Did God cause the big bang? Thoughts?

148 posts / 0 new
Last post
ætherborn98's picture
I wasn't trying to be "high

I wasn't trying to be "high and mighty."

Deforres's picture
That's certainly how you came

That's certainly how you came across, though I apologize if that wasent your intent. Still, my point stands. Saying things like "Its gods decision" on an atheist forum will net you no gain.

ætherborn98's picture
"That's certainly how you

"That's certainly how you came across, though I apologize if that wasent your intent."

It's is actually me who needs to apologize (and I do), because I should think more about what I say before i say it.

AlphaLogica157's picture
@HawkFlint

@HawkFlint

Have you ever studied the history of biblical interpretations known as Biblical hermeneutics?

Biblical literalism is just one view, that in itself is rather young in the history of Christianity. Gnostics from the first and second century had a very different take on the collective texts of the Bible, (at this time they were not mashed into one big book) So each sect held different books, it was not until the ecumenical councils that what we know as the bible was created.

ætherborn98's picture
Interesting stuff "Biblical

Interesting stuff "Biblical hermeneutics." Thanks for asking that. I haven't studied this, but I will now.

Dave Matson's picture
Hawk Flint,

Hawk Flint,

Sorry, I don't have anything further on the Great Green Spider!

The laws of nature are God's to decide? Shouldn't you prove that God exists before you use that idea in an argument or comment?

You don't care if you are taken seriously? Then there must not be any serious argument on your part. Okay, you have our opinions. End of story?

ætherborn98's picture
"The laws of nature are God's

"The laws of nature are God's to decide? Shouldn't you prove that God exists before you use that idea in an argument or comment?"

I was speaking without thinking when I said that. I meant that God could alter the rules of nature if He wanted to, or defy them outright.

"You don't care if you are taken seriously? Then there must not be any serious argument on your part."

There is a serious argument on my part. Just because others won't take me seriously doesn't mean I'm not serious. I meant that I already knew that people would call me crazy, or they won't take me seriously. It doesn't bug me.

Deforres's picture
"I meant that God could alter

"I meant that God could alter the rules of nature if He wanted to, or defy them outright."

An object, living, inanimate, or "transcendent", must be governed by the laws of the universe AT ALL TIMES, if it is to exist.

Dave Matson's picture
The Great Green Spider could

The Great Green Spider could also alter the rules of nature if he wanted to. If "God" is just another name for the Great Green Spider, then how can we take you seriously? It's not a serious argument, so don't expect us to take it seriously. You gotta prove that "God" exists before you can use "God." Otherwise, he is no different that the Great Green Spider in terms of credibility. Can you understand that? It's a very important point.

ætherborn98's picture
Were there big bangs BEFORE

Were there big bangs BEFORE the one that supposedly made us? And why do I see hundreds of views on this thread but only you folks are here? It seems seems like there's only 9 people here.

Deforres's picture
"Were there big bangs BEFORE

"Were there big bangs BEFORE the one that supposedly made us?"

Possibly. But anything made by them wouldent exist anymore, as the energy from the first would be "Recycled" to make the next. This means that anything in the previous universe would be converted back to pure energy to make the next big bang. No backwards compatibility here.

ætherborn98's picture
@Xavier death Forres,

@Xavier [de] Forres,

Thanks for the info.

ThePragmatic's picture
@ Hawk Flint

@ Hawk Flint

"I believe that Christ actually walked on water, ..."

Okay. A follow up question:

How sure are you about that he actually walked on water?

100% - I'm completely sure, I know he did.
95% - I have a strong belief that he did. But I admit, I can't be completely sure.
80% - I believe he did, but it might not have happened.
50% - Maybe he did, maybe he didn't.

ætherborn98's picture
"How sure are you about that

"How sure are you about that he actually walked on water?"

As with all that I believe in, (religiously speaking) 95% sure.

ThePragmatic's picture
Apart from Jesus actually

Apart from Jesus actually walking on water, could there be other possibilities for passages about this event in the Bible?

ætherborn98's picture
What do you mean? If you mean

What do you mean? If you mean to ask if I believe that Christ performed the other miraculous things that He did in the Bible, then yes I do.

ThePragmatic's picture
@ Hawk Flint

@ Hawk Flint

Sorry for being too vague, I meant:
Could the passage(s) about Jesus walking on water, have some other explanation than the literal interpretation?

For example:
- Exaggerations of what happened.
- The story was made up.

Or perhaps any other possibilities?

ætherborn98's picture
"Could the passage(s) about

"Could the passage(s) about Jesus walking on water, have some other explanation than the literal interpretation?"

"For example:
- Exaggerations of what happened.
- The story was made up."

"Or perhaps any other possibilities?"

Not sure. How about aliens?

Deforres's picture
"How about aliens?"

"How about aliens?"

Hey! That's my line!

ThePragmatic's picture
@ Hawk Flint

@ Hawk Flint

"Not sure. How about aliens?"

Hehe. :)
Well, I don't think you're serious with that answer, but maybe you were?

Anyway, I was asking you to seriously come up with an answer.
You said in another post that you think that doubt is good,
( http://www.atheistrepublic.com/comment/40612 ),
a commendable attitude I you ask me.

You said you have a confidence in you belief of 95%.
What I was curious about were what those last 5% consists of.

Many apologetics who visit an atheist forum will without hesitation answer 100% or more. That would mean that they don't believe, instead they *know*. Their faith has brought them so far that they feel no doubt.
In my opinion that is a dangerous way of thinking, because they are sure that they can't be wrong. A bad case of of pride.

If your faith has brought you to 95%, you are very sure indeed.
What has convinced you to such a high degree? The bible? Testimonies from others?

ætherborn98's picture
@The Pragmatic,

@The Pragmatic,

Sorry for the wait. Today's been crazy for me.

"Well, I don't think you're serious with that answer, but maybe you were?"

I was serious.

"You said you have a confidence in you[r] belief of 95%.
What I was curious about were what those last 5% consists of."

"Many apologetics who visit an atheist forum will without hesitation answer 100% or more. That would mean that they don't believe, instead they *know*. Their faith has brought them so far that they feel no doubt.
In my opinion that is a dangerous way of thinking, because they are sure that they can't be wrong. A bad case of of pride."

"If your faith has brought you to 95%, you are very sure indeed.
What has convinced you to such a high degree?

A few things.

"The bible?"

Yes and no. The bible played a significant part of my coming to God, but it was my fear of God that brought me to Him. This fear, I believe, was put into my heart by God to lead me to God.

"Testimonies from others?"

More or less.

One of my relatives encountered three old people on the beach once, and received a message that helped her. The old people definitely couldn't know what was going on with her unless they were "stalkers."

Another relative of mine was in need of help, and he was praying to God, but he was listening too. That listening gave him results, as his insides "felt as if they were sucked out"(that's not an exact quote from him but it's close enough). This is someone who welcomed some sortof evil spirit into him, and while he was praying he saw a light, and then he was "vacuumed." The spirit is no longer in him.

There was an oppressive spirit in me half a year ago, and it is no longer in me, though I think it still messes with me. The first relative mentioned saw it in me (and she reads people's minds and sees spirits and demons), and I felt it when it was angered at me and my relatives for figuring out it's identity. I went to a room and told it to leave in the name of Jesus Christ, and I left the room shaking even though all I did was sit!

The last 5% is doubt mostly. I doubt to much. I have thought (sometimes) that everything I believe in might be the product of aliens (and with high-tech technology someone could walk on water). The "spirits" might be former humans (or aliens) who transcended this dimension. We could be crazy and/or scitzophretic. All of it could be lies and/or coincidence (but I highly doubt that).

Deforres's picture
"There was an oppressive

"There was an oppressive spirit in me half a year ago"

Uhhuh, and I practice runic magic, have a vampire for a girlfriend, know a "man" named Lord Reynolds who created a pocket dimension roughly 1000/years ago which is host to werewolves, whitches, and a host of other odd beings. I also happen to have a friend whom is basically a living corpse. Oh, and I hunt aberrations for a living. It all started after reading the book "Secret Arts of the Wandering Occultist"

ætherborn98's picture
"I...have a vampire for a

"I...have a vampire for a girlfriend..."

" I also happen to have a friend whom is basically a living corpse."

Really? Shoot me the names!

Deforres's picture
I do hope you realized the

I do hope you realized the sarcasm. And the absurdity.

ætherborn98's picture
Did you realize MY sarcasm? I

Did you realize MY sarcasm? I know it's absurd.

Deforres's picture
Then you should know just how

Then you should know just how absurd your story sounds to me, then. The feeling of absurdity is mutual here.

mykcob4's picture
So you based your whole life

So you based your whole life on fear? How sad.

ætherborn98's picture
Why's that sad?

Why's that sad?

mykcob4's picture
It's sad because no one

It's sad because no one should live their life in fear. If your faith requires you to fear it, then it isn't worth it.
Christians always profess that theirs is a loving god. Yet they fear their god. What a contradiction.
I wouldn't fear the unknown or the unproven, and I certainly would not base my life on fear.
Instead, I accept that there are unknowns. I dismiss the unproven. I immerse myself in life and its wonders.
I live with confidence, not fear.

ætherborn98's picture
"It's sad because no one

"It's sad because no one should live their life in fear. If your faith requires you to fear it, then it isn't worth it."

It IS worth it, because when christians fear God for the first time, before coming to Christ, they realize their crimes against God, and they realize that they deserve the punishment that God would give them. They seek for a way out, but find none. Then Christ is revealed, and He gives them hope, peace, joy, and confidence. He makes strong, but breaks us first.

"Christians always profess that theirs is a loving god. Yet they fear their god. What a contradiction."

"I wouldn't fear the unknown or the unproven, and I certainly would not base my life on fear."

I don't know what their view of God's love is, but I will explain my view of it. When the first humans were made, they were told not to eat from a specific tree, but they did it anyway. Their bodies became tainted and subject to sin and death as a result. Their bodies had "fallen." Their children inherited a fallen body from their parents, and this continues down through all humans. Because all humans have a fallen body, all humans, at one point or another, do something that God hates (thus, "all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God"). All are under God's wrath, unless He Himself provides a way out for men. And He did. But, while His children are lost, He still loves them, despite their evil . Even the most evil of all men can be loved by God. God saves us from His wrath, and that is His greatest love for us.

His wrath is not wrong though, as some would and do say. He is "Holy" and "Just." This Holiness is the problem for us. This Holiness makes Him hate evil (sin), and His Justness is why all men are condemned. If He simply called evil men to have fellowship with Him, and simply pardoned the wicked, He is no longer just. There must be punishment. Someone had to die. Someone had to take the blame. Christ took the blame, providing the way out of punishment, and enabling men to have fellowship with God while God could still retain His Holy and just attributes.

God causes men to fear Him so that they will not disobey Him, but if they do disobey, He will punish them on earth as discipline and judgment. Only through Christ, though, except for special occasions, can willful sin be forgiven. In OT times there was usually no forgiveness for willful sin. And the fear is not perpetual. He brings men out of the fear He puts them in, replacing it with love. But if they think about disobeying, the fear comes back, and then they turn from their evil, thus, God saves their soul.

"I live with confidence, not fear."

God makes us confident, because He will provide for His children, and He will guide them. In the end, we have confidence of eternal rest, so we live in confidence as well.

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.