If Christ died on the cross for all of humanity

How come that is so hard to understand. You guys are the ones that think you have all the answers. 

This is just another case of atheist thinking backwards. No matter the subject the atheist will always say no to it. What's truly amazing and I have learned this from this atheist on this thread is how really lazy atheist are. Instead of just dismissing everything because you weren't there or somebody didn't come shake your hand. Do some research for heavens sake and stop being mentally lazy. But see this is where atheistism meets fundamentalism because the atheist realize that if there is life on other planets their whole godless argument goes out the window. The fundamentalist realize that their dogmatic limiting view of God goes out the window as well.   It would be very hard to maintain a position of being atheist when you're telling us that every planet with life was some sort of accident. But this is the fallacy of atheistism from it's very foundation. Built on lies, stands on lies and ignorance despite overwhelming odds even on a scientific basis.  

Here is another challenge for you atheist that will no doubt go unnoticed like the others because we know what you really stand for. Here is your chance to prove me wrong. I challenge any atheist to disprove the UFO Brazilian attacks of 1977. Research it and come back and tell us that these people were all "dreaming". That's one case. It's not hard to find. Google Colares attacks. Come back to us and let us know what you find. This is just one of many cases but I don't want to overwhelm you guys with a heavy workload since actually doing some work isn't your strong point. Now we will see who is really "going off the deep end" Is it the people who have experienced these events or is it the people like the atheist who keep saying it didn't happened or there is some sort of logical explanation for it. The logical explanation is that they were attacked by who-we don't know. Why? We don't know. What? We don't know what they were but we know they weren't from this planet or dimension. Show us how we're wrong.  Tell us the who, what, where and why of this episode. We will be anxiously awaiting your results. Time to put some work in.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQmbGMWlL7w This is another well documented case of a battle with UFO's. This was over LA during WWII. The UFO didn't attack but the army shot over 1500 rounds at the object. Bear in mind the West Coast was on alert because of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. So no doubt they were very anxious. The object was again seen by thousands of people. Of course later the Government put out their propaganda about "weather ballons" but if you read the newspapers of the day people knew better. Again this is a well documented case involving thousands of people including the US Army. They weren't dreaming and they were firing real bullets at an object that no country in the world had the ability to fly. Just another case for you to research. Don't take my word for it. There are literally hundreds if not thousands of well documented cases not hoaxes with respected public officials directly involved. I challenge anyone atheist, Chrisitian, government workers to dispute any of these cases and give us evidence that somehow this is all a dream, an illusion or some other BS story that you can think of.  

it is important because he died for mankind.  That is you and me bud!  I do not know of anyone who would do that!  Do you?

If I thought I was going to heaven to be a god, then you could torture and crucify me too.

Oh stop your nonsense!...lol

You or anyone else could not do what our Lord Savior Jesus Christ did.

He was God in the flesh. He was the only one, because He was sinless, that could pay for the sins of mankind and because He was God, He did not think He would go to heaven but rather He knew He was going to heaven...big difference in what you are saying.

 

People sacrifice themselves for others everyday. And they do it without any promise of a fantasy afterlife. I find that more impressive then some supranatural being holding all the cards doing something with nothing to lose. Seems pretty petty, and small.

Our Lord Savior Jesus Christ sacrificed His life for all of mankind in that whoever believes in Him, in that He sacrificed His life to pay for their sins and repents their sins will have eternal life in God's Kingdom of Heaven for all eternity!

Now if you think that is just pretty petty and small compared to someone who sacrifices their life for just a few...boy are you living in lala land...lol

Put away the bong will ya?...lol

Exactly, it is an absurd argument to say no one else would do it. There would be a line out the door of people who would be willing to lay down their life for "all of humanity". You wouldn't even need to bribe them with eternal life, or some such bullshit. Your god beliefs are small, small, small..., and most likely incorrect.

Oh and I suppose you would be the first one in line?...lol What good would that do when you or anyone else is a sinner? That won't save mankind...lol  How could a sinner save other sinners?

You don't seem to understand, Jesus Christ wasn't bribed to sacrifice His life, because He was God in the flesh. He did it willingly to save all of mankind. What a loving caring God we have.

Also the Christian religion is not about anyone sacrificing their life to have eternal life in heaven...boy your misconception is ridiculous.

The Christian religion is about believing that our Lord Savior Jesus Christ died on the cross to save us from our sins so that anyone who believes in Him and repents their sins will have eternal life in heaven.

You've been here long enough on this thread to know something about the Christian religion but evidently it is not the case. You and others still don't get it and will probably never will. All I can say is that I feel sorry for people like you.

The First Cause Argument (Part 2)

I would like to continue where I left off on pg. 208 #5149 with the first cause argument that was originated by Saint Thomas Aquinas.

Here is one more analogy. Suppose I tell you there is a book that explains everything you want explained. You want that book very much. You ask me whether I have it. I say no, I have to get it from my wife. Does she have it? No, she has to get it from a neighbor. Does he have it? No, he has to get it from his teacher, who has to get it. . . etc, etc, ad infinitum.

No one actually has the book. In that case, you will never get it. However long or short the chain of book borrowers may be, you will get the book only if someone actually has it and does not have to borrow it.

Well, existence is like that book. Existence is handed down the chain of causes, from cause to effect. If there is no first cause, no being who is eternal and self-sufficient, no being who has existence by his own nature and does not have to borrow it from someone else, then the gift of existence can never be passed down the chain to others, and no one will ever get it.

But we did get it. We exist. We got the gift of existence from our causes, down the chain, and so did every actual being in the universe, from atoms to archangels. Therefore there must be a first cause of existence, a God.

In more abstract philosophical language, the proof goes this way. Every being that exists either exists by itself, by its own essence or nature, or it does not exist by itself. If it exists by its own essence, then it exists necessarily and eternally, and explains itself.

It cannot not exist, as a triangle cannot not have three sides. If, on the other hand, a being exists but not by its own essence, then it needs a cause, a reason outside itself for its existence. Because it does not explain itself, something else must explain it.

Beings whose essence does not contain the reason for their existence, beings that need causes, are called contingent, or dependent, beings.

A being whose essence is to exist is called a necessary being. The universe contains only contingent beings. God would be the only necessary being—if God existed. Does he? Does a necessary being exist?

Here is the proof that it does. Dependent beings cannot cause themselves. They are dependent on their causes. If there is no independent being, then the whole chain of dependent beings is dependent on nothing and could not exist. But they do exist. Therefore there is an independent being....God!

Correction: I would like to continue where I left off on pg. 208 #5189

SJD;

I'm not required to carry your ignorance into any argument. Your first cause argument is a juvenile, flawed fallacy only touted by ignorant f%$d's such as yourself.
by Nathaniel Branden:

Question: Since everything in the universe requires a cause, must not the universe itself have a cause, which is god?

Answer: There are two basic fallacies in this argument. The first is the assumption that, if the universe required a casual explanation, the positing of a "god" would provide it. To posit god as the creator of the universe is only to push the problem back one step farther: Who then created god? Was there a still earlier god who created the god in question? We are thus led to an infinite regress - the very dilemma that the positing of a "god" was intended to solve. But if it is argued that no one created god, that god does not require a cause, that god has existed eternally - then on what grounds is it denied that the universe has existed eternally?

It is true that there cannot be an infinite series of antecedent causes. But recognition of this fact should lead one to reappraise the validity of the initial question, not to attempt to answer it by stepping outside the universe into some gratuitously invented supernatural dimension.

This leads to the second and more fundamental fallacy in this argument: the assumption that the universe as a whole requires a casual explanation. It does not. The universe is the total of which exists. Within the universe, the emergence of new entities can be explained in terms of the actions of entities that already exist: The cause of a tree is the seed of the parent tree; the cause of a machine is the purposeful reshaping of matter by men. All actions presuppose the existence of entities - and all emergences of new entities presuppose the existence of entities that caused their emergence. All causality presupposes the existence of something that acts as a cause. To demand a cause for all of existence is to demand a contradiction: if the cause exists, it is part of the existence; if it does not exist, it cannot be a cause. Nothing does not exist. Causality presupposes existence; existence does not presuupose causality. There can be no cause "outside" of existence or "anterior" to it. The forms of existence may change and evolve, but the fact of existence is the irreducible primary at the base of all casual chains. Existence -not "god" - is the First Cause.

Just as the concept of a causality applies to events and entities within the universe, but not to the universe as a whole - so the concept of time applies to events and entities within the universe, but not to the universe as a whole. The universe did not "begin" - it did not, at some point in time, "spring into being." Time is a measurement of motion. Motion presupposes entities that move. If nothing existed, there could be no time. Time is "in" the universe; the universe is not "in" time.

The man who asks: "Where did existence come from?" or "What caused it?" is the man who has never grasped that existence exists. This is the mentality of a savage or mystic who regards existence as some sort of incomprehensible miracle - and seeks to "explain" it by reference to nonexistence.

Existence is all that exists, the nonexistent does not exist; there is nothing for existence to have come out of - and nothing means nothing. If you are tempted to ask: "What's outside the universe?" - recognize that you are asking; "What's outside of existence?" and that the idea of "something outside of existence" is a contradiction in terms; nothing is outside of existence, and "nothing" is not just another kind of "something" - it is nothing. Existence exists; you cannot go outside it; you cannot get under it, on top of it, or behind it. Existence exists - and only existence exists: There is nowhere else to go.

Your comprehension skills need some polishing. Nobody created God, He is eternal, He is the uncaused cause that created everything. He has no beginning or ending...do you get that?

Go back and read my post #5273 again, this time slowly so you can understand what you are reading...lol

The moment you begin to realize that God has always been in existence, that's the moment you will begin to understand how everything else came into existence.

Again you have been here long enough to know that God is eternal, we have said it numerous times before and here you go asking....who created God?

Aren't you learning anything from being a regular on this thread? From the looks of things I guess not.

Who asked him to?

Why would a loving god ask his son to die a painful death just for this nonsensical reason?  Wouldnt this god just forgive everyone without all of the theatrics?

Its such a funny story - virgin gets pregnant so that kid can grow up and die for all of humanity.  This god couldnt think of anything better than that?  The all knowing god came up with that?

Believing the universe popped into existence uncaused, then a lightning bolt hit a pond somewhere to create a cell, then one day ape like animals decided to go for a walk then become human beings one day is a delusional story.......

Who is in La La land again?

So you want God to just forget about sin? dont worry about....

Under naturalism things coming existence uncaused.......

The atheists are laughing at us, but what is even more funnier is have they looked at the alternative, its worse than magic, because at least with magic, there is a magician, under naturlaism, there is no magician.......

 

Did the cosmos have a beginning? The Big Bang theory seems to suggest it did, but in recent decades, cosmologists have concocted elaborate theories – for example, an eternally inflating universe or a cyclic universe – which claim to avoid the need for a beginning of the cosmos. Now it appears that the universe really had a beginning after all, even if it wasn’t necessarily the Big Bang.

At a meeting of scientists – titled “State of the Universe” – convened last week at Cambridge University to honor Stephen Hawking’s 70th birthday, cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin of Tufts University in Boston presented evidence that the universe is not eternal after all, leaving scientists at a loss to explain how the cosmos got started without a supernatural creator. The meeting was reported in New Scientist magazine (Why physicists can’t avoid a creation event, 11 January 2012). I’ve quoted a few brief highlights below.

In his presentation, Professor Vilenkin discussed three theories which claim to avoid the need for a beginning of the cosmos.

One popular theory is eternal inflation. Most readers will be familiar with the theory of inflation, which says that the universe increased in volume by a factor of at least 10^78 in its very early stages (from 10^-36 seconds after the Big Bang to sometime between 10^-33 and 10^-32 seconds), before settling into the slower rate of expansion that we see today. The theory of eternal inflation goes further, and holds that the universe is constantly giving birth to smaller “bubble” universes within an ever-expanding multiverse. Each bubble universe undergoes its own initial period of inflation. In some versions of the theory, the bubbles go both backwards and forwards in time, allowing the possibility of an infinite past. Trouble is, the value of one particular cosmic parameter rules out that possibility:

But in 2003, a team including Vilenkin and Guth considered what eternal inflation would mean for the Hubble constant, which describes mathematically the expansion of the universe. They found that the equations didn’t work (Physical Review Letters, DOI: 10.1103/physrevlett.90.151301). “You can’t construct a space-time with this property,” says Vilenkin. It turns out that the constant has a lower limit that prevents inflation in both time directions. “It can’t possibly be eternal in the past,” says Vilenkin. “There must be some kind of boundary.”

A second option explored by Vilenkin was that of a cyclic universe, where the universe goes through an infinite series of big bangs and crunches, with no specific beginning. It was even claimed that a cyclic universe could explain the low observed value of the cosmological constant. But as Vilenkin found, there’s a problem if you look at the disorder in the universe:

Disorder increases with time. So following each cycle, the universe must get more and more disordered. But if there has already been an infinite number of cycles, the universe we inhabit now should be in a state of maximum disorder. Such a universe would be uniformly lukewarm and featureless, and definitely lacking such complicated beings as stars, planets and physicists – nothing like the one we see around us.

One way around that is to propose that the universe just gets bigger with every cycle. Then the amount of disorder per volume doesn’t increase, so needn’t reach the maximum. But Vilenkin found that this scenario falls prey to the same mathematical argument as eternal inflation: if your universe keeps getting bigger, it must have started somewhere.

However, Vilenkin’s options were not exhausted yet. There was another possibility: that the universe had sprung from an eternal cosmic egg:

Vilenkin’s final strike is an attack on a third, lesser-known proposal that the cosmos existed eternally in a static state called the cosmic egg. This finally “cracked” to create the big bang, leading to the expanding universe we see today. Late last year Vilenkin and graduate student Audrey Mithani showed that the egg could not have existed forever after all, as quantum instabilities would force it to collapse after a finite amount of time (arxiv.org/abs/1110.4096). If it cracked instead, leading to the big bang, then this must have happened before it collapsed – and therefore also after a finite amount of time.

“This is also not a good candidate for a beginningless universe,” Vilenkin concludes.

So at the end of the day, what is Vilenkin’s verdict?

“All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.”