Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-22-2019 11:12 PM
44 online now:
DrJones* (1 member, 43 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,563 Year: 3,600/19,786 Month: 595/1,087 Week: 185/212 Day: 27/25 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
678
9
1011Next
Author Topic:   At what point should we look for a non-materialistic explanation?
Modulous
Member (Idle past 181 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 121 of 160 (538427)
12-06-2009 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by 1.61803
12-06-2009 3:04 PM


the mind and the physical
The problem I have with this premise is that initial conditions can never be the same.

Why not?

So this in itself would prevent a duplicate world.

But we just created a world with all the same physical properties. What's preventing this from happening?

But given that this world somehow comes to be identical I would say it would be identical. Souls and emotions and everything else.

It is only physically identical, not 'spiritually' identical. Souls don't need to be replicated (and in fact explicitly aren't). Emotions are replicated in so far as their physical basis is replicated.

Would the iron molecules in a indviduals would be the same?

They would have all the same physical properties. But they wouldn't necessarily be the same molecules.

Would spontanenous mutations in genes be the same?

Yep - that's a physically based thing.

Would these two worlds evolve on every level of physics end up the same?

Yes.

I can not see how.

Not knowing how isn't material (heh). All that matters is that we consider such a universe.

Just one non functioning microtubual in a sperms flagellum would wipe out Hitlers whole family line.

But that would only happen if the physical properties of the universe are different, say the physicalists. And further - we could just create the new universe to be physically identical to the present one so we don't need to worry about history yet. Even if we stipulate that certain events will play out differently due to some inherent probabilistic effect which is not 'seeded' by the a physical property * - the physicalist would argue that at the moment the two universes have identical physical properties - there are no differences between them.

I do not know what the soul is.

No, but the only necessary definition is that it is non-physical. It is a dualist's concept of a soul.

I still think the mind is non physical.

The mind may well be 'non physical' in one sense, but the physicalist argues that the mind is an emergent property of the brain (the mind is what the brain does). It 'non physical' in the same sense that running is non physical. You can't point to running, it doesn't exist as a noun. The mind, the the physicalist might say, is not a noun, but a verb.

However, you take away my legs (physical things) and I lose the ability to run (in the sense of a certain kind of leg based locomotion). Take away the brain, and I lose the ability to think.

Do you think we should concentrate our research into consciousness surrounding the non-physical? Or have we not reached that point yet?



* Cavediver for example stresses that quantum physics is still deterministic - and it could be that the identical physical universe would have every probabilistic outcome come out the same. The truth of this matter isn't actually important to the point though, and I raise it merely as a point of interest.

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by 1.61803, posted 12-06-2009 3:04 PM 1.61803 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by 1.61803, posted 12-07-2009 12:32 PM Modulous has responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 4782
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 122 of 160 (538431)
12-06-2009 10:36 PM


Quantum Consciousness
.
The following book, which I have read, talks about the connection between QM and consciousness.

Quantum Enigma

Here is one quote from the book.

“Other interpretations of quantum theory today compete with the Copenhagen interpretation – and with each other. Interpreting what quantum mechanics is telling us has become a contentious field. But we'll see that every interpretation encounters consciousness. With these interpretations of the meaning of quantum mechanics, we come to the boundary of the physics discipline, a place beyond which the expertise of the physicist is not uniquely relevant.”

Science is supposed to follow where the evidence leads and according to these guys the evidence leads to a consciousness that isn't solely physical.

I don't pretend to have the knowledge to defend the following quote but I think it's pertinent to the discussion. It comes from the Penrose-Hameroff site
Quantum Consciousness

It seems that these guys at least believe that science can have something to say about the spiritual.

quote:
Being the skunk at an atheist convention
 
Most scientists and philosophers assume consciousness emerges from complex computation among  brain neurons and synapses acting as indivisible bits, or information states. Penrose and I suggest that consciousness involves processes at deeper levels, specifically sequences of quantum computations (~40 per second) in structures called microtubules inside brain neurons. The quantum computations we propose link to neuronal-level activities, and are also ripples in fundamental spacetime geometry, the most basic level of the universe.  
 
One implication of our model relates to a possible scientific basis for secular spirituality (unrelated to any organized religious approach). I should say that Roger avoids discussion of such implications, but I’ve been willing to raise this possibility.
 
For me, spirituality implies:
 
Interconnectedness among living beings and the universe
A ubiquitous reservoir of cosmic intelligence/Platonic values in touch with our conscious choices and perceptions
Existence of consciousness after death
Can these issues be accounted for scientifically? I believe they possibly can.
 
Interconnectedness – Conscious minds and unconscious processes may be quantum entangled.
 
Cosmic intelligence/Platonic values – Penrose suggested in his 1989 book The emperor’s new mind that Platonic values including mathematical truth, ethical values and beauty were embedded in the fine structure of the universe, specifically in fundamental spacetime geometry at the inifinitesimally tiny (and ubiquitous) Planck scale. In a 1996 paper, Penrose and I further suggested that the precursors of conscious experience were also embedded in Planck scale geometry. In our theory, conscious choices and perceptions are affected by this universal Platonic information which Penrose termed non-computable influence. I liken such proposed influence on conscious choices to “following the way of the Tao”, or “Divine guidance”. 
 
Conscious existence after death – In my view, consciousness occurs at the level of Planck scale geometry amplified to quantum coherence/computation in brain microtubules. When metabolic requirements for quantum coherence in brain microtubules are lost (e.g. death, near-death), quantum information pertaining to that individual may persist and remain entangled in Planck scale geometry.
 
Taken as a whole, these ideas may be considered a plausibility argument for scientific, secular spirituality.
 
In November 2006 I was invited to a meeting at the Salk Institute in La Jolla, California called “Beyond Belief” (http://beyondbelief2006.org/). Other speakers and attendees were predominantly atheists, and harshly critical of the notion of spirituality. They included Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Patricia Churchland, Steven Weinberg (the least venal), Neil deGrasse Tyson and others who collectively vilified creationists and religious warriors. But the speakers also ragged on the notion of any purpose or meaning to existence, heaped ridicule on the very possibility of a God-like entity (and those who believed in such an entity), declared that scientists and philosophers should set society’s moral and ethical standards, and called for a billion dollar public relations campaign to convince the public God does not exist. 
 
Near the end of the first day came my turn to speak. I began by saying that the conference to that point had been like the Spanish Inquisition in reverse -  the scientists were burning the believers. And while I had no particular interest in organized religion, I did believe there could be a scientific account for spirituality.
 
After pointing out faulty assumptions in conventional brain models for consciousness and summarizing the Penrose-Hameroff theory, I laid out my plausibility argument for scientific, secular spirituality, suggesting cosmic connections and influence in our conscious thoughts occurred via quantum interactions in microtubules. I closed with a slide of the DNA molecule which emphasized it’s internal core where quantum effects rule, suggesting a Penrose non-computable influence in genetic mutations and evolution (aimed at Dawkins in the form of a quantum-based intelligent design).
 
At the end a few people clapped loudly, but most sat in steely silence. The moderator and conference organizer Roger Bingham said I had enraged nearly everyone in the room. Indeed, I had raised a stink, and felt (happily) like the skunk at an atheist convention.
 
Comments from the audience were negative, but off base. Physicist Lawrence Krauss said my suggestion of backward time effects in the quantum unconscious (indicated by experiments, and required to rescue consciousness from its unfortunate characterization as epiphenomenal illusion) were impossible. He was apparently unaware of the verification of Wheeler’s delayed choice experiments which precisely prove such backward time effects. Krauss also questioned the possibility of biological quantum computation at brain temperature, but I pointed to evidence for warm quantum coherence in biological photosynthesis. Neuroscientist Terry Sejnowski attempted to criticize my view, but floundered, unable to explain how his conventional approach could explain 40 Hz gamma synchrony EEG (the best measurable correlate of consciousness) without quantum effects.
 
Our theory also chafes proponents of artificial intelligence (“AI”, including advocates of the so-called Singularity) who assume consciousness results from interactions among neurons with no consideration of deeper activities or quantum mechanisms. Along these lines I recently spoke at Google in Silicon Valley, my talk being titled A new marriage of brain and computer – Why the Singularity is bogus. That talk is at 
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2069501759514424839
 
I am not by nature confrontational, but am happy to debate scientists and philosophers who oppose our theory. Atheism does not hold the scientific high ground. Secular spirituality based on quantum biology and the physics of spacetime geometry is a viable and important idea. I am not offering or suggesting any proof, just a plausibility argument.

    
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 2793 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 123 of 160 (538440)
12-07-2009 3:18 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by 1.61803
12-06-2009 2:04 PM


Out of the Blue
Good morning ∅

psuedo science, probably. But still intriguing.

What I find intriguing about this kind of research is the why of it. What gave these guy the idea that thinking good thoughts at water would produce more ascetically pleasing crystals? Usually an experiment is an attempt to confirm a prediction demanded by an hypothesis. What was their hypothesis that lead them down this trail?

And what kind of indicator is "ascetically pleasing"? Why not something objective like rate of growth or symmetry? Is it because objective criteria are harder to fudge?

And it's the Institute for Noetic Sciences, for Pete's sake. I'm sure that the findings will be confirmed any day now by Barry and Brad Klinge in the Ghost Lab.


The world breaks everyone, and afterward many are strong at the broken places. But those it cannot break, it kills. It kills the very good and the very gentle and the very brave impartially. If you are none of these, you can be sure that it will kill you too, but there will be no special hurry.
— Ernest Hemingway

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by 1.61803, posted 12-06-2009 2:04 PM 1.61803 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by 1.61803, posted 12-07-2009 3:20 PM lyx2no has responded

  
1.61803
Member
Posts: 2817
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 124 of 160 (538475)
12-07-2009 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Modulous
12-06-2009 7:17 PM


Re: the mind and the physical
Greetings Modulous, (btw, I dig bands from Manchester and enjoy that show Shameless
The mind, the the physicalist might say, is not a noun, but a verb.
Well you cant run without legs, But you can in dreams.

I believe it is both. Like almost everything in nature a combination of properties. Positive & Negative, Male & Female, Matter & anti-matter, Deterministic & non Deterministic, Physical & non-physical.

As far as the Universe being deterministic goes I believe it is. To a point. http://sulcus.berkeley.edu/wjf/BD.Stochastic.chaos.name.pdf
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/chao-dyn/pdf/9306/9306005v1.pdf
http://www.physics.mcgill.ca/...vejoy/neweprint/stochall.pdf
I believe we should not abandon the notion of non-physical until we have a deeper understanding.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Modulous, posted 12-06-2009 7:17 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Modulous, posted 12-07-2009 5:14 PM 1.61803 has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10284
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 125 of 160 (538488)
12-07-2009 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by 1.61803
12-04-2009 10:16 PM


Re: Wonderous Ignorance?
1.6 writes:

I would rather be ignorant in wonder than certain of my nihlism.

I pity your attitude to life.

There is no need to be nihilistic. Certainty is a fools pursuit. And Basking in ignorance remains far from wonderous. No mater how pretttily you might phrase it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by 1.61803, posted 12-04-2009 10:16 PM 1.61803 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by 1.61803, posted 12-07-2009 3:25 PM Straggler has responded

  
1.61803
Member
Posts: 2817
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 126 of 160 (538503)
12-07-2009 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by lyx2no
12-07-2009 3:18 AM


Re: Out of the Blue
Greetings Lyx2NO!
What I find intriguing about this kind of research is the why of it.
The why of it is that Dr. Randi stated he would pay a million dollars to the author if he could provide evidence of this though a double blind independant study. They declined, and then came up with there own study.
What gave these guy the idea that thinking good thoughts at water would produce more ascetically pleasing crystals? Usually an experiment is an attempt to confirm a prediction demanded by an hypothesis. What was their hypothesis that lead them down this trail?
A better question I think is why would something subjective as asthetics or beauty of the crystals be used as a basis for determinining positive thoughts verses negative. This is in itself bias and anthropomophizing to happy & good thoughts= pretty crystals compared to; mean & mad thought = ugly crystals.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by lyx2no, posted 12-07-2009 3:18 AM lyx2no has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by lyx2no, posted 12-07-2009 4:08 PM 1.61803 has responded

  
1.61803
Member
Posts: 2817
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 127 of 160 (538504)
12-07-2009 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by Straggler
12-07-2009 2:07 PM


Re: Wonderous Ignorance?
Hi Straggler,

I pity your attitude to life.

I have never had anyone tell me that before.
I am not sure how to respond.
I guess I should re-examine my life and figure out where I went wrong.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Straggler, posted 12-07-2009 2:07 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Straggler, posted 12-07-2009 3:32 PM 1.61803 has acknowledged this reply

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10284
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 128 of 160 (538506)
12-07-2009 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by 1.61803
12-07-2009 3:25 PM


Re: Wonderous Ignorance?
1.6 writes:

I guess I should re-examine my life and figure out where I went wrong.

Well I would advise against starting from the base assumption that you went "wrong" as such. That seems a little nihilistic for my tastes. More re-examine your life and see if you are where you want to be I guess.

But that aside it sounds like a fun quest and one that we should all contemplate from time to time.

Enjoy.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by 1.61803, posted 12-07-2009 3:25 PM 1.61803 has acknowledged this reply

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 2793 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 129 of 160 (538511)
12-07-2009 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by 1.61803
12-07-2009 3:20 PM


Re: Out of the Blue
The why of it is that Dr. Randi stated he would pay a million dollars to the author if he could provide evidence of this though a double blind independant study.

This entirely misses the point. Why did they think that thinking good thoughts at water would produce more ascetically pleasing crystals? Did they just select something out of the blue as my header suggests, or did they have a hypothesis that predicted that thinking good thoughts at water would produce more ascetically pleasing crystals? What would that hypothesis be?

A better question I think is why would something subjective as asthetics or beauty of the crystals be used as a basis for determinining positive thoughts verses negative.

A man is blindly guessing at what is behind curtain #1:

"Is it a red hat?"
"No."
"Is it a blue hat?"
"No."
"Is it a Green hat?"
"No."
"Is it a Black hat?"
"No."
"Is it a Yellow hat?"
"No."
"Is it…

What is the sense of randomly guessing the details of an object before confirming the gross character of the object?

Getting back to the topic:

How do you reconcile:

I do not believe in magic other than it's ability to confound.

with:

I believe we should not abandon the notion of non-physical until we have a deeper understanding.

Eliminating the physical causes leaves us with magical causes.


The world breaks everyone, and afterward many are strong at the broken places. But those it cannot break, it kills. It kills the very good and the very gentle and the very brave impartially. If you are none of these, you can be sure that it will kill you too, but there will be no special hurry.
— Ernest Hemingway

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by 1.61803, posted 12-07-2009 3:20 PM 1.61803 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by 1.61803, posted 12-07-2009 7:55 PM lyx2no has responded
 Message 142 by Otto Tellick, posted 12-11-2009 5:27 AM lyx2no has not yet responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 181 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 130 of 160 (538523)
12-07-2009 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by 1.61803
12-07-2009 12:32 PM


Re: the mind and the physical
Well you cant run without legs, But you can in dreams.

I'm not sure what your point is.

I believe it is both.

I had picked up on that. Do you think that we have reached a point in consciousness studies where we should concentrate on non-physical explanations?

I believe we should not abandon the notion of non-physical until we have a deeper understanding.

I believe we should not investigate the notions of the non-physical until a reason to do so presents itself. Do you think there exists a reason to do so? I'm not 'abandoning' the non-physical in the sense of simply refusing to consider it - I just don't see what use considering such explanations has. We've been exploring them for our whole history but it seems that only when we exclude them and investigate the physical alone that we actually make interesting advancements in understanding and technology.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by 1.61803, posted 12-07-2009 12:32 PM 1.61803 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by 1.61803, posted 12-07-2009 10:26 PM Modulous has acknowledged this reply

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 131 of 160 (538550)
12-07-2009 7:51 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by PaulK
12-05-2009 1:19 AM


Re: The Non-Materialistic Explanation
PaulK writes:

Aside from the fact that the whole TV idea is an incredibly dubious interpretation, there is still no requirement in Islam to actually worship a TV picture, a TV or anything that could be shown on a TV. Just the opposite. In other words this scenario is NOT plausible and can be entirely attributed to your imagination. Nothing supernatural is required to "explain" it at all.

Your strawman argument does not address my postion. I did not allege that there was in place now any Islamic requirement to worship and image on TV. My position is that the tech is advancing and it is feasible that given the power and tech, which appears to be emerging this could soon be implemented. It is a fact that in some totalitarien cultures kneeling and praying towards Mecca is either required or urged.

Edited by AdminModulous, : fixed quote tag


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by PaulK, posted 12-05-2009 1:19 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by PaulK, posted 12-08-2009 12:48 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
1.61803
Member
Posts: 2817
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 132 of 160 (538552)
12-07-2009 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by lyx2no
12-07-2009 4:08 PM


Re: Out of the Blue
Magic is unexplained phenomenon that confounds until the trick is learned. Magic is entertainment.

Intuition, Dreams, conciousness,language, ideas are examples of how the non physical can influence and direct our decisions.

I mentioned that the forces of nature are non physical and was told that they are considered physical. Even though they are not composed of matter or have mass.

I am not sure what is being asked. Is your point that there is nothing in the universe that can be called non physical? Therefore the notion should be dispensed with ouright?

I believe there is more to the universe than the sum of its parts.
Just as I believe there is more to a human being than the sum of its parts. I know, I know, click copy quote and destroy. Why would anyone think such things. Call me a romantic.

Edited by 1.61803, : added language.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by lyx2no, posted 12-07-2009 4:08 PM lyx2no has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by lyx2no, posted 12-07-2009 10:55 PM 1.61803 has responded

  
1.61803
Member
Posts: 2817
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 133 of 160 (538565)
12-07-2009 10:26 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by Modulous
12-07-2009 5:14 PM


Re: the mind and the physical
Greetings Modulus,
I am not involved in neuro research. I do happen to work in the research field for pharmaceutical companies as well as respiratory medicine. I have seen over the course of several years the research and FDA approval and marketing of monoclonal medications for respiratory disease. If someone told me fifteen years ago such a thing was possible I would have scoffed. We are now treating asthma on a level far up the immunological inflammatory cascade before the damages of cytokines take place.

I say this because all research fields ar always in flux.You may yourself be doing research. Some say what a difference a day makes is an understatement. Serendipity and luck sometimes really means the difference in breakthroughs. Some say the immune system may be the first consciousness of an organism. Now that sounds far out and ridiculous. It may be rubbish. Or maybe ten years from now someone may link the immune system with consciousness. Today the academics are even talking about how the fluctuations of adrenergics in autonomic nervous system could be responsible for a whole host of disease previously thought to be isolated as individual disorders.

I do agree with you though in that I do not see how science could ever glean knowledge from the unknowable.

Edited by 1.61803, : spelling,grammer


This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Modulous, posted 12-07-2009 5:14 PM Modulous has acknowledged this reply

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 2793 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 134 of 160 (538569)
12-07-2009 10:55 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by 1.61803
12-07-2009 7:55 PM


Re: Out of the Blue
Magic is unexplained phenomenon that confounds until the trick is learned. Magic is entertainment.

I'd hoped we'd gotten past equivocation. If there is a coin hidden behind the kids ear, or Scotty beams the quarter behind the kids ear, for the magician to remove, we have a magic trick. If a genie pops the quarter behind the kids ear using no known or unknown forces of nature (having cause and effect relationships) we have magic. It is the latter that is of interest.

Intuition, Dreams, conciousness,language, ideas are examples of how the non physical can influence and direct our decisions.

Labeling an idea as non-physical is trivial. None of the above is example of what is meant by non-physical in this discussion. An idea generated by a brain, the brain then using the idea as impetus to act through the body has no unnatural (having no cause and effect relationships) elements. Everything one does has a non-materialistic explanation in that case.

Is your point that there is nothing in the universe that can be called non physical?

Yes.

Therefore the notion should be dispensed with ouright?

The question is "can it?". I think it can with a certainty of 99.999999999…%. Others, however, believe anything they personally don't understand intuitively is caused by unnatural forces. So, At what point should we look for a non-materialistic explanation?

I believe there is more to the universe than the sum of its parts.

Maybe.

… there is more to a human being than the sum of its parts.

Clearly.


The world breaks everyone, and afterward many are strong at the broken places. But those it cannot break, it kills. It kills the very good and the very gentle and the very brave impartially. If you are none of these, you can be sure that it will kill you too, but there will be no special hurry.
— Ernest Hemingway

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by 1.61803, posted 12-07-2009 7:55 PM 1.61803 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by 1.61803, posted 12-08-2009 10:37 AM lyx2no has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14750
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 135 of 160 (538576)
12-08-2009 12:48 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by Buzsaw
12-07-2009 7:51 PM


Re: The Non-Materialistic Explanation
quote:

Your strawman argument does not address my postion. I did not allege that there was in place now any Islamic requirement to worship and image on TV.

As usual you are misrepresenting the facts.

In Re: The Non-Materialistic Explanation (Message 85) you asserted.


The penalty of refusal to worship the image will be punishable by death, as per Shariah Islamic law. Many who refuse will be beheaded as per Revelation 20 and Islamic tradition.

You explicitly said that Islam would demand worship of the image, and you did not explicitly retract it.

quote:

My position is that the tech is advancing and it is feasible that given the power and tech, which appears to be emerging this could soon be implemented.

And, of course, your NEW position has nothing to do with Biblical prophecy - which IS about worshipping an image, specifically the image of the Beast.

Revelation 13:15


...it was given to him to give breath to the image of the beast, so that the image of the beast would even speak and cause as many as do not worship the image of the beast to be killed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Buzsaw, posted 12-07-2009 7:51 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

    
Prev1
...
678
9
1011Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019