Any deep inspiring Spiritual Experiences? Share your Story!

[ABikerSailor]

My personal opinion about coincidences? Coincidences are actually God showing you that He's paying attention to you.

 

[ding]

I reserve them especially for you.

you're babbling ---you don't even make sense anymore

It’s pretty simple. Space and time had a beginning. Just like the Bible says.

No ding. The bible says that God created heaven and earth. A world above and the world below, which has absolutely nothing whatever to do with the beginning of the universe or space or time.

The law, a light to the nations, is the firmament, basis, of heaven that stretches out high above your head from horizon to horizon like a crystal clear vault.

Before this light was spoken into existence the earth was without shape or form and void, and darkness covered the face of the unknown.

No. That’s what you think it means.

Genesis describes that God created space and time and that man is a product of that creation

Something science has confirmed.

I would ask you to explain how science confirms God created space and time but I think I have heard the answer before. It goes something like this. Since no one was around to observe the event, there is no evidence that God didn't create space and time. Furthermore, science has no evidence, just a theory. So it's obvious the universe was created by God because the Bible tells of us so. And for evidence, just look around. That should be all the evidence you need.

Science has confirmed space and time were created from nothing.

This creates a lot of problems for some people.

 

[ding]

I reserve them especially for you.

you're babbling ---you don't even make sense anymore

It’s pretty simple. Space and time had a beginning. Just like the Bible says.

No ding. The bible says that God created heaven and earth. A world above and the world below, which has absolutely nothing whatever to do with the beginning of the universe or space or time.

The law, a light to the nations, is the firmament, basis, of heaven that stretches out high above your head from horizon to horizon like a crystal clear vault.

Before this light was spoken into existence the earth was without shape or form and void, and darkness covered the face of the unknown.

No. That’s what you think it means.

Genesis describes that God created space and time and that man is a product of that creation

Something science has confirmed.

I would ask you to explain how science confirms God created space and time but I think I have heard the answer before. It goes something like this. Since no one was around to observe the event, there is no evidence that God didn't create space and time. Furthermore, science has no evidence, just a theory. So it's obvious the universe was created by God because the Bible tells of us so. And for evidence, just look around. That should be all the evidence you need.

That doesn't sound like my answer for how I know God created space and time. My answer sounds like this...

We know from science that space and time had a beginning. Specifically, red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations, quantum mechanics, the First Law of Thermodynamics, the Second Law of Thermodynamics and Inflation Theory.

Red shift, cosmic background radiation and Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations tells us that all matter and energy in the universe once occupied the space of 1 billionth of 1 trillionth the size of an atom and then began to expand and cool. The the First Law of Thermodynamics (i.e. conservation of energy) tells us that since that time matter and energy has only changed form. Which means that the atoms in our bodies were created from nothing when space and and time were created from nothing.

Red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations and the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that space and time did have a beginning. If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning. The problem with a cyclical universe is with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. For every matter to energy or energy to matter exchange there is a loss of usable energy. So while the total energy of the universe does not decrease, the usable energy of the universe does decrease. If it is a periodic or cyclical universe then the entropy will increase with each cycle. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental law of nature which tells us that entropy can only increase or stay the same. Entropy can never decrease. Which means that in a finite amount of time, a finite system will reach a maximum state of disorder which is called thermal equilibrium and then it will stay in that state. A cyclical universe cannot avoid this problem. Since we do not see thermal equilibrium (good thing too because there would be no life) we know that the universe did have a beginning.

Inflation Theory, the First Law of Thermodynamics and quantum mechanics tells us that it is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.

Chapters 1 and 2 of Genesis is the allegorical account of creation. Specifically, the creation of the universe and everything in it from nothing and the evolution of space and time from cosmic evolution through the evolution of consciousness.

The first five books of the Bible (known as the Torah) were written by Moses - an adopted son of the king of Egypt - in approximately 1400 B.C.. These five books focus on the beginning of the nation of Israel; but the first 11 chapters of the Torah records the history that all nations have in common. These allegorical accounts of the history of the world had been passed down from generation to generation orally for thousands of years. Moses did not really write the first 11 chapters of the Bible. Moses was the first Hebrew to record them.

Approximately 800 years before Moses recorded the allegorical accounts of the history of the world. The Chinese recorded this history as symbols in the Chinese language. They drew pictures to express words or ideas. Simple pictures were combined to make more complex thoughts. They used well known history and common everyday things to make a word so people could easily remember it. The account of Genesis found it's way into the Chinese written language because the Chinese had migrated from the cradle of civilization. Prior to this migration they all shared a common history and religion.

The Bible even explains how it was possible for the Chinese to record the account of Genesis 1500 years before Moses recorded it. The account of the Tower of Babel was the allegorical account of the great migration from Mesopotamia. This also explains why all ancient cultures have an account of a great flood. Because they all shared a common history and religion before the great migration from the cradle of civilization.

So if we start from the belief that the first eleven chapters of the Torah are an allegorical account of world history before the great migration from Mesopotamia - which was an actual historical event - then the first eleven chapters of the Torah takes on new meaning. Seen in this light these accounts should be viewed less like fairy tales and more like how important information was passed down in ancient times. Just as the Chinese used well known history and everyday things as symbols in their written language to make words easier to remember, ancient man used stories to pass down historical events and important knowledge to future generations. Interspersed in these allegorical accounts of history are wisdoms that they deemed important enough to pass down and remember. Such as man knows right from wrong and when he violates it, rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he didn't do wrong. Most people don't even realize this wisdom is in the Torah because they read it critically instead of searching for the wisdom that ancient man knew and found important enough to include in his account of world history.

We have to keep in mind that these accounts are 6,000 years old and were passed down orally from one generation to the next for thousands of years. Surely ancient man believed these accounts were of the utmost importance otherwise they would not have been passed down for thousands of years before they were recorded in writing. We shouldn't view these accounts using the context of the modern world. Unfortunately, we are so far removed from these events that we have lost all original meaning. If you were to ask almost any Jew what the Tower of Babel was about he would have no clue that it was the allegorical account of the great migration from the cradle of civilization. That is not intended to be a criticism. It is intended to be an illustration of just how difficult a task it is to discover the original meaning from ancient accounts from 6,000 years ago. We read these texts like they were written yesterday looking for ways to discredit them and make ourselves feel superior rather than seeking the original meaning and wisdom.

At the heart of this debate is whether or not the material world was created by spirit. If the material world were not created by spirit, then everything which has occurred since the beginning of space and time are products of the material world. Everything which is incorporeal proceeded from the corporeal. There is no middle ground. There is no other option. Either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn't. All other options will simplify to one of these two lowest common denominators which are mutually exclusive.

So we need to start from that position and examine the evidence we have at our disposal which is creation itself. Specifically, the laws of nature; physical, biological and moral. And how space and time has evolved. And how we perceive God.

If we perceive God to be some magical fairy tale then everything we see will skew to that result. There won't be one single thing that we will agree with or accept. Whereas if we were trying to objectively analyze the evidence for spirit creating the material world we would listen to the whole argument and not look for trivial things to nitpick.

But since this is my argument we will use my perception of God. Which is there no thing that can describe God because God is no thing. God is not matter and energy like us and God exists outside of our four dimension space time. In fact the premise is that God is no thing. That God is a spirit. A spirit is no thing. Being things we can't possibly relate to being no things. A two dimensional being would have an easier time trying to understand our third dimension than we - a four dimensional being - would in trying to understand a multi-dimensional being outside of our space time. The closest I can come to and later confirm with the physical laws is that God is consciousness. That Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.

So now that a realistic perception of God has been established we need to examine the only evidence at our disposal. It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.

We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create.

The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a requisite for intelligence to arise. If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to existed the moment space and time were created. One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable. One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Entropy. That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe. It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder. But it is nature overriding it's tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the material world so that minds with bodies could create too.

If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. If we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

 

[ding]

that we address our neighbors with respect and inclusion in God's Kingdom ...

your a joke, lynghiem the inquisition cardinal new more astronomy than galileo to condemn him or for them to repent their sin ... are you suppose to be a new leaf for your phony religion.​

​

But how is it fair to judge me "as a joke" just because of failures of others?
Where are you getting that it's okay to judge a person based on other people?
Can you please explain

Where are you getting that it's okay to judge a person based on other people -

View attachment 261140

there has never been a condemnation by your 4th century religion for any of its uninterrupted history of persecution and victimization of the innocent from the 4th century to the present day - that is who you speak for lynghiem, your lack of remorse and reference to a false 4th century christ impedes the religion of antiquity, prescribed by the Almighty and for those, the true 1st century events destined for its success where you, your false religion is an absolute and threatening obstacle.

how can there be spiritual experiences for who believe a messiah will save them ...

Hi BreezeWood I am going to go back and give a WINNER rating to your response
because now we are finally getting somewhere. THANK YOU for your direct reply clarifying where this rebuke is coming from!

1. First of all I do not speak for this "religion" but come at it with the SAME GRIEVANCES
you state above. I AGREE WITH YOU there needs to be an organized spiritual rebuke IN FULL SPIRITUAL
AGREEMENT that the POINT IS TO ESTABLISH TRUTH.

2. The reason there 'HAS NEVER BEEN A CONDEMNATION' is that it has been splintered and disorganized.
There have ALWAYS been ATTEMPTS but they end up like you and me arguing amongst ourselves
and not combining efforts into an AGREE UNIFIED PUBLIC REBUKE as you and I have BOTH ARGUED IS NEEDED AND MISSING.

EXACTLY! BreezeWood I cannot say THANK YOU ENOUGH!

If we divide against ourselves, even as you and I struggle to agree with how to go about such a mass correction,
THAT'S WHY IT HAS NEVER BEEN DONE EFFECTIVELY

But since you are just as adamant as I am (if not more, as I am ALSO trying to set up proper rebuke for state/govt authority and abuses, as well as church/religious abuses of authority "at the same time" so that's why it takes me longer to organize both),

NOW together you and I and others seeking to rebuke can join forces and
ACHIEVE what has not been done properly over many centuries and generations of this bickering and wars.

3. As for me personally, I did not gain "awareness" of ANY issue with "religions" affecting me
until 1990. I started with just knowing the final answers, truth and resolution "were in the future."

I had revelations that NONE of the churches were teaching it correctly and that's why we weren't realizing this universal truth YET.
I saw in the future that it WILL HAPPEN but all churches were going to have to change how they taught
and start putting together this GREATER truth that takes ALL people of ALL tribes and religions to put together.

In this process, I also had visions of why the Constitutional govt and leaders weren't teaching the laws correctly either.
So all the political problems and solutions were going through this same process as the churches and religious leaders!

So both processes are about reforming the current church-state leadership and institutions
TO GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL LAWS THAT ARE UNIVERSAL and teach those correctly to begin with!

4. So if you want to start judging me, you can start the clock at
* May 1990 when I first had spiritual visions of the future and realizations of where society was heading
* January 1992 when I took a public oath to uphold the First Amendment to the Constitution and all religions protected thereunder
www.ethics-commission.net
* June 1996 when I vowed to defend the Constitutional rights and plans of Freedmen's Town leaders and community
to preserve and restore the national historic District as a sustainable community campus www.campusplan.org
These federal plans for reforming public housing were later expanded into a larger plan to replicate sustainable campus town communities along the Border www.earnedamnesty.org
* Second half of 1999 when I went through deep spiritual healing to resolve karma I had with both church and state and break "generational curses" that were blocking the process and keeping me stuck in bad karma from the past
* 2008-2016 when I started more outreach with Constitutional allies and approaches to addressing govt abuses. I specifically felt called to address the Democrats, Greens, Occupy, and Peace and Justice communities, as well as the Tea Party independents preaching reform
* 2016-2018 when Harvey hit and I had to let everything go and start over because I could not pursue any plans
And this year 2019 when I found more spiritual support to pursue "civil obedience" outreach and Constitutional corrections to church-state issues such as health care and right to life that are currently dividing people by party. (both Constitutionalist leaders as well as certain pastors and community leaders called to either criminal justice or peace and justice reforms or both)

Where we seem to agree is on RESTORATIVE JUSTICE. That is what I am saying is the meaning and message behind Christ Jesus. So it's RESTORATIVE JUSTICE that saves humanity, not some personified figure but what Jesus REPRESENTS universal to all humanity.

You are free to start judging me since 1990 and argue none of my own efforts have been successful "collectively" YET. But individually, working one on one with neighbors and groups one at a time to resolve issues and grow from there, I and others who believe in RESTORATIVE JUSTICE have succeeded in resolving relationships with various people trying to help with this larger process.

I haven't yet succeeded in reaching an understanding or agreement with you
but I believe we will succeed because we are both committed to this rebuke of false Christian teachings, abuse and corruption.
That is both of our responsibility for resolving communication between you and me
BEFORE we expect to take on larger groups. We should at least correct problems this has caused between you and me first!

When did you start trying to teach these corrections?

When does your clock start?

I don't think it is fair at all to judge you if you have never successfully presented a correction either
in all this time you have been called to START working on it.

You and I weren't there when this process started, but we are here now doing our part
until a greater and greater consensus is formed to establish truth and eradicate error by corrections!

Thank you and I encourage you to keep forming allies to further promote this rebuke and correction.

We are more effective when we work in agreement to establish truth,
not distract and divide by blaming who did or did not do enough to correct these problems.

You and I both seek and know that the REAL TRUTH will dispel the falsehoods.

Let's keep finding better more effective ways to communicate where the errors need to be corrected.
We do better working as allies in teams to help others make the corrections
until it's clear and we are all in agreement we have arrived at the same universal truth.

Thank you BreezeWood
You get a WINNER from me and I wish there was a button to give you 5 1/2 stars!

Which false teachings? Can you be specific?

ding The main issue I have taken on is why are Christians
taught to REJECT secular gentiles under natural laws instead of including them.
(And once that rejection and division is overcome, then we can use the same
authority of the laws to ENFORCE the secular laws equally as we use
scriptural laws for rebuke and correction. But this isn't being taught, by either
the church or state, only political bullying and blame back and forth.)

The scriptures in Matthew 18:15-20 describe the proper rebuke process
but this is NOT BEING TAUGHT OR PRACTICED among Christians.

As for the Catholic Church, many people have brought forth the grievance
that the real Sabbath falls on Friday evening and lasts till sundown on Saturday.
So there is a concerted rebuke and grievance by many diverse witnesses
dismissing the Catholic Authorities for continuing to teach by their own theology
and not following the Bible.

Because this was never addressed by instructions in Matthew,
it has caused division and been a stumbling block by which
people reject each other even as BreezeWood is doing.

There are other grievances and corrections I would offer.
Including the division over Spiritual Healing that has not
been established as universal truth on how this process works consistently.

The biggest issue I have run into ding is people are
not following "due process" and working consensually
to resolve issues, but start judging and rejecting which isn't
what the Bible instructs us to do. In civil terms we are supposed
to NOT punish or deprive people of liberty or rights UNTIL and
UNLESS due process is applied to convict someone first.
But we violate this all the time, judging people without giving
them an equal chance at defense and not seeking to reconcile
to ESTABLISH the truth first. We jump in and start rejecting.

So that is the worst part, is teaching UNFORGIVENESS
when the Bible clearly teaches us to forgive and ask
God's help to forgive.

I see this part of the message and process getting lost.

We correct that part, and the rest can correct itself
by working together instead of dividing and rejecting
over unforgiveness and blame projected between groups!

I have no idea what you are talking about when you say "Christians [are] taught to REJECT secular gentiles under natural laws instead of including them." Are you referring to atheists as secular gentiles? How was I taught to reject them? I was taught to live and let live.

(And once that rejection and division is overcome, then we can use the same
authority of the laws to ENFORCE the secular laws equally as we use
scriptural laws for rebuke and correction. But this isn't being taught, by either
the church or state, only political bullying and blame back and forth.)

No offense but I think you are living in a fantasy world. Progress is quite messy... by design. Man knows right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. This isn't going to change anytime soon. Man's going to need a wake up call. So I don't see anything changing without a lot of suffering to force the change. That's pretty much how it has always happened in the past.

The scriptures in Matthew 18:15-20 describe the proper rebuke process
but this is NOT BEING TAUGHT OR PRACTICED among Christians.

That's not really an example of a false teaching now is it? I can tell you from how I was taught that there are three persons that amends must be made with; the person being offended, the person doing the offending and God. As for rebuking others, I leave that to God. Failed behaviors naturally lead to failure. Everything works itself out in the end even if progress is messy.

As for the Catholic Church, many people have brought forth the grievance
that the real Sabbath falls on Friday evening and lasts till sundown on Saturday.
So there is a concerted rebuke and grievance by many diverse witnesses
dismissing the Catholic Authorities for continuing to teach by their own theology
and not following the Bible.

First of all, everyday is a day to thank and praise God. Giving praise and thanks for what we have been given is a successful behavior which naturally leads to success. Secondly, the Sabbath is greatly misunderstood. The sabbath is for us, not for God. We were told to do as the original creator did, create for six days and then rest. Creating is supposed to be so much fun that we had to be told to take a break from it. So choose any day you want as your sabbath. I don't concern myself with the form of religion too much. Traditions are important but it is the relationship with God that matters.

Because this was never addressed by instructions in Matthew,
it has caused division and been a stumbling block by which
people reject each other even as BreezeWood is doing.

Breezewood is a douchebag. A real piece of dirt. He's a subversive; a troll. He won't be able to list anything of substance that was misrepresented. Wait and see.

There are other grievances and corrections I would offer.
Including the division over Spiritual Healing that has not
been established as universal truth on how this process works consistently.

Let me tell you how the process works. It's quite messy. Man suffers then he remembers the ways of God. Then he becomes satisfied and forgets the ways of God and the process starts all over again.

The biggest issue I have run into ding is people are
not following "due process" and working consensually
to resolve issues, but start judging and rejecting which isn't
what the Bible instructs us to do. In civil terms we are supposed
to NOT punish or deprive people of liberty or rights UNTIL and
UNLESS due process is applied to convict someone first.
But we violate this all the time, judging people without giving
them an equal chance at defense and not seeking to reconcile
to ESTABLISH the truth first. We jump in and start rejecting.

You make it sound like everyone does this but that just isn't the case. In fact, I suspect it is the exception and not the rule. I suspect the rule is quite different. I don't believe I will apologize for the exception when the rule is so obvious. Especially when people are trying to smear the rule by exception.

So that is the worst part, is teaching UNFORGIVENESS
when the Bible clearly teaches us to forgive and ask
God's help to forgive.

Again, I don't see this as the rule.

 

[Flopper]

you're babbling ---you don't even make sense anymore

It’s pretty simple. Space and time had a beginning. Just like the Bible says.

No ding. The bible says that God created heaven and earth. A world above and the world below, which has absolutely nothing whatever to do with the beginning of the universe or space or time.

The law, a light to the nations, is the firmament, basis, of heaven that stretches out high above your head from horizon to horizon like a crystal clear vault.

Before this light was spoken into existence the earth was without shape or form and void, and darkness covered the face of the unknown.

No. That’s what you think it means.

Genesis describes that God created space and time and that man is a product of that creation

Something science has confirmed.

I would ask you to explain how science confirms God created space and time but I think I have heard the answer before. It goes something like this. Since no one was around to observe the event, there is no evidence that God didn't create space and time. Furthermore, science has no evidence, just a theory. So it's obvious the universe was created by God because the Bible tells of us so. And for evidence, just look around. That should be all the evidence you need.

Dear Flopper yes and no.
"God" is used like a variable to represent these abstract things.
It doesn't mean the VALUE behind the symbol doesn't exist.

We can neither prove nor disprove how the universe and its laws came about
because NONE of us were physically there to witness all this.
It's all faith based, even the science that may or may not be necessary.

As long as people AGREE what to call things, then it's for
practical purposes we use terms to COMMUNICATE
whatever we are referring to.

So if the whole point is to discuss what are the PREEXISTING
laws of nature, the universe and human nature in order
to agree how to relate to each other and institutions in society,
let's talk about that. Using whatever terms make sense
to the people having the conversation.

If "God" does not make sense to you, there is nothing wrong
with talking about the universal laws of nature or human society
and government. What does it take to realize peace and justice
in the real world. That's what the point is of using variable like
"God" and "Jesus" to represent universal TRUTH and JUSTICE.
if the point is to discuss that, why not just translate into secular terms
and have the same discussions?

If we all want to see "equal justice for all" and bring an end to abuses and
corruption and oppression, how do we define where the problems are
coming from and how the solutions can be implemented? How do we
fix broken relations and clean up corruption after institutions have abused
authority?

We can have these same discussions by translating God's will as meaning
"the greatest good for humanity" or "under God" as "the public GOOD."
We can agree to seek and submit to the authority of "Jesus" as
agreeing to establish "Equal Justice Under Law" for all people to be
united and protected equally instead of warring groups competing for power
which isn't protecting all groups or interests equally. So we can agree
to drop this for a better approach that brings Peace and Justice for ALL.

Can we agree what these symbols mean?
Then we can have more effective discussions and teamwork
how to go about collaborating to achieve this "universal peace and justice"
that both religions and political laws strive for.

Suppose you were Moses and having a close connection to God, he imparts to you the full knowledge of how creation was done. So you know the science, the mathematics, and the whole ball of wax. You're commanded by God to write the story of creation in a way that everyone born then or any time in future will understand creation, from the small child to the adult from educated priests to poor farmers. Keep in mind people at that time believed the earth was flat and surrounded by a body of water. If you traveled too far off the land, you would fall off the edge of the earth to mouths of sea monsters. The sun, moon, and stars moved beneath the firmament and in contact with its under surface. God of course, caused the movement of these heavenly bodies. There was no science as such and mathematics for most people was counting.

So how would you explain creation? You would most likely write or chisel into a tablet something very similar to the creation story.

 

[james bond]

Science has confirmed space and time were created from nothing.

Yes, we have length, width, depth, and time. However, the being which created it all (at the same time) would have to be timeless in order to create time. We find God is in another dimension, but that his time isn't comparable to our time. Even if we lived the atheist scientists' billions of years, then it would still be nothing in regards of time to him.

 

[Flopper]

you're babbling ---you don't even make sense anymore

It’s pretty simple. Space and time had a beginning. Just like the Bible says.

No ding. The bible says that God created heaven and earth. A world above and the world below, which has absolutely nothing whatever to do with the beginning of the universe or space or time.

The law, a light to the nations, is the firmament, basis, of heaven that stretches out high above your head from horizon to horizon like a crystal clear vault.

Before this light was spoken into existence the earth was without shape or form and void, and darkness covered the face of the unknown.

No. That’s what you think it means.

Genesis describes that God created space and time and that man is a product of that creation

Something science has confirmed.

I would ask you to explain how science confirms God created space and time but I think I have heard the answer before. It goes something like this. Since no one was around to observe the event, there is no evidence that God didn't create space and time. Furthermore, science has no evidence, just a theory. So it's obvious the universe was created by God because the Bible tells of us so. And for evidence, just look around. That should be all the evidence you need.

That doesn't sound like my answer for how I know God created space and time. My answer sounds like this...

We know from science that space and time had a beginning. Specifically, red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations, quantum mechanics, the First Law of Thermodynamics, the Second Law of Thermodynamics and Inflation Theory.

Red shift, cosmic background radiation and Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations tells us that all matter and energy in the universe once occupied the space of 1 billionth of 1 trillionth the size of an atom and then began to expand and cool. The the First Law of Thermodynamics (i.e. conservation of energy) tells us that since that time matter and energy has only changed form. Which means that the atoms in our bodies were created from nothing when space and and time were created from nothing.

Red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations and the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that space and time did have a beginning. If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning. The problem with a cyclical universe is with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. For every matter to energy or energy to matter exchange there is a loss of usable energy. So while the total energy of the universe does not decrease, the usable energy of the universe does decrease. If it is a periodic or cyclical universe then the entropy will increase with each cycle. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental law of nature which tells us that entropy can only increase or stay the same. Entropy can never decrease. Which means that in a finite amount of time, a finite system will reach a maximum state of disorder which is called thermal equilibrium and then it will stay in that state. A cyclical universe cannot avoid this problem. Since we do not see thermal equilibrium (good thing too because there would be no life) we know that the universe did have a beginning.

Inflation Theory, the First Law of Thermodynamics and quantum mechanics tells us that it is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.

Chapters 1 and 2 of Genesis is the allegorical account of creation. Specifically, the creation of the universe and everything in it from nothing and the evolution of space and time from cosmic evolution through the evolution of consciousness.

The first five books of the Bible (known as the Torah) were written by Moses - an adopted son of the king of Egypt - in approximately 1400 B.C.. These five books focus on the beginning of the nation of Israel; but the first 11 chapters of the Torah records the history that all nations have in common. These allegorical accounts of the history of the world had been passed down from generation to generation orally for thousands of years. Moses did not really write the first 11 chapters of the Bible. Moses was the first Hebrew to record them.

Approximately 800 years before Moses recorded the allegorical accounts of the history of the world. The Chinese recorded this history as symbols in the Chinese language. They drew pictures to express words or ideas. Simple pictures were combined to make more complex thoughts. They used well known history and common everyday things to make a word so people could easily remember it. The account of Genesis found it's way into the Chinese written language because the Chinese had migrated from the cradle of civilization. Prior to this migration they all shared a common history and religion.

The Bible even explains how it was possible for the Chinese to record the account of Genesis 1500 years before Moses recorded it. The account of the Tower of Babel was the allegorical account of the great migration from Mesopotamia. This also explains why all ancient cultures have an account of a great flood. Because they all shared a common history and religion before the great migration from the cradle of civilization.

So if we start from the belief that the first eleven chapters of the Torah are an allegorical account of world history before the great migration from Mesopotamia - which was an actual historical event - then the first eleven chapters of the Torah takes on new meaning. Seen in this light these accounts should be viewed less like fairy tales and more like how important information was passed down in ancient times. Just as the Chinese used well known history and everyday things as symbols in their written language to make words easier to remember, ancient man used stories to pass down historical events and important knowledge to future generations. Interspersed in these allegorical accounts of history are wisdoms that they deemed important enough to pass down and remember. Such as man knows right from wrong and when he violates it, rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he didn't do wrong. Most people don't even realize this wisdom is in the Torah because they read it critically instead of searching for the wisdom that ancient man knew and found important enough to include in his account of world history.

We have to keep in mind that these accounts are 6,000 years old and were passed down orally from one generation to the next for thousands of years. Surely ancient man believed these accounts were of the utmost importance otherwise they would not have been passed down for thousands of years before they were recorded in writing. We shouldn't view these accounts using the context of the modern world. Unfortunately, we are so far removed from these events that we have lost all original meaning. If you were to ask almost any Jew what the Tower of Babel was about he would have no clue that it was the allegorical account of the great migration from the cradle of civilization. That is not intended to be a criticism. It is intended to be an illustration of just how difficult a task it is to discover the original meaning from ancient accounts from 6,000 years ago. We read these texts like they were written yesterday looking for ways to discredit them and make ourselves feel superior rather than seeking the original meaning and wisdom.

At the heart of this debate is whether or not the material world was created by spirit. If the material world were not created by spirit, then everything which has occurred since the beginning of space and time are products of the material world. Everything which is incorporeal proceeded from the corporeal. There is no middle ground. There is no other option. Either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn't. All other options will simplify to one of these two lowest common denominators which are mutually exclusive.

So we need to start from that position and examine the evidence we have at our disposal which is creation itself. Specifically, the laws of nature; physical, biological and moral. And how space and time has evolved. And how we perceive God.

If we perceive God to be some magical fairy tale then everything we see will skew to that result. There won't be one single thing that we will agree with or accept. Whereas if we were trying to objectively analyze the evidence for spirit creating the material world we would listen to the whole argument and not look for trivial things to nitpick.

But since this is my argument we will use my perception of God. Which is there no thing that can describe God because God is no thing. God is not matter and energy like us and God exists outside of our four dimension space time. In fact the premise is that God is no thing. That God is a spirit. A spirit is no thing. Being things we can't possibly relate to being no things. A two dimensional being would have an easier time trying to understand our third dimension than we - a four dimensional being - would in trying to understand a multi-dimensional being outside of our space time. The closest I can come to and later confirm with the physical laws is that God is consciousness. That Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.

So now that a realistic perception of God has been established we need to examine the only evidence at our disposal. It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.

We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create.

The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a requisite for intelligence to arise. If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to existed the moment space and time were created. One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable. One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Entropy. That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe. It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder. But it is nature overriding it's tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the material world so that minds with bodies could create too.

If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. If we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

Despite all scientific gobbledygook, deflection, and proselytizing you still did not show that science confirms that "God created space and time and that man is a product of that creation." However, I'll give you and E for effort because I'm sure it took a lot of work to copy and paste all that text.

 

[Flopper]

you're babbling ---you don't even make sense anymore

It’s pretty simple. Space and time had a beginning. Just like the Bible says.

No ding. The bible says that God created heaven and earth. A world above and the world below, which has absolutely nothing whatever to do with the beginning of the universe or space or time.

The law, a light to the nations, is the firmament, basis, of heaven that stretches out high above your head from horizon to horizon like a crystal clear vault.

Before this light was spoken into existence the earth was without shape or form and void, and darkness covered the face of the unknown.

No. That’s what you think it means.

Genesis describes that God created space and time and that man is a product of that creation

Something science has confirmed.

I would ask you to explain how science confirms God created space and time but I think I have heard the answer before. It goes something like this. Since no one was around to observe the event, there is no evidence that God didn't create space and time. Furthermore, science has no evidence, just a theory. So it's obvious the universe was created by God because the Bible tells of us so. And for evidence, just look around. That should be all the evidence you need.

Science has confirmed space and time were created from nothing.

This creates a lot of problems for some people.

Not me. I don't think I have ever spent a sleepless night worrying about the the creation of space and time.

 

[james bond]

Keep in mind people at that time believed the earth was flat and surrounded by a body of water.

Haha. The majority of the ancient peoples did not believe the Earth was flat and the Christian church did not teach it. There probably was a minority of ancient peoples who believed that the Earth was flat like today's flat Earthers on social media..

 

[james bond]

]

you still did not show that science confirms that "God created space and time and that man is a product of that creation.

We find that time had a beginning, so the being that created time would have to be timeless. He also would have to be spaceless since that, too, had a beginning.

The other evidence is the triune nature of God as in the Nicene Creed. We find length, width, and height with space. We find the past, present, and future with time. We also have three properties of matter with protons, neutrons, and electrons. Coincidence? I think not.

 

[Flopper]

Keep in mind people at that time believed the earth was flat and surrounded by a body of water.

Haha. The majority of the ancient peoples did not believe the Earth was flat and the Christian church did not teach it. There probably was a minority of ancient peoples who believed that the Earth was flat like today's flat Earthers on social media..

The idea of a spherical Earth appeared in Greek philosophy with Pythagoras in 6th century BC and Aristotle provide evidence of the spherical shape in 330 BC, all long after the days of Moses and the early Hebrews. However the flat earth belief persisted, particular among the less education which were most of the people thousands of years ago. The earth appeared to be flat and the sky appeared to be a dome resting on the earth and that was enough for most people to conclude the earth was flat. Seeing was believing.

Diagram representing features in the early Hebrew conception of the Universe
The Early Hebrew Conception of the Universe - Wikisource, the free online library

 

[james bond]

Keep in mind people at that time believed the earth was flat and surrounded by a body of water.

Haha. The majority of the ancient peoples did not believe the Earth was flat and the Christian church did not teach it. There probably was a minority of ancient peoples who believed that the Earth was flat like today's flat Earthers on social media..

The idea of a spherical Earth appeared in Greek philosophy with Pythagoras in 6th century BC and Aristotle provide evidence of the spherical shape in 330 BC, all long after the days of Moses and the early Hebrews. However the flat earth belief persisted, particular among the less education which were most of the people thousands of years ago. The earth appeared to be flat and the sky appeared to be a dome resting on the earth and that was enough for most people to conclude the earth was flat. Seeing was believing.

AFAIK, the Bible discusses a round Earth and one can tell it is round or spherical by observation. There are times when we see it as flat as looking at the horizon and the ocean or discussing a flat terrain like the desert. But just look at the moon and Earth's shadow as it crosses it during a lunar eclipse. how ships look coming into view on the horizon, or look at the constellations from one point and another as you move and see other constellations come into view. Most of the ancient peoples were not that ignorant.

 

[Flopper]

]

you still did not show that science confirms that "God created space and time and that man is a product of that creation.

We find that time had a beginning, so the being that created time would have to be timeless. He also would have to be spaceless since that, too, had a beginning.

The other evidence is the triune nature of God as in the Nicene Creed. We find length, width, and height with space. We find the past, present, and future with time. We also have three properties of matter with protons, neutrons, and electrons. Coincidence? I think not.

According to Stephen Hawkins, the theory that the universe has existed forever is in serious difficulty with the Second Law of Thermodynamics and that's a big problem. String theorists seem to disagree. However, this well above my knowledge and pay grade.
The Beginning of TIme

 

[Flopper]

Keep in mind people at that time believed the earth was flat and surrounded by a body of water.

Haha. The majority of the ancient peoples did not believe the Earth was flat and the Christian church did not teach it. There probably was a minority of ancient peoples who believed that the Earth was flat like today's flat Earthers on social media..

The idea of a spherical Earth appeared in Greek philosophy with Pythagoras in 6th century BC and Aristotle provide evidence of the spherical shape in 330 BC, all long after the days of Moses and the early Hebrews. However the flat earth belief persisted, particular among the less education which were most of the people thousands of years ago. The earth appeared to be flat and the sky appeared to be a dome resting on the earth and that was enough for most people to conclude the earth was flat. Seeing was believing.

AFAIK, the Bible discusses a round Earth and one can tell it is round or spherical by observation. There are times when we see it as flat as looking at the horizon and the ocean or discussing a flat terrain like the desert. But just look at the moon and Earth's shadow as it crosses it during a lunar eclipse. how ships look coming into view on the horizon, or look at the constellations from one point and another as you move and see other constellations come into view. Most of the ancient peoples were not that ignorant.

To understand lunar eclipses, you have first understand the that the earth is not flat but round, the moon orbits the earth, and earth orbits the sun. It was thousands of years after Moses that this knowledge became common place.
15 Bible Verses about Flat Earth - Geological Scripture Quotes

 

[BreezeWood]

that we address our neighbors with respect and inclusion in God's Kingdom ...

your a joke, lynghiem the inquisition cardinal new more astronomy than galileo to condemn him or for them to repent their sin ... are you suppose to be a new leaf for your phony religion.​

​

But how is it fair to judge me "as a joke" just because of failures of others?
Where are you getting that it's okay to judge a person based on other people?
Can you please explain

Where are you getting that it's okay to judge a person based on other people -

View attachment 261140

there has never been a condemnation by your 4th century religion for any of its uninterrupted history of persecution and victimization of the innocent from the 4th century to the present day - that is who you speak for lynghiem, your lack of remorse and reference to a false 4th century christ impedes the religion of antiquity, prescribed by the Almighty and for those, the true 1st century events destined for its success where you, your false religion is an absolute and threatening obstacle.

how can there be spiritual experiences for who believe a messiah will save them ...

Hi BreezeWood I am going to go back and give a WINNER rating to your response
because now we are finally getting somewhere. THANK YOU for your direct reply clarifying where this rebuke is coming from!

1. First of all I do not speak for this "religion" but come at it with the SAME GRIEVANCES
you state above. I AGREE WITH YOU there needs to be an organized spiritual rebuke IN FULL SPIRITUAL
AGREEMENT that the POINT IS TO ESTABLISH TRUTH.

2. The reason there 'HAS NEVER BEEN A CONDEMNATION' is that it has been splintered and disorganized.
There have ALWAYS been ATTEMPTS but they end up like you and me arguing amongst ourselves
and not combining efforts into an AGREE UNIFIED PUBLIC REBUKE as you and I have BOTH ARGUED IS NEEDED AND MISSING.

EXACTLY! BreezeWood I cannot say THANK YOU ENOUGH!

If we divide against ourselves, even as you and I struggle to agree with how to go about such a mass correction,
THAT'S WHY IT HAS NEVER BEEN DONE EFFECTIVELY

But since you are just as adamant as I am (if not more, as I am ALSO trying to set up proper rebuke for state/govt authority and abuses, as well as church/religious abuses of authority "at the same time" so that's why it takes me longer to organize both),

NOW together you and I and others seeking to rebuke can join forces and
ACHIEVE what has not been done properly over many centuries and generations of this bickering and wars.

3. As for me personally, I did not gain "awareness" of ANY issue with "religions" affecting me
until 1990. I started with just knowing the final answers, truth and resolution "were in the future."

I had revelations that NONE of the churches were teaching it correctly and that's why we weren't realizing this universal truth YET.
I saw in the future that it WILL HAPPEN but all churches were going to have to change how they taught
and start putting together this GREATER truth that takes ALL people of ALL tribes and religions to put together.

In this process, I also had visions of why the Constitutional govt and leaders weren't teaching the laws correctly either.
So all the political problems and solutions were going through this same process as the churches and religious leaders!

So both processes are about reforming the current church-state leadership and institutions
TO GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL LAWS THAT ARE UNIVERSAL and teach those correctly to begin with!

4. So if you want to start judging me, you can start the clock at
* May 1990 when I first had spiritual visions of the future and realizations of where society was heading
* January 1992 when I took a public oath to uphold the First Amendment to the Constitution and all religions protected thereunder
www.ethics-commission.net
* June 1996 when I vowed to defend the Constitutional rights and plans of Freedmen's Town leaders and community
to preserve and restore the national historic District as a sustainable community campus www.campusplan.org
These federal plans for reforming public housing were later expanded into a larger plan to replicate sustainable campus town communities along the Border www.earnedamnesty.org
* Second half of 1999 when I went through deep spiritual healing to resolve karma I had with both church and state and break "generational curses" that were blocking the process and keeping me stuck in bad karma from the past
* 2008-2016 when I started more outreach with Constitutional allies and approaches to addressing govt abuses. I specifically felt called to address the Democrats, Greens, Occupy, and Peace and Justice communities, as well as the Tea Party independents preaching reform
* 2016-2018 when Harvey hit and I had to let everything go and start over because I could not pursue any plans
And this year 2019 when I found more spiritual support to pursue "civil obedience" outreach and Constitutional corrections to church-state issues such as health care and right to life that are currently dividing people by party. (both Constitutionalist leaders as well as certain pastors and community leaders called to either criminal justice or peace and justice reforms or both)

Where we seem to agree is on RESTORATIVE JUSTICE. That is what I am saying is the meaning and message behind Christ Jesus. So it's RESTORATIVE JUSTICE that saves humanity, not some personified figure but what Jesus REPRESENTS universal to all humanity.

You are free to start judging me since 1990 and argue none of my own efforts have been successful "collectively" YET. But individually, working one on one with neighbors and groups one at a time to resolve issues and grow from there, I and others who believe in RESTORATIVE JUSTICE have succeeded in resolving relationships with various people trying to help with this larger process.

I haven't yet succeeded in reaching an understanding or agreement with you
but I believe we will succeed because we are both committed to this rebuke of false Christian teachings, abuse and corruption.
That is both of our responsibility for resolving communication between you and me
BEFORE we expect to take on larger groups. We should at least correct problems this has caused between you and me first!

When did you start trying to teach these corrections?

When does your clock start?

I don't think it is fair at all to judge you if you have never successfully presented a correction either
in all this time you have been called to START working on it.

You and I weren't there when this process started, but we are here now doing our part
until a greater and greater consensus is formed to establish truth and eradicate error by corrections!

Thank you and I encourage you to keep forming allies to further promote this rebuke and correction.

We are more effective when we work in agreement to establish truth,
not distract and divide by blaming who did or did not do enough to correct these problems.

You and I both seek and know that the REAL TRUTH will dispel the falsehoods.

Let's keep finding better more effective ways to communicate where the errors need to be corrected.
We do better working as allies in teams to help others make the corrections
until it's clear and we are all in agreement we have arrived at the same universal truth.

Thank you BreezeWood
You get a WINNER from me and I wish there was a button to give you 5 1/2 stars!

.
your flowery response was purely for your own beautification ... christianity non the less remains spiritless -

I don't think it is fair at all to judge you if you have never successfully presented a correction either in all this time you have been called to START working on it.

- if you have never successfully presented a correction ...

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

it is you who fails to respond to the multitude of forgeries included in your 4th century christian bible perpetuating a false religion. that absconds the 1st century events, the religion of antiquity for its own duplicitous purposes.

but I believe we will succeed because we are both committed to this rebuke of false Christian teachings, abuse and corruption.

- we are both committed to this rebuke of false Christian teachings, abuse and corruption.

from your writings our concept of "false Christian teachings, abuse and corruption" are dissimilar in the extreme as you are fully aware.

the spoken religion of antiquity, the triumph of good vs evil as prescribed by the Almighty is all there is ... no book is either required or warranted it is simply the word from whence we came.

 

[emilynghiem]

A.

your flowery response was purely for your own beautification ... christianity non the less remains spiritless -

​

A. ??? Dear BreezeWood
A1. If I were doing things for my own sake I would spend my time elsewhere
A2. The purpose of this discussion between YOU and me is OUR communication, relationship
and understanding. Clearly this is still lacking.
A3. Where are you getting this idea that I don't really care about resolving misunderstanding or conflicts with YOU
and that "this is for myself."
Can you please explain why you do not think that I am sincere in seeking connection in truth with YOU.

Where is that coming from?

What in my approach makes you think this isn't about valuing
my relationship and understanding DIRECTLY WITH YOU.

Please explain. Thank you!

B.

... are you suppose to be a new leaf for your phony religion.​

B. Do we need to address this point you make where you keep
ASSUMING that I am part of "false Christian religion"

Is there where we are misunderstanding and miscommunicating?

B1. Speaking the Christian language when addressing Christians

I see there is a UNIVERSAL TRUTH that ALL people attempt to express, including whole groups.
* Christianity is ONE SUCH LANGUAGE -- and yes it is flawed, has been abused, and gets corrupted.
* Constitutional laws are another LANGUAGE for laws, and yes these can be used correctly or abused
* Buddhist teachings and laws are another LANGUAGE for spiritual laws

So when I meet someone like YOU who refers to either what the "Bible or Christianity" teaches,
we use THAT as the reference to discuss what it means or doesn't mean, what is corrupted and what are
the TRUE universal laws that people ATTEMPT to teach using Bible Scripture, Christianity etc.

BreezeWood if you do not think this language is correct at all, we do not need to use it.

I am happy to just talk about the Universal Laws using YOUR language and ways of expressing it.

Will this help? I am not attached to using Christianity/the Bible, but mainly use that as a frame
of reference for explaining spiritual concepts to Christians (or to others who can't understand what is the meaning or purpose of it)

BW I am more comfortable speaking in secular terms, and commonly refer to Constitutional concepts and principles.

What system do you find more consistent, and I am happy to use that to discuss
these things with you. As long as we are both talking about Universal Truth and laws
then these should be able to translate into any system to talk with THAT audience.

Is this more clear?

C. ​

how can there be spiritual experiences for who believe a messiah will save them …

C. Let's go back to this part ^ you posted here.

The "messiah" that saves humanity is the MESSAGE of Justice with MERCY
or Restorative Justice that sets humanity free by establishing TRUTH JUSTICE and PEACE.

Having faith in RESTORATIVE JUSTICE is the "faith in Christ Jesus"
that saves humanity from retributive justice that destroys and kills.

BreezeWood if this is NOT YOUR LANGUAGE for how the truth liberates people from oppression and lies/false religion,
what is YOUR way of explaining this concept?

How do YOU DESCRIBE the process by which people are "freed from living under falsehood"

Can you please share in the words you normally use to describe the spiritual
process by which people accept or learn truth instead of corrupted false teachings?

Thank you for sharing answers to this part as well!

D.

- if you have never successfully presented a correction ...

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

it is you who fails to respond to the multitude of forgeries included in your 4th century christian bible perpetuating a false religion. that absconds the 1st century events, the religion of antiquity for its own duplicitous purposes.

D. What this means are two things
D1. Restorative Justice is the way to establish truth. and that's the way all people will come to agreement on truth.
Jesus represents this path to Justice by establishing Truth (what the Kingdom of God is based on) and bringing true Peace (what the Holy Spirit represents).
And
D2. the OVERAL spirit of Christianity is CHARITY and FORGIVENESS.
that in order to receive Justice with Mercy, we must FORGIVE and ask help with FORGIVENESS
so that we may all RECEIVE CORRECTION. So this is my understanding of what it
means for all people to come together in Christ Jesus in order to establish the Kingdom of God and Peace on Earth.

BreezeWood if you do not agree with this interpretation of Christian teaching and the Bible,
can you PLEASE explain in YOUR spiritual words and ways
how the process of establish God's UNIVERSAL TRUTH is to come about.

What is YOUR way of teaching this?

If this is the equivalent, I am happy to use YOUR way in order to communicate with YOU.

When I talk with Christians or others attempting to make sense of the Bible,
then I explain the Bible and Jesus means the 'PROCESS OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE TO ESTABLISH TRUTH AND PEACE FOR ALL'

How would YOU recommend teaching the process of establishing truth, justice and peace.
If you do not relate to or trust "Christianity and the Bible" to be used correctly to teach these things.

What way do YOU propose to explain truth to all the people on the planet already using the Bible and Christianity.
What would YOU replace that with, and how would you expect to communicate with Christians on correcting what is wrong?

Thanks for this point as well!

E.

from your writings our concept of "false Christian teachings, abuse and corruption" are dissimilar in the extreme as you are fully aware.

the spoken religion of antiquity, the triumph of good vs evil as prescribed by the Almighty is all there is ... no book is either required or warranted it is simply the word from whence we came.

E1. What corrections are you proposing to make?
E2. What successes have YOU made in making these corrections?
E3. If you have more successes, how many people are you teaching to make those corrections?

BreezeWood I am totally fine with and supportive of you bringing your corrections
to all the Christian leaders or groups you want to receive your rebuke.

Can you please list which people or groups you have addressed,
and what you need in order to finish teaching the corrections you propose?

NOTE: Your list of corrections does not have to be the same as mine.
I can still support you in making and presenting the ones you feel called spiritually to share.

Please list which corrections you have made, or are called to make.
And list which leaders or groups you feel called to present them to!

Thank you BreezeWood!

 

[ding]

It’s pretty simple. Space and time had a beginning. Just like the Bible says.

No ding. The bible says that God created heaven and earth. A world above and the world below, which has absolutely nothing whatever to do with the beginning of the universe or space or time.

The law, a light to the nations, is the firmament, basis, of heaven that stretches out high above your head from horizon to horizon like a crystal clear vault.

Before this light was spoken into existence the earth was without shape or form and void, and darkness covered the face of the unknown.

No. That’s what you think it means.

Genesis describes that God created space and time and that man is a product of that creation

Something science has confirmed.

I would ask you to explain how science confirms God created space and time but I think I have heard the answer before. It goes something like this. Since no one was around to observe the event, there is no evidence that God didn't create space and time. Furthermore, science has no evidence, just a theory. So it's obvious the universe was created by God because the Bible tells of us so. And for evidence, just look around. That should be all the evidence you need.

That doesn't sound like my answer for how I know God created space and time. My answer sounds like this...

We know from science that space and time had a beginning. Specifically, red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations, quantum mechanics, the First Law of Thermodynamics, the Second Law of Thermodynamics and Inflation Theory.

Red shift, cosmic background radiation and Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations tells us that all matter and energy in the universe once occupied the space of 1 billionth of 1 trillionth the size of an atom and then began to expand and cool. The the First Law of Thermodynamics (i.e. conservation of energy) tells us that since that time matter and energy has only changed form. Which means that the atoms in our bodies were created from nothing when space and and time were created from nothing.

Red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations and the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that space and time did have a beginning. If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning. The problem with a cyclical universe is with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. For every matter to energy or energy to matter exchange there is a loss of usable energy. So while the total energy of the universe does not decrease, the usable energy of the universe does decrease. If it is a periodic or cyclical universe then the entropy will increase with each cycle. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental law of nature which tells us that entropy can only increase or stay the same. Entropy can never decrease. Which means that in a finite amount of time, a finite system will reach a maximum state of disorder which is called thermal equilibrium and then it will stay in that state. A cyclical universe cannot avoid this problem. Since we do not see thermal equilibrium (good thing too because there would be no life) we know that the universe did have a beginning.

Inflation Theory, the First Law of Thermodynamics and quantum mechanics tells us that it is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.

Chapters 1 and 2 of Genesis is the allegorical account of creation. Specifically, the creation of the universe and everything in it from nothing and the evolution of space and time from cosmic evolution through the evolution of consciousness.

The first five books of the Bible (known as the Torah) were written by Moses - an adopted son of the king of Egypt - in approximately 1400 B.C.. These five books focus on the beginning of the nation of Israel; but the first 11 chapters of the Torah records the history that all nations have in common. These allegorical accounts of the history of the world had been passed down from generation to generation orally for thousands of years. Moses did not really write the first 11 chapters of the Bible. Moses was the first Hebrew to record them.

Approximately 800 years before Moses recorded the allegorical accounts of the history of the world. The Chinese recorded this history as symbols in the Chinese language. They drew pictures to express words or ideas. Simple pictures were combined to make more complex thoughts. They used well known history and common everyday things to make a word so people could easily remember it. The account of Genesis found it's way into the Chinese written language because the Chinese had migrated from the cradle of civilization. Prior to this migration they all shared a common history and religion.

The Bible even explains how it was possible for the Chinese to record the account of Genesis 1500 years before Moses recorded it. The account of the Tower of Babel was the allegorical account of the great migration from Mesopotamia. This also explains why all ancient cultures have an account of a great flood. Because they all shared a common history and religion before the great migration from the cradle of civilization.

So if we start from the belief that the first eleven chapters of the Torah are an allegorical account of world history before the great migration from Mesopotamia - which was an actual historical event - then the first eleven chapters of the Torah takes on new meaning. Seen in this light these accounts should be viewed less like fairy tales and more like how important information was passed down in ancient times. Just as the Chinese used well known history and everyday things as symbols in their written language to make words easier to remember, ancient man used stories to pass down historical events and important knowledge to future generations. Interspersed in these allegorical accounts of history are wisdoms that they deemed important enough to pass down and remember. Such as man knows right from wrong and when he violates it, rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he didn't do wrong. Most people don't even realize this wisdom is in the Torah because they read it critically instead of searching for the wisdom that ancient man knew and found important enough to include in his account of world history.

We have to keep in mind that these accounts are 6,000 years old and were passed down orally from one generation to the next for thousands of years. Surely ancient man believed these accounts were of the utmost importance otherwise they would not have been passed down for thousands of years before they were recorded in writing. We shouldn't view these accounts using the context of the modern world. Unfortunately, we are so far removed from these events that we have lost all original meaning. If you were to ask almost any Jew what the Tower of Babel was about he would have no clue that it was the allegorical account of the great migration from the cradle of civilization. That is not intended to be a criticism. It is intended to be an illustration of just how difficult a task it is to discover the original meaning from ancient accounts from 6,000 years ago. We read these texts like they were written yesterday looking for ways to discredit them and make ourselves feel superior rather than seeking the original meaning and wisdom.

At the heart of this debate is whether or not the material world was created by spirit. If the material world were not created by spirit, then everything which has occurred since the beginning of space and time are products of the material world. Everything which is incorporeal proceeded from the corporeal. There is no middle ground. There is no other option. Either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn't. All other options will simplify to one of these two lowest common denominators which are mutually exclusive.

So we need to start from that position and examine the evidence we have at our disposal which is creation itself. Specifically, the laws of nature; physical, biological and moral. And how space and time has evolved. And how we perceive God.

If we perceive God to be some magical fairy tale then everything we see will skew to that result. There won't be one single thing that we will agree with or accept. Whereas if we were trying to objectively analyze the evidence for spirit creating the material world we would listen to the whole argument and not look for trivial things to nitpick.

But since this is my argument we will use my perception of God. Which is there no thing that can describe God because God is no thing. God is not matter and energy like us and God exists outside of our four dimension space time. In fact the premise is that God is no thing. That God is a spirit. A spirit is no thing. Being things we can't possibly relate to being no things. A two dimensional being would have an easier time trying to understand our third dimension than we - a four dimensional being - would in trying to understand a multi-dimensional being outside of our space time. The closest I can come to and later confirm with the physical laws is that God is consciousness. That Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.

So now that a realistic perception of God has been established we need to examine the only evidence at our disposal. It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.

We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create.

The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a requisite for intelligence to arise. If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to existed the moment space and time were created. One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable. One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Entropy. That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe. It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder. But it is nature overriding it's tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the material world so that minds with bodies could create too.

If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. If we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

Despite all scientific gobbledygook, deflection, and proselytizing you still did not show that science confirms that "God created space and time and that man is a product of that creation." However, I'll give you and E for effort because I'm sure it took a lot of work to copy and paste all that text.

Actually I did. It was highlighted in big blue letters. But that really was the only play you could make since you can’t dispute any of the content that I wrote.

 

[ding]

It’s pretty simple. Space and time had a beginning. Just like the Bible says.

No ding. The bible says that God created heaven and earth. A world above and the world below, which has absolutely nothing whatever to do with the beginning of the universe or space or time.

The law, a light to the nations, is the firmament, basis, of heaven that stretches out high above your head from horizon to horizon like a crystal clear vault.

Before this light was spoken into existence the earth was without shape or form and void, and darkness covered the face of the unknown.

No. That’s what you think it means.

Genesis describes that God created space and time and that man is a product of that creation

Something science has confirmed.

I would ask you to explain how science confirms God created space and time but I think I have heard the answer before. It goes something like this. Since no one was around to observe the event, there is no evidence that God didn't create space and time. Furthermore, science has no evidence, just a theory. So it's obvious the universe was created by God because the Bible tells of us so. And for evidence, just look around. That should be all the evidence you need.

Science has confirmed space and time were created from nothing.

This creates a lot of problems for some people.

Not me. I don't think I have ever spent a sleepless night worrying about the the creation of space and time.

Your posts say otherwise.

 

[ding]

]

you still did not show that science confirms that "God created space and time and that man is a product of that creation.

We find that time had a beginning, so the being that created time would have to be timeless. He also would have to be spaceless since that, too, had a beginning.

The other evidence is the triune nature of God as in the Nicene Creed. We find length, width, and height with space. We find the past, present, and future with time. We also have three properties of matter with protons, neutrons, and electrons. Coincidence? I think not.

According to Stephen Hawkins, the theory that the universe has existed forever is in serious difficulty with the Second Law of Thermodynamics and that's a big problem. String theorists seem to disagree. However, this well above my knowledge and pay grade.
The Beginning of TIme

Yes it is. I even explained it in great detail and you couldn’t follow it.

 

[james bond]

I keep saying before the 1850s, the scientists believed in creation. They thought the fossils of humans were of past humans, not something from three million of years ago. The weakness of fossils from three million years ago lies in false assumptions of the dating methods and that the story keeps changing. I think it started around two million years old. I can guarantee you that secular/atheist scientists run amok will be adding more years to their fake story. There was no evolution before the 1850s and there is no evolution today. They base it on their "faith-based" belief in evolution, contradictory fossil discoveries, radioactive dating, and DNA analysis. The facts are made to fit their main story. Creation scientists and creation people cannot teach against evolution and false science or else they would lose their jobs. This is not how science is suppose to work and thus today's atheist scientists and their science are wrong and the story keeps changing.

I think those who know about anatomy will find that the fossils put together of humans aren't much different from today. We see a wide range of species of humans, look at their skeletons, then we see similar structure with the old human fossils. Those who know etymology would know that the rock layers were named after places instead of time. All these fossils tell us the location of where these people died. That said creation have a search for human fossils, too. They are looking for the pre-flood human fossils, but they have not been able to find them.

https://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c014.html