God Recreated the Earth 6,000 Years Ago!

[Thief]

No, according to simple logic. If he doesn't believe that God exists, he would not fear standing before God. Simple as that.

that's not logic

people often think they have nothing to fear

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I believe that the biblical story of creation doesn't describe God's original creation of Earth, but it actually describes the recreation of the Earth 6,000 years ago by God for the benefit of newly formed life who would have souls such as Adam, Eve and their descendants. I believe that according to the first few verses of Holy scripture in the book of Genesis, the Earth already had existed with water during the first day of its recreation. "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters" - (Genesis 1:1-2)

I believe there was an older version of Earth that God had destroyed with a cloud of darkness and water, so that He could recreate the Earth with the right conditions for us humans who have souls. I think the first chapter of Genesis is widely misinterpreted as a narrative about the creation of Earth; whereas, it should be correctly interpreted as a narrative about the recreation of the Earth with more favorable conditions for human souls to exist. Does anybody else agree that the first few verses in the book of Genesis have been widely misinterpreted as a creation narrative; whereas, it should be correctly interpreted as a recreation narrative?

I'm glad you're using the Bible! You keep mentioning, "....have souls." That's a common understanding. If you read Genesis 2:7, you'll read something different. Adam wasn't 'given' a soul; he "became" one. He was a soul! Soul, which is nephesh in Hebrew, simply means "something that breathes." It can apply to animals (Revelation 16:3), and the soul can die! -- Ezekiel 18:4.

 

[leibowde84]

that's not logic

people often think they have nothing to fear

Completely irrelevant, as we aren't discussing whether they actually have something to fear. We are discussing whether they, themselves actually fear God even though they don't believe God exists.

 

[Ouroboros]

only to you and the other guy

I believe you and I are standing in front of God every single moment, right now, right here. This life is the place where you're meeting God, simply because all things, all nature, all that you see and experience, is all God, and you're a part of it.

I don't believe there's some ultimate get-out-of-jail free-pass card you can buy through belief. I believe that your actions and attitude towards life is what counts and it counts here and now.

 

[Ouroboros]

that's not logic

people often think they have nothing to fear

I don't fear God. I feel I have peace with God/gods, belief, religion, science, life, nature, and existence.

What I do fear, however, is that my wife, my kids, or my dogs would get sick. It's terrible to seem them suffer.

I'm glad that I don't have to fear God or any Hell that he/she/it supposedly would create. There's no fear in love.

 

[gnostic]

that's not logic

people often think they have nothing to fear

Well, I think it is your fear that make you paranoid and delusional.

There is nothing more delusional than fearing something or someone that you have never seen before.

 

[Thief]

Well, I think it is your fear that make you paranoid and delusional.

There is nothing more delusional than fearing something or someone that you have never seen before.

the evidence of Something Greater is all around you

 

[Thief]

I believe you and I are standing in front of God every single moment, right now, right here. This life is the place where you're meeting God, simply because all things, all nature, all that you see and experience, is all God, and you're a part of it.

I don't believe there's some ultimate get-out-of-jail free-pass card you can buy through belief. I believe that your actions and attitude towards life is what counts and it counts here and now.

I believe the peace of heaven is guarded.

 

[leibowde84]

the evidence of Something Greater is all around you

Yet you have failed to present any actual evidence for it. Instead mere speculation and guesses, trying to place God in positions that merely "don't make sense" otherwise. It's an assault on the scientific method itself.

 

[Thief]

Yet you have failed to present any actual evidence for it. Instead mere speculation and guesses, trying to place God in positions that merely "don't make sense" otherwise. It's an assault on the scientific method itself.

not my presentation to make.
yours to view at will

 

[leibowde84]

not my presentation to make.
yours to view at will

If you don't have any evidence for it (not asking for absolute proof here), why are you convinced?

 

[Thief]

If you don't have any evidence for it (not asking for absolute proof here), why are you convinced?

Cause and effect

science

 

[leibowde84]

Cause and effect

science

Cause and effect only gets you to a cause of the Big Bang. What evidence do you have to deny that it was a natural cause. Possibly and infinite progression of big bangs or big crunches? Or whose to say that our universe isn't merely part of a black hole in some other universe. We have no way of ruling these out, as the laws of physics and even quantum mechanics are thrown out the window when considering such poaibilities.

So, long story short, we know that the laws of physics and quantum mechanics aren't relevant to the "time" before the big bang, and we also know that, even with black holes in our own universe, these laws don't mean a thing. So, I think we are all curious as to why you are so confident that "cause and effect" with the cause being God, necessarily is a plausible hypothesis, graduating it to the level of a "theory" in the scientific context.

What evidence do you have that cause and effect must be adhered to even in conditions where the laws of physics and quantum theory must be ignored?

In the hundreds of comments I've read from you, you have yet to provide any tangible evidence that your hypothesis is even valid, let alone that it can honestly be referred to as a theory.

 

[Thief]

Cause and effect only gets you to a cause of the Big Bang. What evidence do you have to deny that it was a natural cause. Possibly and infinite progression of big bangs or big crunches? Or whose to say that our universe isn't merely part of a black hole in some other universe. We have no way of ruling these out, as the laws of physics and even quantum mechanics are thrown out the window when considering such poaibilities.

So, long story short, we know that the laws of physics and quantum mechanics aren't relevant to the "time" before the big bang, and we also know that, even with black holes in our own universe, these laws don't mean a thing. So, I think we are all curious as to why you are so confident that "cause and effect" with the cause being God, necessarily is a plausible hypothesis, graduating it to the level of a "theory" in the scientific context.

What evidence do you have that cause and effect must be adhered to even in conditions where the laws of physics and quantum theory must be ignored?

In the hundreds of comments I've read from you, you have yet to provide any tangible evidence that your hypothesis is even valid, let alone that it can honestly be referred to as a theory.

substance is not self creating
substance does not move of it's own volition

all that we see has been moving since the 'bang'

Spirit first

 

[leibowde84]

substance is not self creating
substance does n move of it's own volition

all that we see has been moving since the 'bang'

Spirit first

Ok, but, even adhering to your reasoning here, you have yet to provide any valid reasoning for assuming that cause was:

1. The "spirit" you speak of, as the big bang could have been merely the product of many subsequent previous big bangs, and, thus, wouldn't have been caused by "spirit", as "spirit" wouldn't have caused our big bang.

2. Was, necessarily, the specific "God" you speak of.

Can you provide evidence for these assumptions beyond mere arguments based on the absence of no known alternatives (which, obviously, doesn't support your argument at all)?

 

[Thief]

Ok, but, even adhering to your reasoning here, you have yet to provide any valid reasoning for assuming that cause was:

1. The "spirit" you speak of, as the big bang could have been merely the product of many subsequent previous big bangs, and, thus, wouldn't have been caused by "spirit", as "spirit" wouldn't have caused our big bang.

2. Was, necessarily, the specific "God" you speak of.

Can you provide evidence for these assumptions beyond mere arguments based on the absence of no known alternatives (which, obviously, doesn't support your argument at all)?

cause and affect is the reason
substance is not self creating
substance does not move of it's own volition

Spirit first

 

[leibowde84]

cause and affect is the reason
substance is not self creating
substance does not move of it's own volition

Spirit first

Would you mind just responding to my points rather than resorting to poetic dodges that have nothing at all to the conversation? I always respect you enough to actually respond to what you say. If you can't come up with an argument, just admit it. No biggie.

 

[Thief]

Would you mind just responding to my points rather than resorting to poetic dodges that have nothing at all to the conversation? I always respect you enough to actually respond to what you say. If you can't come up with an argument, just admit it. No biggie.

I have taken you to the 'point'
you're just refusing to see the 'light'

 

[leibowde84]

I have taken you to the 'point'
you're just refusing to see the 'light'

Ok, so you really can't just provide an honest argument. You really do have to resort to gibberish, rather than respecting me enough to respond to my argument. Why do you have to be so disrespectful. I am merely trying to understand where you are coming frkm. But, whenever you are unable to come up with a counterpoint, you resort to being defensive. It's sad really.

 

[Thief]

Ok, so you really can't just provide an honest argument. You really do have to resort to gibberish, rather than respecting me enough to respond to my argument. Why do you have to be so disrespectful. I am merely trying to understand where you are coming frkm. But, whenever you are unable to come up with a counterpoint, you resort to being defensive. It's sad really.

that you refuse and label the obvious as gibberish.....means nothing