definition of a fact:

Definition of FACT

something that has actual existence; an actual occurrence; a piece of information presented as having objective reality… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

Tell me, Rhakim, what is the very first definition Merriam-Webster gives for the word fact?


Yeah, but you took me off on a side-tangent, and now we're talking reality. You attempted to challenge me on the concept of a supernatural being existing outside of time, so now you got to stand on that.

I haven't given my beliefs in this thread, I'm talking facts, things that can be demonstrated to exist. You are debating me now, not everyone in this thread, and I'm asking you to stick to what you tried me on. Is that not a reasonable request?






Let me not get disrespectful.

I'll just say, you absolutely have not.

If I were to, say, post this thread on Reddit, Twitter, YouTube, or any other public forum, no rational third party is coming away with you as backing up anything you've said rationally.

You've committed several fallacies, confused analogies, misunderstood the definitions of words and have invoked the supernatural, suggesting it's logical.

This is a L, and you don't even realize it, fam.



Before today, it would have been feasible for me to believe that. I know my limits, and I'm reasonable enough to admit when I'm outmatched.

The problem is I'm absolutely out-classing you in this debate. I say that with no ego, and I'm not happy about it either, because I like you as a poster, a lot.

You just don't know what the fukk you're talking about right now.

BRO YOU GOT DOG WALKED BY @Rhakim UP N DOWN THIS THREAD

YOUR INSECURITY IS SHOWING IN THE FORM OF FAKE CONFIDENCE

HE’S ALSO BEEN VERY RESPECTFUL WITH YOU, YET YOU CONTINUE HURLING INSULTS HIS WAY

THEN AFTER INSULTING THE SHIIT OUT OF HIM PUBLICLY, YOU TRY TO TAKE IT TO DMS DUE TO THE EMBARRASSMENT AND THINK IT WILL GIVE THE APPEARANCE THAT U HAVE SOME SORT OF UPPER HAND VIA DICTATING WHERE THE TOPIC GOES AND HOW ITS DISCUSSED - BUT U DONT EVEN DM HIM, YOU TELL HIM TO DM YOU UNDER THE GUISE OF BEING SOME ALPHA LEADER LMFAO

SEE THROUGH SON

 

[Sccit]

This Coli debate champ shyt all these dorks got

Urkel getting shytted on too

Notice how he wants to take it to DMs to avoid further embarrassment

LMAO YUP

READ THE POST ABOVE I JUST SAID THAT

@Rhakim BEEN LOWKEY IMPRESSIVE LATELY

MAYBE ONE DAY HE’LL EVEN REALIZE LEBRON IS A METAPHOR FOR SCIENCE AND KOBE FOR SPIRITUALITY

THERES HOPE

 

[10bandz]

BRO YOU GOT DOG WALKED BY @Rhakim UP N DOWN THIS THREAD

YOUR INSECURITY IS SHOWING IN THE FORM OF FAKE CONFIDENCE

HE’S ALSO BEEN VERY RESPECTFUL WITH YOU, YET YOU CONTINUE HURLING INSULTS HIS WAY

THEN AFTER INSULTING THE SHIIT OUT OF HIM PUBLICLY, YOU TRY TO TAKE IT TO DMS DUE TO THE EMBARRASSMENT AND THINK IT WILL GIVE THE APPEARANCE THAT U HAVE SOME SORT OF UPPER HAND VIA DICTATING WHERE THE TOPIC GOES AND HOW ITS DISCUSSED - BUT U DONT EVEN DM HIM, YOU TELL HIM TO DM YOU UNDER THE GUISE OF BEING SOME ALPHA LEADER LMFAO

SEE THROUGH SON

Same tactics he used with me. I Offered a ban bet to disprove whatever bullshyt he was peddling and he told me to DM him for a fade and ignored me

 

[MMS]

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.

this is a good post

I would say:

"Accept uncertainty in front and certainty behind you because God controls both, cherish peace and clarity when possible"

We are living in a world of illusion

Yall needa cut the bullshyt out :mjlol:

www.thecoli.com