Re: Arguments of ...
Sep 04, 1995 11:35 PM
>>Argument of Change
>>The premise reveals that everything that exists must at some point
>>in time not exist in its current condition. The Law of Entropy drives
>>this argument. You nor I existed 100 yrs ago nor will we exist 100
>>yrs from now. Our current condition will change. This change will
>>always be degraded.
>This is an essential teaching of Buddhism, which is also basically
>sound. Everything is subject to continual change. There can exist
>nothing that is immune from being subject to change.
>>Argument of Causality
>>Only that which is not bound by CAUSE/CHANGE can be the prime
>>mover (whether personal or impersonal). The primemover does not
>>require anything other than itself to exist, and cannot change. And
>>in this only the Prime Mover can be considered an Actual infinite.
>>There are no known actual infinites that exist within the bounds
>>of CAUSE/CHANGE and the Laws of Thermodynamics.
>There is no prime mover. Each of us is our own "prime mover", individually
>responsible for our existence. It is our inner choice to come into
>existence, made in a deep part of ourselves, that motivates our coming
>out into manifestation in this world.
You have slipped away from the law. Which is not possible. You cannot
be responsible for your own existence. You cannot create yourself.
You cannot determine who your parents are.
You have no evidence whatsoever for such a declaration as to assume
our choice to come into existence.
>The universe that we know from the big bang is but a grain of sand, a
>speck of dust, an mere atom in yet a bigger universe. And that bigger
>universe is part of a still bigger scheme of things. There is no top,
>and we cannot find a "highest", no matter how high we try to go. There
>are infinite levels or scales of being going upward, and *no top*.
This is a declaration of the "Universe" being an actual infinite. This is
outside the bounds of material logic. The universe is finite.
>Every religion and its sects have their holy books. Each tells in myth
>and story grand spiritual truths. There are great truths hidden behind
>the stories. The stories are not literally true. They hide deeper
>truths for those with the proper "keys" to unlock them.
So the bible's Creation account is a myth?
All mythical characters attempting to reveal hidden truth.
The LOUD error here is that the bible never maked claims
of mythical foundations. Geneologies are presented in an
effort to support ACTUAL people, places and times.
>>(I am the Lord...I do not Change)
>>And that He created something out of nothing.
>>(In the Beginning God said "Let there be Light"...)
>This sounds like the creative intelligence that makes *a particular world
>or universe*. The "God the Creator" from the Old Testament is Elohim,
>plural, and refers to a host of high Archangels (called Dhyani-Chohans in
>Theosophy), not to a singular being, supreme over everything, everywhere.
Elohim is the plural form of Eloah (God). So, Elohim means, in fact,
Gods. It is common in Biblical Hebrew, to express something eminent in
the plural form. For example, the great beast in Job 40:15 is put in the
plural, behemot; not because it are more beasts, but it is a great beast.
God, being exceedingly eminent, is rightly put in the plural form, to
express this. In my opinion, therefore, this is the first meaning of the
plural form of Elohim. This is proved by the fact, that the plural
"Elohim" is connected with a singular verb. This happens very often
in the Bible. For example, when we translate "God said", the Hebrew gives
the plural Elohim connected with the singular "said". This shows us that
God is one. Nearly all the instances of "Elohim" are so. The first and
the most important meaning of Elohim is therefore not to express the
Trinity, but God's manifold majesty and all other virtues.
There are, however, a few texts, wherein the plural Elohim not is
connected with a singular verb, but with a plural. These texts serve as
proofs for the Trinity. See an example in Genesis 20:13. We read there:
"And it came to pass, when God caused me to wander from my father's
house..." The Hebrew original has the word "caused" in the plural form.
Thus: "Elohim [plural Subject] caused [plural verb] me to wander". This
texts, and the like, show us that there is some plurality in the one God.
In all of the responses to the arguments that I have posed
not one response has critically examined the validity of these
Some have evaded and redirected the premises to there own liking
but in the end...
God is independent.
God is unchangeable.
God is Creator.
Man is dependent.
Man is changeable.
Man is created.
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application