God Recreated the Earth 6,000 Years Ago!

[Milton Platt]

I'm happy you've had many conversations before - but let's just focus on this one..

What evidence can there possibly be for something that does not exist?
What evidence could there possibly against it? If something is real, there is some sort of tangible, quantifiable, verifiable evidence, somewhere, right?
I something is not real, then what evidence could you ever provide for disproving it, other than the fact that there is an immense lack of positive evidence?

Do you see this works? It is not word play - It is incredibly simple logic.

If a Supernatural claim is to have any merit whatsoever in a rational discussion, then it has to be substantiated with something other than personal conviction. Surely you agree with that statement.
If I said there was a lion in my house, you could easily prove or disprove that claim. But if I told you the Lion was invisible and you simply had to have faith that there was a lion in my house... well that would change everything wouldn't it? You certainly wouldn't accept that there was lion sleeping on my sofa, just because I was very adamant about the invisible lion, would you? Wouldn't you naturally expect more proof of the invisible lion than just my boisterous claims, regardless of how sincere they were?

Of course you would!

So if you want to make a claim for the supernatural, or the metaphysical, or from a place of devout conviction - you're simply going to have to supply something more substantial than saying "This is my belief, and I REALLY REALLY believe it, so you have you accept it as being true!"



Empirical data is the supreme standard by which to measure reality - relying on anything else would allow for any and all suggestions to be considered equal.

Without empirical standards, the assertion that the Solar System is Geocentric and ruled over by a Master Race of Flying Squirrels is equal to the assertion that the Solar System is Helicentric and adheres to the Laws of Physics.

Dammit!!!!! I really was hoping the flying squirrels would pan out. OH, well....back to the drawing board.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Dammit!!!!! I really was hoping the flying squirrels would pan out. OH, well....back to the drawing board.

No reason to worry, my friend.
So long as we don't require empirical evidence for things, then your Flying Squirrel Universe theory is totally legit!!

 

[gnostic]

Please demonstrate how you know empiricism to be true. Bear in mind that you are about to make an argument(s) from empiricist data, and that you are presupposing that empirical objects "exist".

Using metaphysics alone to demonstrate something's or someone's existence in reality, would only use use logic alone. People can use metaphysics that something or someone that actually exist, through naturalism.

But a religious believer, eg a theist, can argue a deity or deities exist, through his personal belief alone, using metaphysics, but his metaphysical stance is based on believing something that defy law of nature, hence this metaphysics would fall under the supernatural.

And there lies the problem with metaphysics. You don't require evidences or testings to substantiate claim of supernatural, like gods, spirits, angels, demons, jinns, fairies, or creatures like dragons, phoenixes, Griffins, cyclops, Pegasus, etc. For this very reason, metaphysics is useless, because anyone can argue for anything that don't exist, to be "real".

Metaphysics use just rationality alone. So both theists and non-theists can use metaphysics alone, and would not really get anywhere, because one could argue for his belief, while the other could argue for his disbelief, both sides cannot prove their claims, if they have nothing but their biased logic or biased belief.

This is the reason why I hate people, who simply use or rely on one philosophy.

If I am going to to say anything that's real, I would use more than one philosophy, to substantiate or verify my claim. I would use metaphysics, but I would mix this one philosophy with naturalism and humanism, and with empiricism, epistemology, ontology, pragmatism, logical-positivism, analytic philosophy, and with whole lot more.

But one of the best way to objectively verify anything or any claim, is using empiricism. Empiricism would allow me to repeatedly test claim, or to verify evidence with more independent evidences, in which I can conclusively settle any claim. This is not only to test for something that's true, BUT EVEN MORE IMPORTANTLY - to test if it is false.

Using rationality is all fine and well, but using rationality along with empiricism is much superior than using metaphysics.

Empiricism with falsification and scientific method is a better method of objectively verifying or REFUTING any statement regarding the natural world.

To me, religion is based more on the supernatural, which rely on people's ignorance and fear of the unknown. And there is a word for this...it is called "superstition". God's reply to Job, in JOB 38, 39, 40 & 41, demonstrate the bible reliance on faith and superstition in the supernatural. Nothing that God have said in those 4 chapters show God to be any more advanced than the primitive superstitious Iron Age people.

C'mon, man. The bible would have us believe that angels could have as many as one head with four faces or have as many as six wings...hence seraphim or archangels. If that's not superstitious nonsense, then what is it? Do we take this description of the seraphim, literally or metaphorically?

With humility, may I point out to you kindly that saying a source is not credible is actually slander until you provide evidence to the contrary. For example, there are three dozen Bible authors across 1,500 years, 9 for the NT alone. There are also 10 first century non-Bible historians who say things like "There are a bunch of Jews following Jesus, whom they say resurrected." Do you have contemporary documents proving the Bible authors were not credible or are you making an argument from silence?

The gospels are neither credible, nor reliable, historically-speaking.

The birth of Jesus, as narrated in 2 different gospels showed they are both unreliable, historically.

Now, I don't like Flavius Josephus as a historian, because he mixed biblical myths with his his history on the Jewish people, but he far more reliable with his history in the last 100 years (meaning from his time to 100 years before he began writing, so covering the 1st century CE and 1st century BCE).

Josephus doesn't provide any detail about Jesus, other than saying that James was his brother. But Josephus does include quite extensive details about the life of Herod the Great, and Herod's children (and descendants) as well as the war with Rome, during his own time. And in one of that chapter, Josephus included the execution of John the Baptist.

Neither Matthew, nor Luke - that if they were truly the authors of their respective gospels, clearly wouldn't have access to source materials that were available to Josephus.

For one, Josephus, came from noble family, and as well from priestly family. He was royally and priestly connected through his ancestry, so he had access to sources, like official documents from palaces and the temple, that neither gospel authors have. And being nobleman himself, he was far more educated than the average Jewish people.

Furthermore, he was connected to the Flavian dynasty, during the war with Rome, particularly with Titius, son of Vespanian.

Both Vespanian and Titius were commanders of the Roman armies in Judaea. When Josephus was captured, he defected to the Romans, and became their friend, and Titius' adviser.

My point in this historical background of Josephus' past, is that he, as a historian, would have access to official Roman records, as well as the the Jewish ones. He would have far more access to sources than any gospel author.

But getting back to your claim that the gospels were "credible", I have to say it isn't.

I stated earlier that the gospels about Jesus' birth are unreliable.

They not only conflict with each other, they are also historically unreliable.

With Matthew (gospel), we have the event about Herod. Like I said earlier, Josephus have materials unavailable to others, outside of nobility or royal family. And Josephus covered a lot about Herod's sordid life and his family (eg betrayal, corruption and murders), but none of them talk of Herod meeting 3 wise men, or that of ordering massacre of children in Bethlehem.

If the gospel was true about the massacre then Josephus wouldn't be silent on the subject, because Josephus have already quite extensively about Herod's tyranny. This is reason why I don't think the massacre happen.

Second, with regarding to the gospel of Luke, especially about the census of Quirinius. I think Luke, or whoever the hell was the real author, set the census at the wrong time, before Herod's death.

It is the wrong time, because Josephus clearly stated that the governorship and census of Quirinius didn't occurred (6 CE) until Archelaus lost his throne and was banished from Judaea, 10 years after the death of Archelaus' father.

Another inaccuracy of Luke's gospel is that Joseph had to travel from galilee to Bethlehem, to enrol in the census. The Romans wouldn't need to known a person place of birth or home town. They would enro (and pay their taxes) in the town they currently living in, eg Nazareth. The Romans wouldn't know or need to know what tribe Joseph belong to, because they bloody wouldn't care.

Can you image, several thousands of people travelling back to the towns they were born in?

It would be stupid, inaccurate and cumbersome for thousands of people travelling to other places to enrol in the census.

 

[Thief]

We all know the bible has contradictions.
Not a text of history.

I for one, do not rely on scripture for recital of event.

I prefer the text for it's notation of spirit.
I accept, no two witnesses will agree on any one aspect.

So....here we are...talking about God.

It is foolish to say to me ...'You don't know God.'

a creation is a reflection of it's Creator.
I have the stars overhead and the earth beneath my feet

I don't believe all of this is some fantastic accident.
I believe all of this is one fantastic creation.

if you care to say God is fantastic......ok

 

[gnostic]

The Genesis is also inaccurate, historically.

And I am not just talking about the creation (Genesis 1 to 3) or the Flood (Genesis 6 to 8).

I am talking about Egypt and the city of Uruk (or Erech) not existing until after the Flood.

Egyptian cultures predated the start of the dynastic periods (eg Dynasty 1).

While Uruk predated the start of Sumerian civilisation (3100 BCE), by 2 millennia (foundation or earliest settlement of Uruk is 5000 BCE), known as the Ubaid period. In the Uruk period 4000 to 3200 BCE, was the time when Uruk truly began to flourish as a true city. The worship of Inanna started as early as early Uruk period (4000 BCE), and during the mid-4th millennium BCE, stone temples were being built to Inanna at the Eanna district, and to sky god An (or Babylonian Anu) at the Anu district. Uruk was the largest city in the world, during the 4th millennium BCE.

So for the Bible (Genesis 10: say that Nimrod founded Erech (Uruk) is not only historically incorrect, it is also archaeological incorrect.

That tell me, that the Genesis (and its original author) didn't know anything about real history, and its credibility is sadly lacking.

 

[Thief]

I reiterate

We all know the bible has contradictions.
Not a text of history.

I for one, do not rely on scripture for recital of event.

I prefer the text for it's notation of spirit.
I accept, no two witnesses will agree on any one aspect.

So....here we are...talking about God.

It is foolish to say to me ...'You don't know God.'

a creation is a reflection of it's Creator.
I have the stars overhead and the earth beneath my feet

I don't believe all of this is some fantastic accident.
I believe all of this is one fantastic creation.

if you care to say God is fantastic......ok

 

[gnostic]

We all know the bible has contradictions.
Not a text of history.

I for one, do not rely on scripture for recital of event.

I prefer the text for it's notation of spirit.
I accept, no two witnesses will agree on any one aspect.

So....here we are...talking about God.

It is foolish to say to me ...'You don't know God.'

a creation is a reflection of it's Creator.
I have the stars overhead and the earth beneath my feet

I don't believe all of this is some fantastic accident.
I believe all of this is one fantastic creation.

if you can to say God is fantastic......ok

It is foolish to think you know god...especially if he did exist.

Seriously, the bible can only tell you so much about god, and all of it is based on its relationship to the followers.

The "followers" being Jews, Israelite or Hebrews, according to your OT bible or Hebrew Tanakh, and to Christians of the New Testament, through Christ.

If your god did exist, then you couldn't possibly contain in some books, can you? Can you truly sum up his entire existence to him being a "creator" or a "destroyer", that he feel love, hate, compassion, jealousy or wrathful?

I think anyone who think he knows god, is either (ego-tripping) arrogant or (full-blown) delusional.

 

[gnostic]

A person who has access to official documents or records, have a better chance of getting their history correct than a fisherman, a shepherd or a tax-man. Josephus wasn't even born during Jesus' ministry, then, but because of his tie to nobility and to the priesthood, he would have better access to records than any of Jesus' disciples or Paul himself.

Seriously, how would anyone would know about what went on the court of Herod Antipas, when John Baptist was beheaded.

Was any of gospel authors, John's disciples or Jesus' disciples present at Herod's court? Did any of them have that sort access to the palace or royal court? If none of them were present, then how could they possibly know that was any dance or favor asked, as stated in the gospel?

Josephus had also recorded John's arrest and beheading, but there are no connection of John the Baptist to Jesus or to Jesus' movement, and not a single thing about the messiah tied to John. What Josephus does say is that John tried to teach virtue living, and Herod Antipas was jealous and afraid of John's popularity, and he feared unrest. That's the only motive given in Josephus' account for Herod having John beheaded. Josephus' account is a lot more believable than the gospels' embellishments (particularly Mark's).

 

[outhouse]

I believe all of this is one fantastic creation.

Proselytize your mythology elsewhere, this thread is about the age of the earth.

Religion has no tie to the age of the earth in any way, nor does your personal faith.

 

[outhouse]

a creation is a reflection of it's Creator.

Yes people create mythology. They factually used creation mythology by ignorant primitive people in many civilizations who did not know anything about the natural world they lived in.

 

[outhouse]

I reiterate

That you don't have any credible knowledge on the bible or the age of the earth, its why you only proselytize and NEVER provide credible sources.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

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?

Yeah, some of the earliest Christians thought that Genesis was a re-creation story, and that interpretation has fallen in and out of style since then.

 

[`mud]

SO THERE !!
~
'mud

 

[Shad]

It seems you are wholly unaware that millions of people of faith also believe in evolution, including countless scientists. Argument from ignorance.

Nope. Look up your fallacy again. I pointed out a specific group that do not know of evolution since they lived and died before it was a developed idea or even theory. Those people also lived centuries before the modern idea of science were standardized. So name dropping these people does not help your case. Also your own reply to me shows that you ignored my point and your own list by mentioning " millions of people of faith also believe in evolution, including countless scientists." Well that removes the first few centuries of the last doesn't it... Keep in mind you are arguing for creationism not evolution so you reply helps my view not your own.

 

[Thief]

It is foolish to think you know god...especially if he did exist.

Seriously, the bible can only tell you so much about god, and all of it is based on its relationship to the followers.

The "followers" being Jews, Israelite or Hebrews, according to your OT bible or Hebrew Tanakh, and to Christians of the New Testament, through Christ.

If your god did exist, then you couldn't possibly contain in some books, can you? Can you truly sum up his entire existence to him being a "creator" or a "destroyer", that he feel love, hate, compassion, jealousy or wrathful?

I think anyone who think he knows god, is either (ego-tripping) arrogant or (full-blown) delusional.

I don't rely altogether on what someone wrote centuries ago.

I have science in current day

 

[Thief]

Yes people create mythology. They factually used creation mythology by ignorant primitive people in many civilizations who did not know anything about the natural world they lived in.

see previous post

 

[outhouse]

I have science in current day

No you don't.

You factually change theism and science to fit your imaginative claims you refuse to source or support outside of imagination you PROSETYIZE this forum with.

If you had some credible support we could say your claims are not imaginative, but you refuse to even stay on topic to the age of the earth because your sop busy PROSELYTIZING your imagination.

 

[gnostic]

I don't rely altogether on what someone wrote centuries ago.

I have science in current day

When you constantly recite your motto - "spirit before substance" - or reiterated to ad naseum that - God is the "cause" to the "effect" like the universe - or that you can't put God onto the "Petri dish" - all ("God" or "spirit") without any verifiable evidences, then I will have to beg to differ.

When you deal with most science, then you would need to provide verifiable or empirical scientific evidences or the ability to test the any prediction made in the hypothesis or theory. You can't do that, therefore your claims (about God or spirit) are "not scientific".

The cause-and-effect argument CAN-ONLY-BE-USED, if you can only provide evidences to support the "cause". Without evidences to show that the existence of a god being "true", then you are merely ranting pseudoscience, not science.

Did you notice that I used the word "most" in the 1st line of previous paragraph? There are other science that are not physically testable or there are no evidences yet, to verify if the theory is true or not. This science is known as "theoretical" science, or mostly in the field of "theoretical physics", like superstring theory, m-theory, the various multiverse theories, etc.

Scientists may not be able to find evidences or test these theoretical theories, but there are other method of testing them - through often complex scientific "proof". Proof as in representing the theory through mathematical models or logical-intensive mathematical equations.

And for your information, evolutionary biology is not theoretical because fossil evidences, and testing in research labs have shown that this field of biology is definitely "experimental".

Can you provide mathematical models or mathematical equations (thus scientific-mathematical proofs), to the existence of a god or spirit? If not, then your claims are once again - "not scientific".

If you can't PROVE that God exist with mathematical models or mathematical equations, then you are only ranting pseudoscience, not science.

You have scientific grounds to stand on - whether they be experimentally (evidences) or theoretically (proofs) - about the creator God being the cause of creation of life or this universe.

Your words are empty and baseless every time you mouth "spirit before substance" or God-and-creation is cause-and-effect.

 

[Milton Platt]

When you constantly recite your motto - "spirit before substance" - or reiterated to ad naseum that - God is the "cause" to the "effect" like the universe - or that you can't put God onto the "Petri dish" - all ("God" or "spirit") without any verifiable evidences, then I will have to beg to differ.

When you deal with most science, then you would need to provide verifiable or empirical scientific evidences or the ability to test the any prediction made in the hypothesis or theory. You can't do that, therefore your claims (about God or spirit) are "not scientific".

The cause-and-effect argument CAN-ONLY-BE-USED, if you can only provide evidences to support the "cause". Without evidences to show that the existence of a god being "true", then you are merely ranting pseudoscience, not science.

Did you notice that I used the word "most" in the 1st line of previous paragraph? There are other science that are not physically testable or there are no evidences yet, to verify if the theory is true or not. This science is known as "theoretical" science, or mostly in the field of "theoretical physics", like superstring theory, m-theory, the various multiverse theories, etc.

Scientists may not be able to find evidences or test these theoretical theories, but there are other method of testing them - through often complex scientific "proof". Proof as in representing the theory through mathematical models or logical-intensive mathematical equations.

And for your information, evolutionary biology is not theoretical because fossil evidences, and testing in research labs have shown that this field of biology is definitely "experimental".

Can you provide mathematical models or mathematical equations (thus scientific-mathematical proofs), to the existence of a god or spirit? If not, then your claims are once again - "not scientific".

If you can't PROVE that God exist with mathematical models or mathematical equations, then you are only ranting pseudoscience, not science.

You have scientific grounds to stand on - whether they be experimentally (evidences) or theoretically (proofs) - about the creator God being the cause of creation of life or this universe.

Your words are empty and baseless every time you mouth "spirit before substance" or God-and-creation is cause-and-effect.

And let him try to define "spirit>......

 

[gnostic]

And let him try to define "spirit>......

He used his "spirit before substance" or any number of variations, like "spirit first, then substance", in this thread and several other threads that I know of (and perhaps there a lot more threads out there, that I had not visit or read).

And not once, did he ever provide a definition to "spirit". Nor provide evidences for the existence of this "spirit".

He may say...

I have science in current day

And YET, he go and fall back to and say thing like "Faith don't require evidences" argument, or his favorite one - "you can't put god (or spirit) on a petri-dish".

Yes, I do agree faith don't require scientific evidences, because faith is not science, PERIOD!

But it seem that he can't grasp, to have and understand scientific theory, you need EVIDENCES! It is as he's saying that faith and science are one-and-the-same.

What he has is his religious belief and his pseudoscience. Not science.

"I have science in current day..." Good grief.