On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 13:51, Lonnie Olson wrote:
> On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 1:31 PM, Alan Young wrote:
>> Isn't that kind of like someone who has never played football, doesn't
>> like football and think football should be banned claiming to
>> understand football?
>
> Nope. Using your same ana
On 27 May 2011, at 14:21, Lonnie Olson wrote:
> On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Jonathan Duncan
> wrote:
>> We are not actually indigenous to this planet. We are actually aliens from
>> another dimension of the universe. We are created from a material that in
>> this current dimension would
On 5/27/2011 2:21 PM, Lonnie Olson wrote:
> On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Jonathan Duncan
> wrote:
>> We are not actually indigenous to this planet. We are actually aliens from
>> another dimension of the universe. We are created from a material that in
>> this current dimension would be c
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Jonathan Duncan
wrote:
> We are not actually indigenous to this planet. We are actually aliens from
> another dimension of the universe. We are created from a material that in
> this current dimension would be considered so fine that it cannot be seen.
> Spir
On 27 May 2011, at 13:51, Lonnie Olson wrote:
> Nope. Using your same analogy it's more like:
> Someone who was forced to play as a kid and sucked, has studied
> football from many teams perspectives, still sucks, and gave up
> trying.
> But continuing to be fascinated by it as curious entertain
Jason P. Van Patten
Website Development
ja...@infogenix.com
Infogenix: www.infogenix.com
On 5/27/2011 1:43 PM, Alan Young wrote:
> On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 13:26, Jason Van Patten wrote:
>> On 5/27/2011 1:19 PM, Alan Young wrote:
>>> Why would the soul *have* to share that information while insta
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 1:31 PM, Alan Young wrote:
>> I only have the sum of the doctrines taught by major religions to compare.
>
> Isn't that kind of like someone who has never played football, doesn't
> like football and think football should be banned claiming to
> understand football?
Nope.
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 13:26, Jason Van Patten wrote:
> On 5/27/2011 1:19 PM, Alan Young wrote:
>> Why would the soul *have* to share that information while instantiated
>> in corporeal form?
>
> out of a desire to prevent the consequences of good or evil actions to
> it's other forms
Ok ... I s
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 13:24, Lonnie Olson wrote:
> Since I don't believe in God, I have no comparison.
Hmmm ... if God stopped believing in you, would you cease to exist? :>
> I only have the sum of the doctrines taught by major religions to compare.
Isn't that kind of like someone who has ne
On 5/27/2011 1:19 PM, Alan Young wrote:
> On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 13:12, Jason Van Patten wrote:
>> If it is possible for a soul to inhabit more than one body then the
>> value of "good" and "evil" is irrelevant to the corporeal versions of
>> that soul. Otherwise the soul would have or create a m
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 1:14 PM, Alan Young wrote:
> They are, unfortunately. Are you making the standard mistake of
> equating what imperfect man says God says to what God really says?
>
> I have one guiding principle when thinking of how things are or might
> be. They can be summed up in two q
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Lonnie Olson wrote:
> On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 10:13 AM, Daniel C. wrote:
>> Some infinities are larger than others. Consider the set of all
>> numbers between 0 and 1 - there are an infinite number of them. (0.1,
>> 0.01, etc.) The set of all numbers between 0
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 13:12, Jason Van Patten wrote:
> If it is possible for a soul to inhabit more than one body then the
> value of "good" and "evil" is irrelevant to the corporeal versions of
> that soul. Otherwise the soul would have or create a means to share that
> information with each of
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 13:09, Lonnie Olson wrote:
> Aren't these ideas considered heretical in most religious circles?
> Shall we see if you can float? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g
They are, unfortunately. Are you making the standard mistake of
equating what imperfect man says Go
> Not necessarily. Most religions believe the soul is actually *more*
> than what we perceive it to be here. Why couldn't a single soul
> inhabit multiple instances of a body?
If it is possible for a soul to inhabit more than one body then the
value of "good" and "evil" is irrelevant to the cor
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 13:04, Lonnie Olson wrote:
> I've heard that souls are more than what we perceive, but i've never
> heard anyone teaching that souls can/do inhabit multiple instances of
> a body. Not that I actually believe in a soul, but i'd be interested
> to hear more about that partic
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Alan Young wrote:
> There is also the opposite idea--though I don't think it has much
> validity--of multiple souls controlling a single body. Of course, I
> may just not like the idea of multiple souls controlling my body ...
Aren't these ideas considered hereti
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 13:02, John Shaver wrote:
> On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 12:54 PM, Alan Young wrote:
>> Not necessarily. Most religions believe the soul is actually *more*
>> than what we perceive it to be here. Why couldn't a single soul
>> inhabit multiple instances of a body?
>
> You mean
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 12:54 PM, Alan Young wrote:
> Not necessarily. Most religions believe the soul is actually *more*
> than what we perceive it to be here. Why couldn't a single soul
> inhabit multiple instances of a body?
I've heard that souls are more than what we perceive, but i've neve
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 12:54 PM, Alan Young wrote:
> Not necessarily. Most religions believe the soul is actually *more*
> than what we perceive it to be here. Why couldn't a single soul
> inhabit multiple instances of a body?
You mean like dual-boxing?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-box
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 12:49, Lonnie Olson wrote:
> infinity is already fully encompassing that result. There is no value
> greater than infinity.
X > infinity
There you go ... the value of X is greater than infinity.
--
Alan Young
/*
PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net
Unsubscr
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 10:02, Lonnie Olson wrote:
> If the Universe is infinite how could it be expanding. An object of
If the Universe is infinite then what appears to us as expansion is
just the observable universe moving away from us and each other.
These are not mutually exclusive ideas.
>
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 10:13 AM, Daniel C. wrote:
> Some infinities are larger than others. Consider the set of all
> numbers between 0 and 1 - there are an infinite number of them. (0.1,
> 0.01, etc.) The set of all numbers between 0 and 2 (or, for that
> matter, 0 and 1.1) is also infinite,
On 5/27/2011 10:13 AM, Daniel C. wrote:
> On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Lonnie Olson wrote:
>> If the Universe is infinite how could it be expanding. An object of
>> infinite size is already at maximum, and can therefore not expand any
>> larger. An object that is expanding is getting larger
On Thursday 26 May 2011, Michael Torrie wrote:
> On 05/26/2011 07:32 PM, S. Dale Morrey wrote:
> > Thoughts?
>
> For the Jakes on the list, do cosmologists agree that the universe is
> not infinite in size? Just wondering.
The question to ask is: Is the universe "open", "closed" or "flat".
h
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Lonnie Olson wrote:
> Though the idea of an identical Stuart does seem frightening, I can
> understand why you wouldn't want to believe that. :)
Heck, I don't even believe in the original Stuart. I have met him
personally at bygone Plug meetings, but I can't be
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Lonnie Olson wrote:
> If the Universe is infinite how could it be expanding. An object of
> infinite size is already at maximum, and can therefore not expand any
> larger. An object that is expanding is getting larger, therefore is
> not yet at infinite size. B
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 8:53 PM, Tod Hansmann wrote:
> While I don't speak for any cosmologists or physicists or the like, I
> will say that the definition of "infinite" and how we might perceive
> such a thing in relation to how we perceive the universe currently, is
> in my opinion a much more i
On Thu, 2011-05-26 at 19:39 -0600, Michael Torrie wrote:
> For the Jakes on the list, do cosmologists agree that the universe is
> not infinite in size?
Given that God is infinite,
and the universe is also infinite,
would you like a toasted tea cake?
-- Talkie Toaster
/*
PLUG: http://plug.o
On 05/26/2011 07:39 PM, Michael Torrie wrote:
> On 05/26/2011 07:32 PM, S. Dale Morrey wrote:
>> Thoughts?
>
> For the Jakes on the list, do cosmologists agree that the universe is
> not infinite in size? Just wondering. While my own personal religious
> beliefs accommodate almost all of science
On 5/26/2011 7:39 PM, Michael Torrie wrote:
> On 05/26/2011 07:32 PM, S. Dale Morrey wrote:
>> Thoughts?
> For the Jakes on the list, do cosmologists agree that the universe is
> not infinite in size? Just wondering. While my own personal religious
> beliefs accommodate almost all of science curr
On 05/26/2011 07:32 PM, S. Dale Morrey wrote:
> Thoughts?
For the Jakes on the list, do cosmologists agree that the universe is
not infinite in size? Just wondering. While my own personal religious
beliefs accommodate almost all of science currently, from some sort of
big bang to evolution, it d
In an effort to drag the topic kicking and screaming out of the other
thread I've decided to post my own personal thoughts on the big bang.
My theory is grounded more in philosophy that science, because quite
frankly I'm not a physicist, just an arm chair scientist at best.
The big bang is postul
33 matches
Mail list logo
