Burden of Proof

[Jan Ardena]

Originally posted by Barkhorn1x
Chapter and verse please?

The Scripture is; The Srimad Bhagavatam. Here are a few exerts;

SB 3.11.1: The material manifestation's ultimate particle, which is indivisible and not formed into a body, is called the atom. It exists always as an invisible identity, even after the dissolution of all forms. The material body is but a combination of such atoms, but it is misunderstood by the common man.

SB 3.11.2: Atoms are the ultimate state of the manifest universe. When they stay in their own forms without forming different bodies, they are called the unlimited oneness. There are certainly different bodies in physical forms, but the atoms themselves form the complete manifestation.

SB 3.11.3: One can estimate time by measuring the movement of the atomic combination of bodies. Time is the potency of the almighty Personality of Godhead, Hari, who controls all physical movement although He is not visible in the physical world.

The burden of proof is on you to prove that god (or Santa, the Easter Bunny, IPU's, etc.) exists, not the skeptic - do pay attention.

I have not claimed any existence (not in this thread anywayz), but the claim was made by godless that scriptures are nothing more than primitive mans imagination, indirectly stating the non-existence of God. So again i ask, where is the proof?

According to who?

According to the intelligent class of men.

You know this to be true how?

Well, while in Rome, St. Jerome was commisioned by Pope Damascus to to revise the translation of the gospels and the psalms. To do this he used the 'Septuagint' text which was the original Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament, made in Alexandria, Egypt.
Where did he get that manuscript?
Is that manuscript still around today?
If so, where, if not in the Vatican?

And, if "in truth you cannot know what the real bible says", then how can anyone base their belief system on it (BTW, your last sentence here makes NO sense)?

I disagree, it makes perfect sense.

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[Tiassa]

The burden of proof, in as few words as possible.

Let's use hypothetical religious person X and hypothetical atheist Y.

• If it's just a matter of what X believes, the burden of proof is on Y
• If X wishes to extend his beliefs into the public arena with authority (e.g. legislate religion) the burden is on X
• As a general rule for examining the abstract, the assertion of what cannot be conventionally perceived--e.g. God--must be proven; the burden falls on X
• If Y wishes to outlaw religion--e.g. amend US First Amendment--the burden falls on Y

I'm quite sure I've left out a couple of conditions, but in the end, we must consider why the issue is discussed at all.

 

[(Q)]

If it's just a matter of what X believes, the burden of proof is on Y

Who made the claim in this example?

 

[okinrus]

Well, while in Rome, St. Jerome was commisioned by Pope Damascus to to revise the translation of the gospels and the psalms. To do this he used the 'Septuagint' text which was the original Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament, made in Alexandria, Egypt.

I don't beileve that St. Jerome relied on the Septuagint as much as other translations though. He spent some time with rabbis in order to learn hebrew.

Where did he get that manuscript?

This manuscript is the one that the early Christian writers quoted from. It was the only way Greek speaking hebrews could read the Old Testament.

Is that manuscript still around today?

Yes, we have it.

If so, where, if not in the Vatican?

I think the Septuagint was preserved by monks like most of our texts and the Massoretic hebrew text was perserved in the Hebrew societies away from the Vatican. Because both manuscripts match up except for minor differences, it's unlikely that any major corruption occurred. Furthermore, with the finding of the dead sea scrolls, we know that the prophesies concerning the Messiah were not written after the fact.

Wow!! your really puting on the assumptions here, purely apolegetics..

Well there's the open view theology that does not believe that God knows all of our future actions. Revelatiuon 2:21 says, "I have given her time to repent, but she refuses to repent of her harlotry." If God truely knew the complete future, than he would not have needed to give her time to repent. He would have known that she would not have repented.

 

[jcarl]

Originally posted by Barkhorn1x

The burden of proof is on you to prove that god exists, not the skeptic - do pay attention.

Alright, then here is one evidence of God's existence

Orginally posted by me
Alright, I'll say this like I've said it to others. The universe has a cause. It must, b/c to say the universe exists eternally doesn't fit in with many scienitfic principles/observations. Furthermore, the universe must have a cause for its continuation. Why? Becuase it and the stuff within it is finite. These kind of things change, so they can't be eternal and thus need a cause. Now you can say that this thing in the universe exists and this force acts on it, and so on, but eventually you must run into the wall that there must be something that doesn't change and is w/o cause(eternal). So the cause of all the things within this universe, since all things are finite, must be something that is eternal and outside of this realm.

There is one of my proofs of God. I have given evidence, just like a defense attorney would. Now it is up to the prosecution to either refute this or bring up superior evidence stating contrary. Is this not how a debate should be conducted?

 

[Repo Man]

I have to give Okinrus credit, he reads linked material.

I'll just let B.R. say it in his own words. Any attempt by me to paraphrase it would only diminish it.

The First Cause Argument

Perhaps the simplest and easiest to understand is the argument of the First Cause. It is maintained that everything we see in this world has a cause, and as you go back in the chain of causes further and further you must come to a First Cause, and to that First Cause you give the name of God. That argument, I suppose, does not carry very much weight nowadays, because, in the first place, cause is not quite what it used to be. The philosophers and the men of science have got going on cause, and it has not anything like the vitality that it used to have; but apart from that, you can see that the argument that there must be a First Cause is one that cannot have any validity. I may say that when I was a young man, and was debating these questions very seriously in my mind, I for a long time accepted the argument of the First Cause, until one day, at the age of eighteen, I read John Stuart Mill's Autobiography, and I there found this sentence: "My father taught me that the question, Who made me? cannot be answered, since it immediately suggests the further question, Who made God?" That very simple sentence showed me, as I still think, the fallacy in the argument of the First Cause. If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument. It is exactly of the same nature as the Hindu's view, that the world rested upon an elephant, and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said, "How about the tortoise?" the Indian said, "Suppose we change the subject." The argument is really no better than that. There is no reason why the world could not have come into being without a cause; nor, on the other hand, is there any reason why it should not have always existed. There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our imagination. Therefore, perhaps, I need not waste any more time upon the argument about the First Cause.

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/russell0.htm

 

[jcarl]

Misconception. Everything that exists doesn't need a cause; everything that has a beginning needs a cause. Think about it: if everything needed a cause, then nothing would be created because something else had to come before it; it's an Infinite Regress. Eventually you gotta hit a brick wall that has no cause; it's just eternal.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Originally posted by jcarl
Misconception. Everything that exists doesn't need a cause; everything that has a beginning needs a cause. Think about it: if everything needed a cause, then nothing would be created because something else had to come before it; it's an Infinite Regress. Eventually you gotta hit a brick wall that has no cause; it's just eternal.

----------
M*W: jcarl, I tend to agree with you on this. Maybe there was no "beginning." Maybe the way we think we see a "beginning" is actually the middle or the end of something else. Maybe there is no "end." It's our perception that hit's the brick wall and not reality.

I believe in the human race. I believe we evolved. I believe there will be no end to the human race. Maybe the way we are NOW will come to an end but be the beginning of a more evolved human race.

When I was a Christian, I remember so well the Nicene Creed which says "...world without end. Amen."

I believe we are "caught-up" in the time period in which we exist. This is the part we "believe," because we know it for sure. We just don't know where our soul came from, and we don't know where it goes when our body is through with it.

I believe the state we are in "before" birth is with God, and the state we go to when our body leaves us, we are with God also. The time in between that we know we live, is STILL with One in Being with God, but people just don't understand that part of it, because they want to believe God is a higher entity than humanity.

Before we were born, we existed as One with the Creator God. When we were born, we became the child (creation) of God on Earth. After our body (temple) goes into genetic decay, and we shed our Earthsuit, we become One with God in Spirit.

Our human understanding here on Earth, is limited to what we know and understand. For some reason, human beings are "afraid" to see themselves as part of the Godhead (I prefer the One Spirit of God), or to understand that God does actually dwell within the body of the human race. That's why we question. That's why we search, and all the while, God was right here with us as creator, as creation, and as the divine inspiration for all eternity.

I don't believe it is complicated, really! We are One with the Creator. We are One with Humanity. We are One in the Spirit of God. Eternally. Cyclically. We are the One True God.

 

[Repo Man]

Ok, Jcarl, here is the way Carl Sagan put in Cosmos;
"If you ask the question, "how was the universe created", and the answer is "god", then the next question is, "what created god?"

If the answer is, "I don't know what created god", then why not save a step, and say, "I don't know how the universe was created"?

If the answer is, "god has existed forever", then why not save a step, and say "the universe has existed forever"?

 

[Godless]

And yet throw another religion on the stake..

Jan thanks I have done some extencive research in Hinduism and the Krishna phylosophies.

I don't buy it!.

Werent these the people who hung around airports giving away books?.

godless that scriptures are nothing more than primitive mans imagination, indirectly stating the non-existence of God.

Well you got that inderectly wrong, the existence of god, was not in my mind when I made the above statement. However my statement still stands, by this study of anthropology ref. Julian Jaynes "THE ORIGINS OF CONSCIOUSNESS IN THE BREAK DOWN OF THE BICAMERAL MIND."

A little historie on Krishna can be found here:

http://free.freespeech.org/india100/krishna.htm

Does not sound to holy to me!!

Quote:
SB 3.11.1: The material manifestation's ultimate particle, which is indivisible and not formed into a body, is called the atom. It exists always as an invisible identity, even after the dissolution of all forms. The material body is but a combination of such atoms, but it is misunderstood by the common man.

SB 3.11.2: Atoms are the ultimate state of the manifest universe. When they stay in their own forms without forming different bodies, they are called the unlimited oneness. There are certainly different bodies in physical forms, but the atoms themselves form the complete manifestation.

SB 3.11.3: One can estimate time by measuring the movement of the atomic combination of bodies. Time is the potency of the almighty Personality of Godhead, Hari, who controls all physical movement although He is not visible in the physical world.
==============
You know that is pretty good coming from primitive minds. Yet this is a translation it is hard to believe this to be true!. Christians websites have some beefs with all above assertions, though who can trust them, I didn't find many atheist refuting the above, not at least on limited search on the net. However maybe atheist just not wanted to waste their time with yet another claim at "supernatural intelegence".

Yet another link to refute Krishna;
http://free.freespeech.org/india100/brah_sc.html

Chapter and verse please?

We speak bible, Jan throws us off by inserting Indian culture beliefs.

However Srimad Bhagavatam, is an ancient text, though not considered mainstream "unless you travel through airports in the 70's a whole lot". And belive stuff such as this:
Arya (Indo-Aryan) texts repeatedly affirm that the Earth is supported by a serpent. The earths are seven in number, like 7 covers one above the other, the upper one is divided into 7 regions [ al-B. i.228 ]. There exists a serpent, Seshakhya, under the 7th lowest Earth, it has 1000 heads, so it feels no pain and bears the earths one above the other [ al-B. i.237 ]. Other texts say that the Earth is supported on a giant tortoise. Still others hold that this tortoise is in turn on top of a giant snake [ Kovoor 158 ]. Some other texts claim the Earth is held by 4 pillars, held by an elephant seated on a big tortoise [ Panda 69 ]. According to Balabhadra, the earth is in the midst of water, the lower part is immersed in water and the part above the water is round like the back of a tortoise [ al-B i.273 ].

The surprising thing is that these texts were composed in the early centuries AD. The enlightened Greeks came to India in the centuries BC, yet there is no indication of any renaissance due to this influence. Some Greek texts were apparently copied into Sanskrit, but no intellectual revolution took place. As far as geography is concerned, India remained in the Vedic Dark Ages right up to the 10th century and the introduction of Islam.

Jcarl I'll get back to you latter I had to do research on the above so it took some time studying yet another mystic belief, which Jan likes throwing around here as if it was the true light of enlightenment, yet another mystic which claims the path to bliss.




Godless.

 

[Raithere]

Commentary on the Srimad Bhagavatam's description of the atom.

SB 3.11.1: The material manifestation's ultimate particle, which is indivisible and not formed into a body, is called the atom.

Comment: The atom is divisible.

It exists always as an invisible identity, even after the dissolution of all forms.

Comment: The atom is visible under an electron microscope.

The material body is but a combination of such atoms, but it is misunderstood by the common man.

Comment: Whether an atom is truly 'material' is debatable under quantum mechanics; atoms have been demonstrated to have the same waveform properties as other quantum particles. Otherwise, this is correct.

SB 3.11.2: Atoms are the ultimate state of the manifest universe. When they stay in their own forms without forming different bodies, they are called the unlimited oneness. There are certainly different bodies in physical forms, but the atoms themselves form the complete manifestation.

Comment: Atoms are not all alike; atoms vary in composition which is why we have the various elements. The Universe is also comprised of other 'particles' such as photons which are not atoms, therefore atoms do not form the complete manifestation. Also see above reference to the quantum properties of atoms.

SB 3.11.3: One can estimate time by measuring the movement of the atomic combination of bodies.

Not a bad observation, this. Had to wait until Einstein to understand the ramifications of it though.

Time is the potency of the almighty Personality of Godhead, Hari, who controls all physical movement although He is not visible in the physical world.

Comment: I'm not sure that 'time is the potency of the almighty' has any real meaning and if Hari is in control of all physical movement then he just caused me to type this commentary.

~Raithere

 

[Barkhorn1x]

Re: The burden of proof, in as few words as possible.

Originally posted by tiassa
• If it's just a matter of what X believes, the burden of proof is on Y

I'm quite sure I've left out a couple of conditions, but in the end, we must consider why the issue is discussed at all.

Because, if X BELIEVES - w/o a shred of evidence - in some diety or concept then X is irrational. And, society pays a price when there are too many X types running around. IOW, faith KILLS.

Jcarl;

Repo Man beat me to the response to your "First Cause" hypothesis.

Barekhorn.

 

[jcarl]

Originally posted by Repo Man
Ok, Jcarl, here is the way Carl Sagan put in Cosmos;
"If you ask the question, "how was the universe created", and the answer is "god", then the next question is, "what created god?"

If something did then God wouldn't be God, thus creating the Infinite Regress I've been talking about. You can't say "Everything that exists has a cause" because of the Infinite Regress, one thing making another, making another, continuing on infinitely. There's got to be something eternal to get the ball rolling.

If the answer is, "god has existed forever", then why not save a step, and say "the universe has existed forever"?

To say that the universe existed forever doesn't coincide with several scientific principles/observations: Entropy for one; usable energy is running down, meaning it has an end. What has an end has a beginning. The Motion of the Galaxies is another; the universe is expanding, so it must have had some starting point. Another is the Radiation Echo; there is low-level radiation coming from everywhere. The frequency of this low-level radiation has exactly the same pattern of a wave length expected from the light and heat that would be produced in a great explosion. Clearly the universe had some start.

Furthermore, it's a general principle that nothing in this universe can be infinite, as you can measure parts of it. If you can measure something, then it's not infinite. So God, being infinite, would have to be outside of this universe/realm. So, you can't hop on the Magic School Bus and go to see Him.

But I digress; the answer is that God existed eternally.

 

[Godless]

OOOH Great Jcarl..

It seems as if debunking religious dogma by using the bible is not enough but throwing some science in the mix is a good thing too.

To say that the universe existed forever doesn't coincide with several scientific principles/observations: Entropy for one; usable energy is running down, meaning it has an end. What has an end has a beginning. The Motion of the Galaxies is another; the universe is expanding, so it must have had some starting point. Another is the Radiation Echo; there is low-level radiation coming from everywhere. The frequency of this low-level radiation has exactly the same pattern of a wave length expected from the light and heat that would be produced in a great explosion. Clearly the universe had some start.

True we can agree the universe had a beggining with the big bang theory, however this does not demonstrate the existence of an entity in another realm of existence that caused such an event, this is contradictory to metaphysics.

If I were to postulate for a second that another dimention of existence exists of another realm of existence, then by the findings of this existence and this realm, it is posible to postulate that the realm of beyond this existence also had to had had a beggining then the infinite regress exists in another dimention or realm as well. A beign such as god had to had had a begining, no exception to the law of physics beyond realms can possibly exists!.

Quoting on quantum physicists Edward Tryon:

quantum electrodynamics reveals that an electron, positron, and photon occasionally emerge spontaneously in a perfect vacuum. When this happens, the three particles exist for a brief time, and then annihilate each other, leaving no trace behind. (Energy conservation is violated, but only for a particle lifetime Dt permitted by the uncertainty DtDE~h where DE is the net energy of the particles and h is Planck's constant.) The spontaneous, temporary emergence of particles from a vacuum is called a vacuum fluctuation, and is utterly commonplace in quantum field theory.

A particle produced by a vacuum fluctuation has no cause. Since vacuum fluctuations are commonplace, god cannot be the only thing that is uncaused.

And I leave it here, and leave you the reference so you can read about it!.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_schick/bigbang.html

My apolegies for taking quite a while, I still will get back to the theological debate we were having when I find the time.

Godless.

 

[Katazia]

Jcarl,

Please read the views from the leading scientists in cosmology who have recently proposed and re-introduced the cyclic universe concept primarily because of our new realization of dark energy. This theory resolves all your issues concerning infinity and entropy and requires no beginning or end, and hence no need for a creation event or any needs for gods or a spiritual realm.

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/steinhardt02/steinhardt02_print.html

http://physicsweb.org/article/news/6/4/21

Kat

 

[Jan Ardena]

Re: And yet throw another religion on the stake..

Originally posted by Godless Jan thanks I have done some extencive research in Hinduism and the Krishna phylosophies.

I don't buy it!.

Drat! I'll have to change my whole mindset.
Ahhhh!!

Werent these the people who hung around airports giving away books?.

Sounds like some nice people to me. Books are quite expensive ya know.

Well you got that inderectly wrong, the existence of god, was not in my mind when I made the above statement.

So even though you believe the existence of God was formed by primitive imagination, you still think God could exist?

A little historie on Krishna can be found here:

http://free.freespeech.org/india100/krishna.htm

I'm not really a "he said then she said" kind of guy, if you want to discuss Krishna Consciousness i suggest you use proper literature like Srimad Bhagavad Gita.

Does not sound to holy to me!!

What do you know!

You know that is pretty good coming from primitive minds. Yet this is a translation it is hard to believe this to be true!.

Why?

S.B.3.11.1

maitreya uvāca
caramaḥ sad-viśeṣāṇām
aneko 'saṃyutaḥ sadā
paramāṇuḥ sa vijñeyo
nṛṇām aikya-bhramo yataḥ

maitreyaḥ uvāca — Maitreya said; caramaḥ — ultimate; sat — effect; viśeṣāṇām — symptoms; anekaḥ — innumerable; asaṃyutaḥ — unmixed; sadā — always; parama-aṇuḥ — atoms; saḥ — that; vijñeyaḥ — should be understood; nṛṇām — of men; aikya — oneness; bhramaḥ — mistaken; yataḥ — from which.
=============================================
S.B.3.11.2

sata eva padārthasya
svarūpāvasthitasya yat
kaivalyaṃ parama-mahān
aviśeṣo nirantaraḥ

sataḥ — of the effective manifestation; eva — certainly; pada-arthasya — of physical bodies; svarūpa-avasthitasya — staying in the same form even to the time of dissolution; yat — that which; kaivalyam — oneness; parama — the supreme; mahān — unlimited; aviśeṣaḥ — forms; nirantaraḥ — eternally.
==============================================
S.B.3.11.3

evaṃ kālo 'py anumitaḥ
saukṣmye sthaulye ca sattama
saṃsthāna-bhuktyā bhagavān
avyakto vyakta-bhug vibhuḥ

evam — thus; kālaḥ — time; api — also; anumitaḥ — measured; saukṣmye — in the subtle; sthaulye — in the gross forms; ca — also; sattama — O best; saṃsthāna — combinations of the atoms; bhuktyā — by the motion; bhagavān — the Supreme Personality of Godhead; avyaktaḥ — unmanifested; vyakta-bhuk — controlling all physical movement; vibhuḥ — the great potential.
==============================================

Seems to me you're in denial.

Christians websites have some beefs with all above assertions, though who can trust them,

Dem and niggers huh!

I didn't find many atheist refuting the above, not at least on limited search on the net.

Because many of them have been programmed only to refute institutionalised, man-made religions. I doubt whether your type would know what to look for, or where to look for it.

Yet another link to refute Krishna;
http://free.freespeech.org/india100/brah_sc.html

LOL!!!

We speak bible, Jan throws us off by inserting Indian culture beliefs.

Abaham came from Ur which i believe to be in Persia (Iraq), at that time (or close to) India was named 'Bharat', in fact the whole world was named Bharat, the name 'India' is a recent change in historical terms.
As his name suggests, he was a Brahmin (a first class human), only a person of such standard is fit to start a religion under the supervision of GOD.

The surprising thing is that these texts were composed in the early centuries AD.

Who by?

The enlightened Greeks came to India in the centuries BC, yet there is no indication of any renaissance due to this influence.

What does this have to do with anything?

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Re: Commentary on the Srimad Bhagavatam's description of the atom.

Originally posted by Raithere
SB 3.11.1: The material manifestation's ultimate particle, which is indivisible and not formed into a body, is called the atom.

Comment: The atom is divisible.

It exists always as an invisible identity, even after the dissolution of all forms.

Comment: The atom is visible under an electron microscope.

The material body is but a combination of such atoms, but it is misunderstood by the common man.

Comment: Whether an atom is truly 'material' is debatable under quantum mechanics; atoms have been demonstrated to have the same waveform properties as other quantum particles. Otherwise, this is correct.

SB 3.11.2: Atoms are the ultimate state of the manifest universe. When they stay in their own forms without forming different bodies, they are called the unlimited oneness. There are certainly different bodies in physical forms, but the atoms themselves form the complete manifestation.

Comment: Atoms are not all alike; atoms vary in composition which is why we have the various elements. The Universe is also comprised of other 'particles' such as photons which are not atoms, therefore atoms do not form the complete manifestation. Also see above reference to the quantum properties of atoms.

SB 3.11.3: One can estimate time by measuring the movement of the atomic combination of bodies.

Not a bad observation, this. Had to wait until Einstein to understand the ramifications of it though.

Time is the potency of the almighty Personality of Godhead, Hari, who controls all physical movement although He is not visible in the physical world.

Comment: I'm not sure that 'time is the potency of the almighty' has any real meaning and if Hari is in control of all physical movement then he just caused me to type this commentary.

~Raithere

Hi Raithere,

I believe there is more to the 'atom', than modern scientists, at this point in time, know. Perhaps you would like to read this essay....

http://www.jainkanaknandi.org/philo44.html

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[jcarl]

Re: OOOH Great Jcarl..

Originally posted by Godless
It seems as if debunking religious dogma by using the bible is not enough but throwing some science in the mix is a good thing too.

This Bible is no science text book. Therefore I must go to other sources

True we can agree the universe had a beggining with the big bang theory, however this does not demonstrate the existence of an entity in another realm of existence that caused such an event, this is contradictory to metaphysics.

If I were to postulate for a second that another dimension of existence exists of another realm of existence, then by the findings of this existence and this realm, it is posible to postulate that the realm of beyond this existence also had to had had a beggining then the infinite regress exists in another dimention or realm as well.[/B]

Not necessarily. To put the same characteristics on this realm and the spiritual realm is analagous to say that since you weigh 130 pounds on Earth, then you
should weigh 130 pounds on Jupiter. And we know this not to be the case. When you talk about something beyond this physical realm, you can't limit that something to the restrictions/rules of this realm.

Also the Infinite Regress cannot exist. There cannot/could not be an eternal list of Creators and Createes. If that were so, then nothing would have been created. So something must be eternal.

A being such as god had to have had a begining, no exception to the law of physics beyond realms can possibly exists!.

There must have been something that existed eternally/with no cause. If not, then how else can you explain the Creation of the Earth.

Quoting on quantum physicists Edward Tryon:

quantum electrodynamics reveals that an electron, positron, and photon occasionally emerge spontaneously in a perfect vacuum. When this happens, the three particles exist for a brief time, and then annihilate each other, leaving no trace behind. (Energy conservation is violated, but only for a particle lifetime Dt permitted by the uncertainty DtDE~h where DE is the net energy of the particles and h is Planck's constant.) The spontaneous, temporary emergence of particles from a vacuum is called a vacuum fluctuation, and is utterly commonplace in quantum field theory.

A particle produced by a vacuum fluctuation has no cause. Since vacuum fluctuations are commonplace, god cannot be the only thing that is uncaused.

But the only way this has been shown is with space being in the mixture. This theory presupposes the existence of space. Now space can't be eternal because by definition nothing infinite or eternal can exist within this physical universe--as a result of it[universe] being finite.

My apolegies for taking quite a while, I still will get back to the theological debate we were having when I find the time.

It's quite alright; I understand the fact that a life exists outside of this lousy forum. Feel free to send me a private message, IM me at BSAWWJD27, or email me at the same address(add @aol.com)

 

[Godless]

Jan..

Drat! I'll have to change my whole mindset.

Yea!! right this coming from someone who questions reality!!

What do you know!

That life is not an illusion!.

So even though you believe the existence of God was formed by primitive imagination, you still think God could exist?

You still don't know what atheist means?.

Seems to me you're in denial.

From what giberish?.

Because many of them have been programmed only to refute institutionalised, man-made religions. I doubt whether your type would know what to look for, or where to look for it.

Who the hell are you to judge?. BTW all religious beliefs are man-made unless your hindu friends were ETs. Extra Terrestials!!.

Godless.

 

[Godless]

Ok Jcarl..

Going back to blibical discussions:

http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=192

Christian Salvation?
by B. Steven Matthies

During my discussions with most Christians regarding my lack of belief, sooner or later I am usually presented with the fact that I am not saved and risk an eternity of damnation. Indeed, when I was a Christian, eternal salvation was something I did not take lightly. After all, what sane person would risk an eternity of damnation by turning away from God or questioning His precepts? Regardless, many well-meaning Christians tell me that I need to turn to the Bible for my answers, that, somehow, via the rule of faith, God will once again "inspire" me to find the true meaning in those sacred words.

Ever the quick study, I decided to take those Christians up on their advice and once again found myself back in the Bible trying to figure out how one is "saved." Logic would dictate that obtaining this salvation would be fairly straightforward and laid out in one easy-to-understand book—especially if said creator of this book wanted to make sure His followers were indeed "saved." Of course, upon investigation I found that this is not the case. One Christian denomination tells us the "saved" were predestined. One tells us that baptism is required. Another says baptism is a ritual and that salvation comes through belief in Christ’s sacrifice. Others say Christ’s sacrifice alone is enough. Yet another stresses good works or the grace of God. In fact, depending on which denomination of Christianity one subscribes to, any combination of the following bible verses can be used to justify how one is saved:

By Hearing the Gospel & Belief in God: John 5:24: "He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life".

By Baptism: John 3:5: "Jesus answered, ‘I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.'"

By Grace & Faith, not Works: Ephesians 2:8,9: "For by grace are ye saved through faith…not of works."

By Faith & Works: James 2:17: "Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone."

By Keeping the Law: Matthew 19:17: "... if thou wilt enter unto life, keep the commandments."

By Belief in Christ: John 3:16: "…whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

By Belief and Baptism: Mark 16:16: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."

By Words: Matthew 12:37: "For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned."

By Calling on the Lord: Acts 2:21: "whoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved."

Not Works but by Grace & Baptism: Titus 3:5: "Not by works…but according to his mercy…by the washing of regeneration." (Note: some denominations will say the washing refers to Christ’s blood and sacrifice.)

According to Proverbs 16:4: God made the "wicked" for "the day of evil" (i.e. judgment & damnation). Of course, this makes no sense in light of passages that confirm or suggest that Jesus died for a small number of the elect; or that suggest all will be saved: John 1:29, 4:42, 1 Corinthians 15:29, Hebrews 2:9, 1 John 4:14.

Salvation Available to the Chosen Few: Matthew 7:14, 22:14, Luke 12:32, 13:24, John 6:37,65,15:16,19, Romans 8:29, 9:11-23, Ephesians 1:4.

Salvation Available to Those Who Desire it: Matthew 7:7-8, 11:28, John 3:16, 5:40, 7:37, Acts 2:21, Revelations 3:20.

Now I’m sure some critics will say I’m taking those verses "out of context." Well, to those critics I ask that a "context" be clearly defined and followed among Christians before you criticize my observations. If these rules were clearly defined among Christians, one would not see various Christian denominations debating the ritual of baptism, women as preachers, interpretation of scripture, and the Trinitarian concept. Putting those critics aside for the moment, this leads us to the present day state of affairs among the various denominations of Christianity. Granted, I’m no theologian, but one would think a perfect God who knows "everything" would have foreseen what these contradictions would do to his followers’ faith. One would think that a perfect God would have directed His followers to write one sacred book. One would think that this one book would detail just exactly how one is to be "saved" and that this plan would be uniformly followed—at least among Christians. More importantly, one would think that Christianity would agree on just exactly how one is "saved." Of course, once again confusion reigns!


Well just a little food for thought, I was searching for something else when I stumbled to this gem!!. Persoanlly I never had thougth of this way to salvation back in the day when I was a babtist, all I thought was believe in Jesus and that was that!!.
I've done some growing since then.

Godless.