Ok, /rel/ics. You're usually quite a scathing bunch, but your advice can be pretty sound; so I'm going to swallow some pride and ask for it.

I seem to have become exponentially more attractive in the last month or so. Somehow.

And I'm struggling to approach that in a Catholic way. I'm pretty flirtatious by nature and I'm inclined to run with it when I see the signs from a pretty girl. While I'm not a fornicater, I am definitely walking a fine line and putting myself directly in the path of temptation without giving it the due thought and care I should be.

What do?

Make your faith more noticeable.

That way, if a girl starts to show that she likes you, you can make it clear from the beginning that any relationship, even a simple friendship, will be based in God.

This doesn't rule out all fun, however, just the degenerate fun. The fun that devalues the sexual act would be anathema, for certain.

I'm not being too vague, am I?

No, no.

I've managed to keep myself away from the degenerate fun, so far, but the fact I keep putting myself so close to it in the first place is of cause for concern.

I feel like I'm being tested particularly in this regard.

Very true.

Which raises all manner of other questions.

But one thing at a time.

I mean, you sound well aware of yourself as it is, so that's a good point to start from. Let's see. You mentioned you became more attractive in about one month, and that you are an extrovert by nature

Ok, I take it your personality remained the same through that change, but now you're getting more responses. Aside from Kristov's ON POINT suggestion, I would also add that you join an active youngs group from your local Church, in that way you would be surround by like minded people

Tldr, get involved in more... how do I put it... wholesome(?) activities

Well, then, better make sure the group is wholesome before joining.

💯 ^

The last thing you need right now is a corrupted "dude, sex lmaaaao" kind of group

Paraphrasing an interesting argument I heard today for the existence of God: (since atheists are nominalist and believe that the big bang happened solely through cosmic flux) Do you believe that 2+2 equals 4 and always equals 4? The fact that math exists and it's unequivocally a universal truth proves the existence of a higher power. If the universe was nothing but random cosmic flux, it would be impossible for a universal truth and for consistency to exist. It would be random flux like everything else

I'm not doing the argument justice, but you get the idea

The only problem is that due to quantum mechanics, you could actually argue that the entire universe is nothing but random flux.

Or the entire multi-verse, as some physicists say.

Quantum mechanics is a spook

Hold on let me read it a couple of times

They're making things up to explain what they don't understand

It has scientific evidence. Light has been proved to have both particle and wave properties. So have electrons, and even some molecules. However, it is true that there are times they go a little to far.

Ah ok I think I understood the point of it

But anyway, does quantum physics disprove math?

Not 2+2=4, or any of the rest of math.

My point is that with quantum mechanics, you can argue for a universe that's nothing but random flux.

You could, but I don't see how that's relevant

It doesn't disprove the other claim

It's just reaffirming what they think they know without addressing the argument

I agree. Disregarding God because of a lack of evidence for God is a very unscientific thing to do.

That math is consistent, it's comprehensible, it's logical; all which would be impossible in a state of flux

And then there's the whole thing about science not being able to justify itself

For the record, I'm only arguing with you so you can strengthen the argument.

But it might be possible that even with constant flux, you can have consistent math.

You could do this by equating math with pure nominalism.

Let's say I have three apples. The fact is I have three, but I could say I have drin, or kteri, or uliban. The word is in flux, but the reality remains the same.

Not sure where I'm going with this, actually.