Sentences with phrase «supernatural beings known»

Again, the Bible tells of the visits to Abraham and others by supernatural beings known as angels; however, they were really messengers from outer space who were trying to influence the course of human affairs according to God's interplanetary directives.

Supernatural is known for a lot of things — creative monsters, the world's hottest main cast, hilarious dialogue, unapologetic Fourth Wall breaking — but the reason it was recommended to me by my writing sensei was because it had a lot to teach me about writing.

Not exact matches

Day, 36, who is known for her work on TV and web shows like Dr. Horrible's Sing - Along Blog, Supernatural, and The Guild, helped define what a successful career in digital culture can look like and, in the process, has been bestowed the title of «queen of the geeks» (an honorific she has resisted).

It is well known for a supposed supernatural phenomena involving the ghost of Henry Wells, who was accused of burning down the courthouse more than a century ago but has reportedly be seen in the window.

They have to know they're lying about real world prospects unless they have supernatural faith in technology.

«This person told this unnamed person about what they hear this person saw, and so I wrote it down, but you won't know who I am either» just doesn't cut it, Chad when it comes to supernatural claims.

Science is all about discovering, not «knowing» in a supernatural sense.

Any legitimate scientist knows that ID is not a scientific theory since supernatural beings, by definition, are not part of the natural world which science describes.

In its intrinsic supernatural reality, marriage includes three goods: the good of exclusive, personal, reciprocal fidelity (the bonum fidei), the good of welcoming children and educating them to know God (the bonum prolis), and the good of the indissolubility or indestructibility of the bond, the permanent foundation of which is the indissoluble union of Christ and the Church, which is sacramentally represented by the marriage (the bonum sacramenti).

The point is that a natural explaination is no more scientific than a supernatural one.

You nothing about me, but I know you for someone willing to spout lies in the service of some supernatural being.

What you have done in logic and scientific terms is, we do not know, science does not know, so let's make something up (the supernatural) and we'll use that since a made up reason is better than no answer.

Knowing there exist a divine, supernatural God (even if not monotheistic), is something even primitive ethnic groups know that they know.

That is, if we had souls they would not likely be «supernatural» or extra-dimensional since we see absolutely NO evidence of anything like that in physics at all.

Becky «@bob: i have a hard time with no «should» and no «right»... maybe that's my evangelical up - bringing coming out, but it seems to me that there is a reality that exists, and i would really like to know what that reality is, and whether supernatural / spiritual / whatever is there or not, because it seems that it makes a whole lot of difference»

Every last exhaustive proof reveals that everything we see and know is the result of the natural, and yet you appeal to the supernatural and metaphysical without justification.

Theo and Vic What you are saying is we don't know what the first cause could possibly be, but because we believe in a supernatural god we will give him the distinction of creating the first cause.

«Mr. Lincoln's religion is too well known to me to allow of even a shadow of a doubt; he is or was a Theist - a Rationalist, denying all extraordinary --- supernatural inspiration or revelation,» William H. Herndon wrote in a letter dated February 11, 1866, to Edward McPherson, clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives.

Because textual criticism says the Bible is no different than any other book, and strips it of its supernatural properties.

blessed is the cheesemaker «very last exhaustive proof reveals that everything we see and know is the result of the natural, and yet you appeal to the supernatural and metaphysical» = > You perhaps mistook my reference to God.

No I can't prove that there are or there are not any leprechauns, or fairies, or gremlins, or gnomes, or elves or whether or not there are any supernatural beings in the first place.

The movie is not a heavy - handed commentary on supernatural apologetics but it does challenge the viewer to consider that there is so much we don't know, and so much more for all of us to learn.

@bob: i have a hard time with no «should» and no «right»... maybe that's my evangelical up - bringing coming out, but it seems to me that there is a reality that exists, and i would really like to know what that reality is, and whether supernatural / spiritual / whatever is there or not, because it seems that it makes a whole lot of difference

As far as I know James Randi is still offering tons of money for ANY supernatural feat you can demo and prove.

Let people know that you fear the revenge of a supernatural being that has never been proven to exist, and who does not care if you are good, only that you are loyal.

b) Given the need for a supernatural action to create life, Given that there is no known natural explaination for the creation of life

Society is more than capable of knowing right from wrong and enforcing it with out the input from any supernatural being than you give it credit for.

But it then proceeds to equate these presuppositions with «faith» so that it can move to the conclusion that even secular historians who reject appeals to supernatural intervention in history are no less acting «in faith» than are those believing historians who accept them.

You have eye witness accounts in the bible, you have present day people telling you he's there, knowing he's there, not belief, knowing, you have vast supernatural events like the big bang that happened once and never again, you have life starting up, species forming, male and female that have to be there for offspring, and lo and behold... you deny all of them because God being there, isn't what you wanted.

Over time science has shown many of these supernatural explanations to be wrong as sciences expands what it knows.

• Pu Songling, Strange Tales from a Chinese Studio: Anyone who loves Chinese ghost stories and tales of Taoist magic and supernatural fables — anyone, that is, with a soul — should know this, the classic collection of a great many of the best of them.

Even if we could be 100 % sure that this copy we have is the correct and 100 % accurate copy, there is NO evidence to support the existence of the supernatural being it describes.

a) Given the need for a supernatural action to create matter, energy and time, Given that there is no known natural explaination for the creation of matter, energy and time

He has been attending at worship in the Temple, and remains there in meditation, his eyes upon the still smoking altar, and the bizarre carved figures of supernatural beings which we know to have adorned the building.

The second thing that should be said regarding this meaning of the supernatural is that the surprising and frightening phenomena are really no different in essence from what is generally called «natural».

The development in our souls of supernatural life (based on the natural spiritualization of the world through the efforts of mankind): this in the last resort is the field where the operative power of faith is positively and without any known limits exercized.

The result is that God can be known by our reason, even without the help of supernatural revelation.

well because the bible is a prophetic supernatural revelation, and the flood is no different than one single divine prophechy, no different than the resurrection, and no different than the fact that evil exists supernaturally.

First, young Christians are increasingly turning away from the supernatural nonsesnse of religion (immortality, mind reading, sky - gods, talking snakes etc.) and no longer buy into the core morality of the evangelicals on important issues like gay rights and $ exual mores.

I don't know the selling point again would be supernatural things of any sort can't possibly happen (which after a few wierd experiences I doubt the non existence of supernatural things now).

For example, Jesus didn't know when he would return (Matthew 24:36), and it was the Holy Spirit who gave Jesus supernatural knowledge (Mark 2:8), and the power to do miracles (Matthew 12:28; Luke 4:14,18).

Are you pretending to know things just to bolster your irrational believe in supernatural beings and The Babble?

Austin: How about being honest and instead of making claims that you can't support, given that supernatural CA N'T be known, you include the disclaimer of «I believe...»?

We are not made to know nor understand such Supernatural Powers.

We already have what could be considered faster than light travel with quantum physics sp00ky action at a distance so we already know our understanding of the physics is what is flawed, not that there is some need for a supernatural being to explain the parts of it we don't yet understand.

He is: • Supernatural in nature (as He exists outside of His creation) • Incredibly powerful (to have created all that is known) • Eternal (self - existent, as He exists outside of time and space) • Omnipresent (He created space and is not limited by it) • Timeless and changeless (He created time) • Immaterial (because He transcends space) • Personal (the impersonal can't create personality) • Necessary (as everything else depends on Him) • Infinite and singular (as you can not have two infinites) • Diverse yet has unity (as nature exhibits diversity) • Intelligent (supremely, to create everything) • Purposeful (as He deliberately created everything) • Moral (no moral law can exist without a lawgiver) • Caring (or no moral laws would have been given)

Chad can and will never prove the supernatural, no matter how many times you ask, because it is not there.

John Oman ended his masterly book on The Natural and the Supernatural with these words: «If we would have any content in the eternal, it is from dealing wholeheartedly with the evanescent; if we would have any content in freedom it is by victory both without and within over the necessary; if we would have any content in mind and spirit we must know aright by valuing aright.

Or is that just to hard for your small mind to grasp and you would rather just assign a supernatural integer to explain it so you can feel like you «know» how it all happened...

You seem to think that «faster than the speed of light» is something outside of known physics that needs a supernatural explanation.