Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Scientists Claim That Quantum Theory Proves Consciousness Moves To Another Universe At Death
Spirit, Science and Metaphysics ^

Posted on 01/17/2014 7:43:11 PM PST by DaveMSmith

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-250 next last
To: Moonman62

Anesthesia is the real experience. With modern drugs, like proposal, transition to and from consciousness is instantaneous with no sense of either going to sleep or waking up. Just bang, she is fooling with the IV, and you’re suddenly in another place, with no instantaneous knowledge that anything even happened in between. When death occurs, does some odd form of consciousness suddenly revive beyond the effects of the drugs?


51 posted on 01/17/2014 8:52:28 PM PST by libstripper (Asv)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: DaveMSmith
I'd be curious to see how these scientists could ever go about proving such a theory.
52 posted on 01/17/2014 8:57:52 PM PST by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveMSmith

I don’t know but I think my receiver is on it’s way to becoming a wide screen TV.


53 posted on 01/17/2014 9:07:20 PM PST by DannyTN (A>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: libstripper
Here is an excerpt from the testament John Paul II:
Also during these spiritual exercises I reflected on the truth of the Priesthood of Christ in the perspective of that Passing which the moment of death is for each one of us. The Resurrection of Christ is an eloquent [above this word was added decisive] sign of the departure from this world for rebirth in the other, future world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testament_of_Pope_John_Paul_II

Make of it what you will.

54 posted on 01/17/2014 9:09:11 PM PST by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: babble-on; All

“So Scientology is RIGHT! I KNEW IT”


Doh! If only I could afford the costs of auditing!


55 posted on 01/17/2014 9:13:23 PM PST by Greetings_Puny_Humans (I mostly come out at night... mostly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DaveMSmith

save


56 posted on 01/17/2014 9:17:16 PM PST by Texas Songwriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveMSmith

Unfortunately the only way to prove this one way or the other is to die.....


57 posted on 01/17/2014 9:20:52 PM PST by nvscanman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Candor7; All
FWIW

Universe is Conscious [ Through the Wormhole ] (video 14:34)

58 posted on 01/17/2014 9:37:04 PM PST by TigersEye (Stupid is a Progressive disease.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

That’s what the name of God actually means I’ve been told. YHWH.


59 posted on 01/17/2014 9:59:25 PM PST by Hoosier-Daddy ( "It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of ingtheir political choices.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62
How about when we sleep or are under anesthesia?

I'm more awake when I'm asleep than I am when I'm awake! Anesthesia is another story, and cessation of life processes yet another.

maior enim turbae disiectus material
consequitur leto, nee quisquam expergitus exstat,
frigida quem semel est vitai pausa secuta

"for a greater dispersion of the disturbed matter takes place at death, and no one awakens and rises whom the cold stoppage of life has once overtaken."

Lucretius - circa 60 BC

60 posted on 01/17/2014 10:04:05 PM PST by dr_lew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: DaveMSmith

The whole world of science is not sold on quantum theory. Ralph Sansbury and the EU crowd in particular. One way or another, I’m still going to take my chances with Jesus and not quantum physics.


61 posted on 01/17/2014 10:14:27 PM PST by varmintman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock

Did those two remain an atheist and a cult member after their experiences?


62 posted on 01/17/2014 10:16:39 PM PST by Girlene (Hey, NSA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Misterioso
I think Stephen Hawking has plenty else to be 'angry' about than metaphysical sophistry.

I attended a Hawking lecture some years ago, which he replayed from a laptop computer. This was early days for that, maybe the 90's , so I'm not sure what kind of device it was, but something like that. He actually took questions and composed short answers while the audience hummed quietly. Then when he played each one, the audience became instantly attentive. Very interesting and even touching, I thought.

In the lecture though, there was a treatment of the classic "astronaut falling into a black hole", and I thought that the vivid description of the sundering and rendering of the doomed astronaut went a little beyond what one might have expected.

63 posted on 01/17/2014 10:22:34 PM PST by dr_lew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: DaveMSmith

Is there a way to find out which universe? I know a lot of people that I hope don’t go to the same universe as my thoughts. Considering what we think about each other now, why prolong it another lifetime.


64 posted on 01/17/2014 10:23:51 PM PST by VerySadAmerican (".....Barrack, and the horse Mohammed rode in on.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: usconservative

What a privilege you have had.


65 posted on 01/17/2014 10:52:33 PM PST by dixjea
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: DaveMSmith

ping myself for later....


66 posted on 01/17/2014 10:59:26 PM PST by mowowie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveMSmith

Bookmark


67 posted on 01/17/2014 11:27:12 PM PST by aquila48
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
Nothing exists without a conscious observer. Existence of the universe would require a conscious entity to bring it into existence.

To my knowledge, this theory was first advanced by Bishop Berkeley in the early 18th century. I asked my philosophy professor if he could disprove it. (He rapidly changed the subject.)

Essentially, it removes all disputes on the conflicts between mind and matter.

68 posted on 01/17/2014 11:36:08 PM PST by DeFault User
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: FredZarguna
That’s only one school of quantum mechanics [Copenhagen Interpretation.] There are others.

The other major interpretation is the Many Worlds Hypothesis, which basically states that everything that can possibly happen, happens, in a new and separate universe. As crazy as that sounds it is something believed by many in the field.

69 posted on 01/17/2014 11:53:46 PM PST by ETL (ALL (most?) of the Obama-commie connections at my FR Home page: http://www.freerepublic.com/~etl/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Louis Foxwell; DaveMSmith; cripplecreek; Inyo-Mono; FredZarguna; varyouga; AU72; ...
Too many words

Sorry, but this guy, Lothar Schafer, is one of the top minds and voices on the subject of quantum mechanics, spirituality, consciousness and the human mind. If you're seriously interested in the topic, I strongly recommend you hear him speak. He's a recently retired professor of chemistry and quantum mechanics at the University of Arkansas.

Here's a link to some of his talks on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=%22Lothar%20Schafer%22&sm=12

70 posted on 01/18/2014 12:14:59 AM PST by ETL (ALL (most?) of the Obama-commie connections at my FR Home page: http://www.freerepublic.com/~etl/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: ETL
As crazy as that sounds it is something believed by many in the field.

If you had never heard the word "unfalsifiable", this is the idea that might make you think of it.

71 posted on 01/18/2014 12:29:33 AM PST by dr_lew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: DaveMSmith

Confirms Eban Alexander’s ‘Proof of Heaven’


I would say that it agrees but not confirms, science has been trying to prove for years that life is just an accident.

They can no more prove this theory than they can prove the other, these kind of scientists are just a bunch of nuts.


72 posted on 01/18/2014 12:32:17 AM PST by ravenwolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dr_lew
Karl Popper on the Many Worlds Interpretation by Max Andrews

In a brief section of Karl Popper’s Quantum Theory and the Schism in Physics[1] he discusses his attraction to the Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum physics as well as the reason for his rejection of it. Popper is actually quite pleased with Everett’s three-fold contribution to the field of quantum physics. Despite his attraction to the interpretation he rejects it based on the falsifiability of the symmetry behind the Schrödinger equation.

Popper’s model allows for a theory to be scientific prior to supported evidence.  There is no positive case for purporting a theory under his model. There can only be a negative case to falsify it and as long as it may be potentially falsified it is scientific.  Thus, a scientific theory could have no evidence or substantiated facts to provide good reasons for why it may be true. What makes this discussion of MWI interesting is that despite Popper’s attraction to MWI it’s not the attraction that makes it scientific, it’s his criterion of falsification.

In favor of MWI:

  1. The MWI is completely objective in its discussion of quantum mechanics.
  2. Everett removes the need and occasion to distinguish between ‘classical’ physical systems, like the measurement apparatus, and quantum mechanical systems, like elementary particles.  All systems are quantum (including the universe as a whole).
  3. Everett shows that the collapse of the state vector, something originally thought to be outside of Schrödinger’s theory, can be shown to arise within the universal [Schrödinger] wave function.

Against MWI:

  1. The Schrödinger equation is symmetrical with regard to a reversal of the direction of time whereas MWI is not.

Popper argues that a beam of particles traveling through a narrow slit can theoretically test this. Each particle of the scattering beam can be taken as an analogue of one of the world-splits; and the whole beam as an analogue of Everett’s reality—the many worlds which are not only man, but also a scattering in a random manner relative to each other. Popper suggests that we then invert the direction of time and when we do we see that many worlds of the past are a random scatter.  This scatter is arranged in a manner that when they fuse they become correlated, even though there was no interaction between them before their fusion. This is what Popper believes to be the crux in falsifying Everett. Popper’s argument rests on Schrödinger’s dependence on reversing the direction of time. I am not able to comment on the validity of Schrödinger’s claim here, but I do find it philosophically problematic.

[1] Karl Popper, Quantum Theory and the Schism in Physics, Ed. W. W. Bartley, III (Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Littlefield, 1956, 1982), 89-95.

http://sententias.org/2012/10/23/popper-mwi/


73 posted on 01/18/2014 12:44:06 AM PST by ETL (ALL (most?) of the Obama-commie connections at my FR Home page: http://www.freerepublic.com/~etl/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: ETL

Those are not the only schools. There is a modified Copenhagen Interpetation which does not require consciousness or even observers, and there is quantum coherence and decoherence as well. There is also a modified version of Many Worlds which does not regard the uncountable trajectories of the Feynman Path Integral as literal configurations in an infinite number of universes. Most physicists these days are more likely to belong in the last two categories, and not to take the literalism of the original Copenhagen School very seriously. I’m not in the life any more, but at the time I left academia (and physics) in the late 1980’s I did not know any practitioners — even among theorists — who took the infinite number of universes interpretation all that seriously. Feynman himself did not.


74 posted on 01/18/2014 12:52:12 AM PST by FredZarguna (Das is nicht richtig nur falsch. Das ist nicht einmal falsch.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: dr_lew
The question of whether all phase space trajectories need to be integrated or not is certainly falsifiable. As far as we know, they do. So in "some sense" they all exist. The metaphysical interpretation of the Feynman Path Integral, like all metaphysical interpretations in science, are not falsifiable, because they are not science. They are usually not in the least bit rigorous extrapolations, either.

Feynman himself justified the path integral formulation on the basis of its success and nothing more. Not only did he not take the non-scientific interpretations seriously, he was self-deprecatory about the mathematical justification and the procedure itself.

75 posted on 01/18/2014 1:08:26 AM PST by FredZarguna (Das is nicht richtig nur falsch. Das ist nicht einmal falsch.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
People who spend that much time thinking that deeply about the nature of the universe must reach a point where they run out of conclusions.

Romans 1:20 NIV

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

76 posted on 01/18/2014 1:24:05 AM PST by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: DaveMSmith

They get so close to truth sometimes— then the denial of God kicks in and they turn away.

Psalm 19:1-4


77 posted on 01/18/2014 2:42:42 AM PST by ExGeeEye (The enemy's gate is down...and to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ETL

Thanks, ETL!


78 posted on 01/18/2014 3:13:06 AM PST by Gene Eric (Don't be a statist!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: FredZarguna
in the late 1980’s I did not know any practitioners — even among theorists — who took the infinite number of universes interpretation all that seriously. Feynman himself did not.

Technically, it wouldn't really be an "infinite" number of universes, would it, as Many Worlds merely states that anything that CAN happen, happens, in a new and unique universe. The number of possibilities for ways something can happen isn't infinite. Is this correct? In any case, it seems that whatever the interpretation or explanation of quantum mechanics is, it's incredibly bizarre and foreign.

And thanks for your firsthand insight.

79 posted on 01/18/2014 3:42:38 AM PST by ETL (ALL (most?) of the Obama-commie connections at my FR Home page: http://www.freerepublic.com/~etl/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: dixjea
What a privilege you have had.

Don't I know it. I only wish I could live up to that privilege on a daily basis, sinner yet I am.

80 posted on 01/18/2014 3:46:27 AM PST by usconservative (When The Ballot Box No Longer Counts, The Ammunition Box Does. (What's In Your Ammo Box?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: ETL

I have long believed that consciousness is the key to understanding the natuire of the universe. As a philosophy/theology major with 2 advanced degrees in same I have a substantial interest. I will follow up. Thank you.


81 posted on 01/18/2014 4:29:56 AM PST by Louis Foxwell (This is a wake up call. Join the Sultan Knish ping list.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: DaveMSmith
can exist outside the body, perhaps indefinitely, as a soul.”

If a body contains a soul at birth, where does the soul come from? Is there like a waiting room for souls in need of a new born body? And if the body dies, does that soul go back to the waiting room?

I've often wondered about people who believe in reincarnation thinking that when they die they're going to come back as another person. How can that be if the population keeps doubling over time?

82 posted on 01/18/2014 4:38:45 AM PST by Hot Tabasco (Miss Muffit suffered from arachnophobia.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

We have always understood that God consciousness is the fundamental reality, not consciousness of God but God’s consciousness.
As His creation we are imbued with His consciousness. This is the key to revealed religion.
Proof of God is not by reason but by accepting the nature of reality. If there is one God there is also a singular unified reality.
Christ demonstrates the consciousness of God in human history.


83 posted on 01/18/2014 4:57:36 AM PST by Louis Foxwell (This is a wake up call. Join the Sultan Knish ping list.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: onedoug

ping


84 posted on 01/18/2014 6:34:09 AM PST by windcliff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

fascination bump


85 posted on 01/18/2014 6:56:14 AM PST by misanthrope (Liberalism; it is not unthinking ignorance, it is malignant evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: windcliff

Interesting. But proof. No way.


86 posted on 01/18/2014 7:18:28 AM PST by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

Amen.


87 posted on 01/18/2014 7:23:01 AM PST by dubyagee ("I can't complain, but sometimes I still do.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: ExGeeEye

They get so close to truth sometimes— then the denial of God kicks in and they turn away.


Right.

They also have a form of Godliness but deny the power thereof.

Matthew 10
28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

These who deny God but try to use their so called science to try and prove a few points of his rule that appeal to them are no different than people who claim to believe in Christ but deny every thing he told us.


88 posted on 01/18/2014 7:42:14 AM PST by ravenwolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: babble-on

Ping for later


89 posted on 01/18/2014 9:28:27 AM PST by fhayek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ETL
Many Worlds essentially obtains from the Feynman Path Integral formulation, which does indeed require not only an infinite, but an uncountably infinite number of different possible trajectories through phase space, and so in order for the interpretation to match the mathematics and physical theory, I would say the number of "worlds" or realities for all these outcomes must surely be infinite as well. And, if you take that philosophical approach, all of them must "happen" because it is not possible to sum to the correct value which is required by the Principle of Least Action unless "most" of them cancel each other out.

Although I haven't been a very serious student of the philosophy of quantum theory, I'm somewhat intrigued by this other post you have about Popper and his understanding of MWI. It sounds incorrect to me, and as you may know, some of Popper's philosophical requirements for quantum mechanics were similar to Einstein's -- and wrong. I would probably have to read the book carefully, but this excerpt also seems to show that Popper's interpretation of MWI -- if we restrict MWI to mean an interpretation of the Feynman Path Integral formulation -- to be mistaken as well.

As you may know, The Shroedinger Equation is mathematically derivable from the non-relativistic version of the FPI. [This is one of the early exercises you do in a graduate class in Quantum Field Theory.] And with a careful attention to the signs and directions taken along the complex integration path, the FPI has the same time reversal properties as the Shroedinger Equation.

In the relativistic case you can show that once you include anti-particles, FPI has the same time reversal and Lorentz invariance as the Dirac Equation. [I'm not aware of anyone deriving the Dirac Equation from the path integral in full generality. Some special cases have been done over the years.] Whatever ... the point is, if MWI means FPI it does not have different time reversal properties from the Shroedinger [non-relativistic] or Dirac/Klein-Gordon equations [relativistic version].

The interesting thing about FPI, and why physicists take it seriously in some philosophical sense, is that thanks to Dirac [who first suggested it], and Feynman who actually made it work, we get an understanding of something that had been bothering physicists since Newton in various forms. Even in classical physics there were these glimpses at the Principle of Least Action. [Fermat's Principle, which I'll get to in a moment, is one example.]

As it turns out, once Newtonian mechanics is properly formulated [Lagrangian/Hamiltonian dynamics instead of, but equivalent to the Three Laws, F=ma, etc] you can derive a Principle of Least Action as well.

Now that is interesting for several reasons, but the most important of them is that it essentially says that an integration over an infinite number of points in phase space is actually required even in classical physics. It isn't just a "weird" property of quantum mechanics. It's also interesting, because in the path integral formulation, you can show how the classical version of the Principle of Least Action comes about. That is, you can rigorously show how classical physics is just an approximation of quantum physics. Before the FPI, this was simply accepted on faith. It had to happen because over a broad range of physical phenomena, classical physics works. The Copenhagen version of this was essentially a hand-waving axiom called The Correspondence Principle. After Feynman, we understood why. And we also understood for example [just the simplest example that comes to mind off the top of my head] why light always travels the shortest time distance from one point to another -- even when it bends through glass, or reflects from a mirror. Before the FPI, the metaphysics of just something as simple as that required teleological interpretations that were highly unsatisfying, and indeed thoroughly rejected by most physicists who cared about philosophy at all.

90 posted on 01/18/2014 10:23:30 AM PST by FredZarguna (Das is nicht richtig nur falsch. Das ist nicht einmal falsch.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: DaveMSmith; GodGunsGuts; Fichori; tpanther; Gordon Greene; Ethan Clive Osgoode; betty boop; ...

Scientists are just promoting the same thing Christianity has taught for millennia but in a relabeled package.

Call it alternate dimensions. That’s cutting edge physics.

Call it heaven and hell and it’s just mythology.

Call life outside the earth extra terrestrials, and it’s funded by the government under the auspices of SETI.

Call them angels and demons, and it’s figments of people imaginations and mythology.

Call it singularity and it’s the latest in theoretical physics.

Call it creation by God and it’s mythology and folk tales of bronze age goat herders.

It’s all in the name and who’s promoting it. But it gets down to the fact that there’s nothing new under the sun and the Bible had a leg up on it long before scientists even thought of the stuff.


91 posted on 01/18/2014 11:33:47 AM PST by metmom (...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: metmom

You have hit the thumb on the nail...

Science as re-invented the arguments, redefined the topics and sanitized them for their own purposes. This is the same thing Stephen Meyer faces when he debates “scientists” about intelligent design. Call it cellular encoding and its genetic biochemistry; Call it God directed and it is cheap dogma.

Their blindness is deep and widespread. But, I suspect that this may be part of the “...deluding influence so that they might believe what is false.” Paul wrote about in IIThess. Great post.


92 posted on 01/18/2014 12:28:28 PM PST by Dutchboy88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: metmom; Dutchboy88
Good post metmom.

One of the net effects of all this is that much of society no longer sees the need for any 'referee' in the game of life.Imagine what would happen in the Superbowl should the players regard the umpire as irrelevant (after all,everyone knows the rules and is smart enough to know what works and what doesn't)

It would descend into chaos in very short order.So goes society.

93 posted on 01/18/2014 1:35:09 PM PST by mitch5501 ("make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things ye shall never fall")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

Tashi Deleg , Tiger.


94 posted on 01/18/2014 1:42:00 PM PST by Candor7 (Obama fascism article:(http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/barack_obama_the_quintessentia_1.html))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: ETL; TigersEye

Sorry, but this guy, Mipham Rimpoche, is one of the top minds and voices on the subject of post mortem mind, spirituality, consciousness and the human mind. If you’re seriously interested in the topic, I strongly recommend you hear him speak.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTpKL88oH3k

Also Here, Dr. Jeremy Hayward:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3D3pdDWO38


95 posted on 01/18/2014 2:36:00 PM PST by Candor7 (Obama fascism article:(http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/barack_obama_the_quintessentia_1.html))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: ETL; TigersEye

Or you can try this guy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8UnvlYzJ0I

He is just about the best ever on the subject.


96 posted on 01/18/2014 2:45:21 PM PST by Candor7 (Obama fascism article:(http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/barack_obama_the_quintessentia_1.html))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: DaveMSmith

Hello!

‘Theory’ proves NOTHING!!

That’s why it’s called theory!!!


97 posted on 01/18/2014 2:48:36 PM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: spokeshave
April 25    2011
 
 
 
Now THAT is cool!!

98 posted on 01/18/2014 2:52:08 PM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Candor7

Can’t we all go back to counting the pinhead dancing angels???


99 posted on 01/18/2014 2:54:38 PM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: DaveMSmith

It is so hard for some to think beyond their sphere or allow the Lord to lift them to greater understanding of his universe.


100 posted on 01/18/2014 4:06:43 PM PST by restornu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-250 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson