Atheist Universe: Not Impossible

[Servant of Jesus]

In my books,

0 + 0 still equals 0

 

[HannahBanana]

In my books,

0 + 0 still equals 0

But the atheistic view of the universe isn't 0+0. It's 0+1, since the universe started out as nothing, and then the Big Bang caused everything to come into existence.

 

[JediMobius]

Then...what use is it? I mean, if you already HAVE faith, why do you need a bible?

For that faith to grow.

If you can fly why do you need solid ground?

Nice.

Really? Do you always insult peoples intelligence? What if I were to challenge you to read the ORIGINAL text of the Bible, would you understand it? Not if your Greek poor! As for me, our bible is written in the very same language and it is as clear as day to me!

That's just it. Understanding the bible requires understanding spiritual language expressed through Greek and Hebrew (translated into English for most of us here). Understanding the Greek, Hebrew, or English words of the bible produces intellectual understanding in part, but without understanding the language of the Spirit, an essential portion of understanding is missing for which no amount of intelligence can compensate.

So yes, I'm sure you understand the bible to the extent one can without faith, which changes the context entirely. Understanding the bible as a book is not the same as understanding the bible as the word of God.

You do realise that ARROGANCE is a sin in Christianity. So is Vanity. You exhibit both traits and if I were you I would humble myself with a little humility!

*ΤΟ ΔΙΣ ΕΞΑΜΑΡΤΕΙΝ ΟΥΚ ΑΝΔΡΟΣ ΣΟΦΟΥ*

*(I don't know what that means)*

I can always be more humble, but if I was insulting anything it was your spirituality, not your intelligence. I wouldn't think you'd take offense to that anyway since you're atheist and all.

But to that end he wasn't being arrogant, and he was right as you didn't understand it. He really shouldn't be discussing why here though...pearls before atheists you know.

I do have a problem with doing that. But at least the torn to pieces part can only happen virtually in this case. I always figure that just maybe, some Christian will come across my words and benefit, even if no one else in the discussion does.

 

[HannahBanana]

TheLowlyTortoise, what makes you think that your interpretation of the Bible is somehow more correct than an atheist's interpretation of the Bible? After all, you yourself don't know that your interpretation is the way God intended the Bible to be interpreted, so why pretend that you do know that?

 

[JediMobius]

But the atheistic view of the universe isn't 0+0. It's 0+1, since the universe started out as nothing, and then the Big Bang caused everything to come into existence.

Nothing begets nothing. Since the universe started out as nothing, the Big Bang could not have been a natural result, unless the Big Bang, or the universe itself, is in fact omnipotent, self-aware, and able to exert its will.

 

[HannahBanana]

Nothing begets nothing. Since the universe started out as nothing, the Big Bang could not have been a natural result, unless the Big Bang, or the universe itself, is in fact omnipotent, self-aware, and able to exert its will.

Please do some actual research on the Big Bang, as it's nowhere near as simple as you seem to think it is. It's an extremely complex theory, one which isn't easy to describe in laymens' terms.

Big Bang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[david_x]

I do have a problem with doing that. But at least the torn to pieces part can only happen virtually in this case. I always figure that just maybe, some Christian will come across my words and benefit, even if no one else in the discussion does.

Hasn't it been torn to shreds? That is why I posted it after all. If you wan't Christians to benefit from it go to the Christian only section where it's beuty can be appreciated.

 

[JediMobius]

TheLowlyTortoise, what makes you think that your interpretation of the Bible is somehow more correct than an atheist's interpretation of the Bible? After all, you yourself don't know that your interpretation is the way God intended the Bible to be interpreted, so why pretend that you do know that?

An atheist's understanding of the spiritual language of the bible is 0. I have the Spirit of God who gives me that understanding, so my understanding of the spiritual language of the bible is greater than 0, however much less than 1 (if 1 is complete understanding).

I know that God intended the bible to be interpreted by aid of the Spirit, so in that I know I am interpreting correctly. Yet I'm still human, so I do sometimes get it wrong. Even then, the Spirit corrects my errors when I listen. I'm not saying I completely understand anything in the bible, or I know all the answers. But seriously, how can atheists read the following passage from the bible and say to themselves they understand it, anything else in the bible, or the bible itself?

1Co 2:11 For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God.
1Co 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God.
1Co 2:13 These things we also speak, not in words which man's wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
1Co 2:14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
1Co 2:15 But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one.
1Co 2:16 For "who has known the mind of the LORD that he may instruct Him?" But we have the mind of Christ.
​

 

[david_x]

An atheist's understanding of the spiritual language of the bible is 0. I have the Spirit of God who gives me that understanding, so my understanding of the spiritual language of the bible is greater than 0, however much less than 1 (if 1 is complete understanding).

I can see many errors in this, look at the people who became Christians after reading the Bible. Clearly they had God's help, but they were not Christians.

Atheists make the best Christians. (e.g. C.S.Lewis)

 

[HannahBanana]

An atheist's understanding of the spiritual language of the bible is 0. I have the Spirit of God who gives me that understanding, so my understanding of the spiritual language of the bible is greater than 0, however much less than 1 (if 1 is complete understanding).

What exactly is "spiritual language" and where's your proof that it exists? Also, if there is such a thing as "spiritual language" then why isn't it mentioned at all in the Bible?

I know that God intended the bible to be interpreted by aid of the Spirit, so in that I know I am interpreting correctly.

What about all of the other devout Christians out there who interpret the Bible differently than you do? Who are you to say that those Christians don't have the Spirit as much as you do?

But seriously, how can atheists read the following passage from the bible and say to themselves they understand it, anything else in the bible, or the bible itself?

The same way that atheists can read any other literary work and say they understand it. After all, that's what the Bible is: a literary work.

 

[JediMobius]

Please do some actual research on the Big Bang, as it's nowhere near as simple as you seem to think it is. It's an extremely complex theory, one which isn't easy to describe in laymens' terms.

Big Bang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My post pertained much more to the idea that first there was nothing than to the events of the Big Bang. The whole nothingness context was the whole point of this thread until recently, after all.

I've read up on the Big Bang actually, and the theory says nothing about what came before, or how the universe actually came to be. The theory deals only with the Big Bang itself as an event, there are other theories for the explicit origins of the universe such as string theory. The Big Bang theory doesn't include how the big bang came to be, or that there was nothing before it, so why do you think I need to read about it based on what was said?

 

[MoonLancer]

In my books,

0 + 0 still equals 0

1 + -1=0 also equals zero

 

[HannahBanana]

My post pertained much more to the idea that first there was nothing than to the events of the Big Bang. The whole nothingness context was the whole point of this thread until recently, after all.

I've read up on the Big Bang actually, and the theory says nothing about what came before, or how the universe actually came to be. The theory deals only with the Big Bang itself as an event, there are other theories for the explicit origins of the universe such as string theory. The Big Bang theory doesn't include how the big bang came to be, or that there was nothing before it, so why do you think I need to read about it based on what was said?

Of course the Big Bang theory includes how the Big Bang came to be. Did you even read that article about it?

 

[JediMobius]

I can see many errors in this, look at the people who became Christians after reading the Bible. Clearly they had God's help, but they were not Christians.

Atheists make the best Christians. (e.g. C.S.Lewis)

Even imperfect human reason and a natural understanding of the bible can lead a person to God, however long that can take, but do you think C.S. Lewis truly understood the bible before he had faith in God?

1Co 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God.
1Co 2:13 These things we also speak, not in words which man's wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
1Co 2:14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

 

[david_x]

Even imperfect human reason and a natural understanding of the bible can lead a person to God, however long that can take, but do you think C.S. Lewis truly understood the bible before he had faith in God?

1Co 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God.
1Co 2:13 These things we also speak, not in words which man's wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
1Co 2:14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Clearly he did, otherwise he would have fought against it like any atheist that does not believe. Clearly the spirit was in his life even before the Church was.

 

[JediMobius]

What exactly is "spiritual language" and where's your proof that it exists? Also, if there is such a thing as "spiritual language" then why isn't it mentioned at all in the Bible?

This is what I mean by spiritual language:

1Co 2:13 These things we also speak, not in words which man's wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

Right here, as I posted earlier, the bible mentions words not taught by man's wisdom, but by the Holy Spirit.

Joh 6:53 Then Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you.
Joh 6:54 "Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
[. . .]
Joh 6:60 Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this, said, "This is a hard saying; who can understand it?"
Joh 6:61 When Jesus knew in Himself that His disciples complained about this, He said to them, "Does this offend you?
Joh 6:62 "What then if you should see the Son of Man ascend where He was before?
Joh 6:63 "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.

The natural understanding of the words Jesus said were not easily accepted by the people who heard it. Many of his disciples even said "who can understand it?" The reply came that the words Jesus spoke "are spirit." What Jesus said in this passage, understood in human language was rejected. Those who understood the spiritual meaning accepted it and continued to follow their Lord.

What about all of the other devout Christians out there who interpret the Bible differently than you do? Who are you to say that those Christians don't have the Spirit as much as you do?

When it comes to matters of doctrine where disagreement is a problem, I don't know any. (Such disagreements are manifest in those devout to a denomination or human tradition more than to Christ.) Those devout to Christ have the Spirit of truth and know how to rightly divide the word of God as the spirit has taught them. It's from the example of such believers that I've learned to interpret the bible correctly, and it leads to a shared understanding. So, I don't know who these Christians are that believe differently than I do, other than temporarily as I or the other are corrected.

If my interpretation is correct, that's because of God, if it's wrong, that's because of me. The same goes for any other devout Christian, and they usually know that.

The same way that atheists can read any other literary work and say they understand it. After all, that's what the Bible is: a literary work.

Understanding the bible as a literary work is not how it was meant to be understood, whereas Shakespeare's works are meant to be understood as literary. Anyone can understand the bible intellectually, but won't really understand the spiritual significance of anything it says, but that is the bible's purpose.

 

[JediMobius]

Clearly he did, otherwise he would have fought against it like any atheist that does not believe. Clearly the spirit was in his life even before the Church was.

He fought against it for years.

He fought greatly up to the moment of his conversion noting that he was brought into Christianity like a prodigal, "kicking, struggling, resentful, and darting his eyes in every direction for a chance to escape."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._S._Lewis#cite_note-12​

Up to the moment of his conversion is an apt way to describe such a thing, if I understand the power of the Spirit of God. Certainly the Spirit led people (like Tolkien) into his life, but until the moment of Lewis's conversion, the Spirit was not in his life because Lewis as an atheist rejected God. It wasn't until that moment of rebirth that the full power of the Spirit of God quelled his resistance. I had a similar experience when I was born again. I had varied interactions with God throughout my life, people who tried to teach me about Jesus, and the Spirit must have been watching over me the whole time, but I wouldn't say the Spirit was in my life the first twenty-one years, else I would never have done a lot of the things I did.

 

[JediMobius]

Of course the Big Bang theory includes how the Big Bang came to be. Did you even read that article about it?

It describes how the universe came to be as it is from an initial state. It does not explain how that initial state came to be.

The big bang theory assumes the existence of time, and the universality of physical laws, without explaining how these things came to be. The anthropic principle doesn't explain it either. Without time and the physical laws, the big bang couldn't happen, so the big bang couldn't have introduced these, and doesn't claim to either. Ergo, there must be something before the big bang.

 

[b&wpac4]

Removing posts.

 

[JediMobius]

.