| Latest revision |
Your text |
| Line 10: |
Line 10: |
| | See below the comments section for what that's about. Always did like how if it's literal then Catholics are canibals... | | See below the comments section for what that's about. Always did like how if it's literal then Catholics are canibals... |
| | Anonymous 0733, 19 January 2013 (UTC) | | Anonymous 0733, 19 January 2013 (UTC) |
| − |
| |
| − | :We catholics believe we are literally eating the body of Jesus. If that makes us cannibals, then we are cannibals! [[Special:Contributions/24.199.215.245|24.199.215.245]] 02:41, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | It's only cannibalsim if we're right, and if we're right, then God told us so! Either way, we can't be doing anything wrong, because it's either bread or we must due to a divine imperative. Obviously, as a Catholic, I believe I am acting in accordance with truth in recieving the Eucharist, but sometimes it helps those who don't fully understand to have a two-sided hypothetical.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.210.152|108.162.210.152]] 03:35, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | What about the electroweak symmetry=souls thing? Can someone explain that please? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.64|108.162.216.64]] 01:49, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
| |
| − | : I think it might be a reference to Roger Penrose's ''Shadows of the Mind'', which tried to claim that we have free will because of quantum uncertainty in brain microtubules. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.183.137|162.158.183.137]] 01:20, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | So at the point of the creation of matter there's supposed to be this balance between matter (oversimplified: positively charged protons, negative electrons, the stuff we're made of and used to) and antimatter (The opposing charge stuff). That balance is great, but it pretty much implies that the process of matter formation and matter reexplosion (what hapens when antimatter and matter meet) would be this continuous loop. Fact is, we're here, looking at these reactions (or trying to). Therefore, we are the result of an assymetry, perhaps one in every billion particles created is without a partner (visible to us anyway, perhaps it escaped to some negative matter space that's a safe distance away). What caused this apparent imbalance is presently unknown. (Don't, whatever you do, call it a mystery. Not because it's not, but because of the reaction you'll get from all the wrong folks.) [[User:Bralbovsky|Bralbovsky]] ([[User talk:Bralbovsky|talk]]) 00:14, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Er ... surely the last panel with the voice from above isn't 'Physics', but God. (ie) GOD: "You stop looking for the (God particle), and we'll talk". Which also explains why the water turned to wine then blood. 'Physics' isn't fucking with them ... God is. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.28|141.101.98.28]] 04:53, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | The "Is it God? Is it Physics?" issue is reminiscent of the debate about Einstein's references to the "Old One": is he writing about Physics, or God? (Or did he not care to distinguish the two?) See for example https://www.quora.com/What-did-Einstein-mean-by-the-secret-of-the-old-one-in-his-letter-to-Max-Born
| |
