jump to last post 1-41 of 41 discussions (68 posts)

If God did not exist we'd have to invent Him

  1. twingwiri profile image61
    twingwiriposted 8 years ago

    As a fellow human being,i want to ask if we could exist without a belief of something o one greater than ourselves.I believe if there was no God we'd have to invent Him.

    1. Mark Knowles profile image60
      Mark Knowlesposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      Yes. He doesn't and we did. big_smile

      1. funride profile image78
        funrideposted 8 years ago in reply to this

        I suspected you were involved in that "invention", you never fooled me tongue.

      2. TrophyMan profile image78
        TrophyManposted 8 years ago in reply to this

        So, you're an Atheist?  Or an Agnostic?

        1. Mark Knowles profile image60
          Mark Knowlesposted 8 years ago in reply to this

          Atheist is the closest label I can find smile

          1. TrophyMan profile image78
            TrophyManposted 8 years ago in reply to this

            Let me see if I can change your mind about that one...

            An Atheist by definition believes/knows G-d does NOT exist.  An Agnostic by definition believes/knows he doesn't have any knowledge/evidence one way or the other - he "disclaims any knowledge of G-d".

            Now, for an Atheist to believe/know G-d does not exist requires knowing EVERYTHING that DOES exist, and then knowing that G-d isn't one of those things.

            Since it is impossible to know everything that DOES exist, one cannot say with any level of certainty that G-d does NOT exist.

            Not trying to start a fight or anything, just clarifying what many people misunderstand about the definition of Atheism.  It isn't really a very apt label for what most people  that call themselves Atheists believe.

            Of course you're entitled to believe anything you want.

            1. 60
              The Paulposted 6 years ago in reply to this


            2. Don W profile image83
              Don Wposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Many atheists don't believe any such thing. Many atheists simply don't believe god exists.

              There is a difference between believing god doesn't exist, and simply not believing god does exist. The difference is subtle but significant. So some atheists belief god does not exists (called strong atheism), some don't belief god exists (called weak atheism). Strong atheism is a positive affirmation, weak atheism is a negative affirmation.

              A weak atheist isn't necassarily an agnostic either. Someone who (for whatever reason) has never considered whether any deity/s exists (maybe he's from a culture unconcerned with such things, maybe he's just not interested), technically does not believe in god. But he isn't an agnostic. His non belief is therefore said to be implicit.

              So stong atheism (the belief god does not exist) is explicit. Weak atheism (not believing god exists) can be explicit (agnostic), or implicit (never considered the issue).

              Either way an atheist is not by definition somone who "believes/knows G-d does NOT exist". That;s illogical given the definition of an atheist. It would be more accurate to say it the other way around.

              Someone who believes/knows god does NOT exist is by definition a (strong/explicit) atheist.

              some edits

    2. mohitmisra profile image59
      mohitmisraposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      One viewpoint I have is I cannot make the sea,the wind,the sun,this earth so much-even myself,so there is a higher intelligence at work coordinating everything its astounding.Then having seen -been one with God I believe there have been may humans who have come across God as well so the if is really IF.smile a big one.

    3. guidebaba profile image61
      guidebabaposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      Invent your GOD in your PARENTS.

  2. Misha profile image75
    Mishaposted 8 years ago


  3. Eng.M profile image76
    Eng.Mposted 8 years ago

    people have been in a need for gods.

    they worshipped everything.

  4. Mark Knowles profile image60
    Mark Knowlesposted 8 years ago

    Well, I have experienced what I "think" people are referring to as G-d, and it is not G-d, therefore I know that G-d does not exist.

    But your argument about needing to know everything that does exist before you can say something doesn't exist is rather silly. As usual it presupposes a god. Otherwise I could say that the Easter bunny is real and you cannot say that it is not real - because you can only say that if you know everything that exists. Which you don't. As I don't.

    Atheist is the best label I can come up with, and as I have explained many times, I would not even need to say god does not exist if it wasn't for all the people telling me he does smile

    I don't know if you believe in god, but let' say you do for a moment -

    In which case, we are both atheists. I just believe in one less god than you do. big_smile

    1. 0
      Zarm Nefilinposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      Very well stated Mark, well said.

      I would also link to point out that Bertrand Russell defined himself as an Agnostic at one point, yet decades later people refer to him as an Atheist, so by and large it is semantics on some level or another.

      Renegade is a good definition for what most Atheists are in my opinion, and that is because of the status quo of belief in some "God" or "gods" or "w/e". 

      As far as it concerns me I can say:

      I surely believe in laws and powers higher (in the sense that I am helpless to stop them), than myself.  Yet, I do not choose to humble my judgment before these powers in the same manner that people who are religious do, I do not give them names and worship them (as in seek intelligent discourse with them as if they were persons).  They simply are, and they might very well be for a long long long time after I am gone.

      I seek to >>understand<< them and then only at the level I am comfortable with, there is no moral end of the world that will come about if I don't take up some "moral obligation" to know everything there is about Alpha Centauri and it's neighboring cosmic bodies, and I won't go to hell if I don't know everything there is to know about microbiology.

      Quite frankly, I could live my entire life not knowing a whole lot about either one of those two things, and I won't be rotting in hell for all eternity (although I may decompose for a time after I have assumed room temperature). smile

      Big differences.

    2. 0
      sandra rinckposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      That is the biggest bunch of crap I have ever heard.  If what you "think" you experienced and believe to be what is refered to as God, then how can you say it was not God, if you aren't entirely certain if what you "think" other people "think" God is, is what you experienced? If what you think you saw is being refered to as God, then that was God, whatever it was.   

      You have your own interpretatin of God, that is fine by me, I don't really care, but you don't make sense, especially when you try to be all "hard core" about God not existing, when you have said a thousand times since I have been on Hubpages, that you cannot prove or disprove it. 

      So what are you trying to do?  Conform people into believing that there is not a God, when by your own words, you said you cannot prove it or disprove it? 

      1. Mark Knowles profile image60
        Mark Knowlesposted 8 years ago in reply to this


        I have experienced something and it is not god.

        I "think" this is what some people are referring to when they talk about god. I am not sure, because no one seems to be able to put into words what they think god is without throwing in a bunch of rules to follow. lol

        Either that or they have not actually experienced what they are calling god.

        There is no such thing as god.

        Why should I have to disprove there is a god?

        I cannot prove a negative.

        Prove Santa Claus does not exist please.

        Then we will talk about disproving god lol

        I have not "interpreted" god.

        Sorry you are too blinkered to understand what I am saying.

        Of course you think I am talking crap - it doesn't agree with what you "believe" lol

        How very christian of you, Sandra - you should open up that bible you wanted to burn again  smile

        You have never seen me say anyone is talking crap.

        Read it again.

        1. 0
          sandra rinckposted 8 years ago in reply to this

          Fair enough, but I think you missunderstood what I was trying to say.  Which is that you are saying God does not exist, and no you don't need to prove or disporve anyting, what I was saying was, that if what you experienced what not God, then it wasn't God, but still doesn't mean that God doesn't exist or exist.  That is all I am trying to say.

          So in the same way, you insist that God does not exist because you experienced something that was not God, then it was not God.  But it sounds like you are saying that ( and I am being presumptious) that what happened to you, you want to equate to God knowing it was not. 

          With all respect Mark, it just doesn't make sense to say there is not God, when what you experienced was not God.  Do you see what I am trying to say? 


  5. Mark Knowles profile image60
    Mark Knowlesposted 8 years ago

    Thanks Zarm,

    I must admit, it is rather interesting how often you are asked to prove something doesn't exist when the only reason you might need to try is because some one else makes it up and says it does lol

    I would like to see a Christian "prove," Zeus or some other god doesn't exist smile

    And if they cannot, which of course they cannot, why would they ask for proof that theirs doesn't? LOL

    Quite right that there are powers beyond me. Once you understand that gravity and many other physical "powers," are there, why on earth would one believe they have some influence or usefulness in the scheme of things? Just sitting looking at the ocean is enough to persuade me I am an insignificant speck not worth considering.

    Sand. Grain of smile

  6. dishyum profile image60
    dishyumposted 8 years ago

    Interesting discussion cool

  7. Prophecy Teacher profile image81
    Prophecy Teacherposted 8 years ago

    If all humans were dead - what would be left?
    Well, there would certainly be no questions.
    If you can imagine "that" - your question is irrelevant.

    If you can imagine the possibility "man could not" exist on the earth, and yet the earth would remain....

    .....in a world where man can ask no questions - where did the earth come from?

    Answer that - and you'll find the God - that we can not make up.

    When you start your question - IF - God did not exist - you have postulated an impossibility.

    Atheists believe the Universe began.

    Christians believe the Universe began.

    Atheists - with no proof - believe it came from nothing - and call that science.

    Christians believe it came from something - and call that faith.

    I came from something - but Atheists do not come from nothing.

    Atheists imagine they came from nothing - is it any wonder they can imagine there is no God?

    1. Mark Knowles profile image60
      Mark Knowlesposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      Not nearly good enough for nomination on the other thread, although it does demonstrate a complete lack of education and understanding about what atheists "believe" and how the earth came into being big_smile

      Try harder - put a few spelling mistakes in or something? lol

      Or maybe something about atheists believing we were created from dirt.That seems a popular one lol

      Personally - I have trouble with the idea that the universe "began."

      If it did, what was there before?

      Although, if you want to talk about silly beliefs:


      1. wudie profile image60
        wudieposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        thats hillarious if you put it that way.

    2. Mark Knowles profile image60
      Mark Knowlesposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      Now I am all confused because this is what you said atheists believe earlier.

  8. Prophecy Teacher profile image81
    Prophecy Teacherposted 8 years ago


    1. Mark Knowles profile image60
      Mark Knowlesposted 8 years ago in reply to this


      As opposed to your scintillating argument that atheists believe we came from nothing and call it science?  lol

      Oh, thats right - you are here to teach, not learn......

  9. Prophecy Teacher profile image81
    Prophecy Teacherposted 8 years ago

    Teach us something. I am anxious to learn what you think is on the other side of the Big Bang Theory.

    Another theory evidently.

    Enlighten us Mark. I have some coffee. I can wake up.

    No but seriously, I have postulated God and you have postulated I'm wrong. Let the instruction begin.

  10. Mark Knowles profile image60
    Mark Knowlesposted 8 years ago

    Well, actually, the onus is on you. You have postulated god. I have yet to see any proof for one. (And dolphins don't count)

    And did you not even read what I just wrote?

    I no more accept the big bang theory than I do a supreme being that spoke the world into existence a few thousand years ago. lol

    But if you are interested in learning what atheists do or do not believe, try this thread for a start.


  11. Prophecy Teacher profile image81
    Prophecy Teacherposted 8 years ago

    I can't bear any more endless Atheist pages. Just tell me what YOU believe and let's see where Mr onus takes.

    Alright, no big bang for you.

    That leaves you with - we have always been here.

    If so - finite or infinite?


    It leaves you with - something other than the BB. If so - what is the IT.

    Por for vor.

    1. Mark Knowles profile image60
      Mark Knowlesposted 8 years ago in reply to this


      I "believe" you are wrong because there is no evidence for a god.

      Onus on you.

      I do not know how the universe started, but I have been given several options:

      1. A god did it.
      2. The bb theory

      I do not accept the first and I will be honest and say I do not really understand the second. I have tried to understand it and I just don't get it. Your simplistic version of atheist's beliefs:

      Does not really do the bb theory justice, and I suspect that you do not understand it either. This way of saying it I do understand, but it makes no more sense than a god speaking it into existence.

      So, I "believe" the universe has always been there. But I do not understand how.

      I hold this belief because I cannot conceive any other option that makes any sense to me and it is more a case of "The best I can come up with." Much like, "A god did it."  big_smile

      i.e. not based on any facts.

      I am not prepared to argue it though. I cannot prove it and it is not a strong belief. I accept I do not have enough knowledge or information to do better at the moment.

  12. Prophecy Teacher profile image81
    Prophecy Teacherposted 8 years ago

    I don't believe he spoke the world into being a few 1000 yrs ago - I don't believe the Bible demands it - I'm an old earth person.

  13. Prophecy Teacher profile image81
    Prophecy Teacherposted 8 years ago

    Fair enough. In 20 years, that's the most honest appraisal I've ever heard from an Atheist. I commend you. It's full of I don't knows and that is what both sides are lacking. Neither side wants to say - I don't know.

    Most of what I know - I am uncertain I know it either. I know my God, that's a fact to me. But science I question a lot. It has a habit of changing as much as religion.

    I do understand the Big Bang theory though. And in a nutshell - the argument boils down to this. It all started from a very tiny spot of immense density. The laws of physics did not exist in that state. As the explosion and then the inflation commenced - the laws of physics came into being as a result.

    As a result.

    The laws of physics as we know them - did not exist - without the big bang. (or at least it can't be proven)

    That alone leaves plenty of room to wonder if the laws of physics exist - outside of the universe; on the other side of the bang. If they are a result of the bang - how can they precede it?

    Big Big, problem. That leaves a finite Universe floating in a body of - uh - well - who knows?

    No, it can't be who knows. It's rather - we'll never know.

    Worse yet; it's expanding. But expanding into what???? Matter? Energy? Light? Nothing??

    AND - it will expand for all of eternity.

    It is the best explanation for the evidence as we know it. It does not explain all the evidence we see and we can not find all the evidence that is supposed to be there. Never the less - science operates under the assumption that the evidence is out there - and in time - it will be revealed.

    They do not know how it happen.

    Why it happened.

    Or from where it happened.

    It apparently came from nothing, nowhere. (there are other theories, but....)

    So, for the rest of our discussion, let's leave it where it is. Unproven, unknowable - best postulate for all the evidence.

    And turn our attention toward the more knowable. Under the theory, the earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old. It took a few billion years to form and a few more to cool etc. After that, we enter a surmised period of evolutionary processes. At some unknown point, by accident or by time - first life began.

    No one knows this for a fact. It is and always will be, impossible to know. Even if a laboratory experiment were to duplicate the hypothesis of - "spontaneous cells of life in a soup" - it will still be speculative as to origins. (They will have proved only the fact of test tube soup life)

    As we come forward - we find old things in the ground. Dates are a big problem - but let's say they're old. How old? Doesn't matter - old. Supposedly, billions of pre-human types over eons of time and in numerous configurations - eventually spat out a man capable of thinking rationally. That the rational man exists - there can be no doubt. That there had to be billions of pre-species stock - in myriad strands -  to form such a creature - is also part of the theory.

    But when we take current populations, and go backwards to the point of the earliest recorded history - and go back a little further - to give room for oral traditions - we find a very small pool of men - living.

    Almost all modern sciences - trace them to a specific geographic point, through languages, genes, bones, and migration. And science gives them a mommy name  to show a mother - like Eve - or Elvis. Whatever.

    That point - seems to be around 6000-10,000 years ago. But no where from that time - do we find the supposed millions of men - that must have been around - to produce this original  rational man. And of course, there had to be a rational woman - too. Did the man become rational before the woman - or was it some physical thing that just came with time - simultaneously?? I don't know - I'm not that smart.

    Nothing exists but the stories the rational man "made up" or heard, some cave paintings, and some old arrowheads; a bit of pottery.

    Oh, but prior to that, there are gazillions of anomalous bones, endless apelike stuff, and goobs of animal things. Dinosaurs etc.

    The strangest part of the theory to me is the fact that we may find 100,000's of thousands - or millions even - of bones of ancient things - but not many items of just plain, old things. Like men.

    In other words, we find man going back to around 6-10k years ago as we know him today - sorta civilized. But no links to the man that was supposedly millions of years old, uncivilized.

    Although I do not agree with all his conclusions, this geneticists points out the problem:

    Dr. J. Allan, Genetics - I find a remarkable lack of evidence for the prolonged progression of 'pre-man'. Conventional scientific publishing implies some 150 billion forerunners of 'modern man', often depicted as small groups of cave-dwelling non-vegetarian hunters: australopithicenes roaming the African savannah. Why is there such shortage of evidence in the form of fossils, tools, paleoanthropoidological remnancy for the supposed existence of such vast seas of these apish soulless pre-humans? It could be argued such vast volumes of creatures were spread over millions of years of development, but I find difficulty with this model when I look not only at the lacuna of evidence, but at the reality of total population numbers. Starting with current 6 billion, extrapolating back to Christ gives us 100 million, to King David 50 million and to Abraham (2,000BC) 1 million. I find these figures in close agreement with what one would expect based on biblical genealogic chronologies post-Flood @2400BC. The unchallenged conventional scientific model of thousands of millions of 'sub-humans' in precursor stages of development from simian stock over millions of years is both physically, mathematically and Scripturally unrealistic. (END QUOTE)

    From a scientific view - we can all agree as literature - the Bible is a very old book with genealogies in it - and he is saying in addition to the scientific evidences - the evidences don't agree with genealogies either. (Whether you believe it is inspired or not, is irrelevant)

    Furthermore, we have no evidence at all, of a transitional form of life - of any species what so ever. (A real deep truthful search here will bear this out. I'm not proffering that it isn't out there - just that it hasn't been found. I would even be willing to say that just because no transitional evolutionary thing has been found - that in and of itself is not a deal killer to evolution. It's only a deal killer to MACRO-evolution. Where species change to other species.) {Every evolutionist will disagree with this claim - but it is a very deep and maddening field. Please yall - no quotes or articles - my points do not rest on this}

    There is another form of evolutionary theory - that if evolution was correct - in my mind explains the supposed evidence better. And that is - a multiplicity of diversity of life sprang up from the muck - and not single cells endlessly changing into all else - and else into what we see.

    That life itself was in the dirt - and in the waters - and diverse life forms sprang from those in numerous forms that never changed into other forms - and if this were true - would explain the Cambrian explosion better - where 80,000 different life forms sprang up in a very short period of geologic time. I am not saying I believe this - I am saying it is a better explanation.

    The Cambrian explosions of myriads of life forms in millions of years instead of hundreds of millions - is what science should be paying attention to and not the other one. Macro-evolution of endlessly plodding along and each species changing into others over long periods of time - for which there is very little honest truth. What truth there is - supports a diversity of spontaneous life - as a more representational theory.

    The Big Bang theory says the heavens were created before the earth. And, Evolution says life started in the water, and from the water the birds, then the creepy things came next, then the mammals and then man.

    So - IF - the science is right...we should see an order along these lines.

    Life in water
    Life in air
    Creeping things

    I think evolutionists would agree on most if not all.

    But what most people don't realize is that......

    The Bible has the same order.

    Get out of here !!!!

    Odd huh? You probably didn't know that.

    Heavens/Sun - In the beginning God created the heavens

    Earth - and the earth

    Dirt - And God called the dry land Earth;

    Water - and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas:

    Plants/Vegetation - And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

    Life in the water - Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that has life     

    Life in the air - Let the waters bring forth... fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.                                           

    Creeping things and mammals - And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind:

    Man - So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth,


    I took this order -in order - out of the Genesis account. (King James Version) There are some anomalies in some of the verses I did not post (Many non believers point these out - where they believe the sun was created on the fourth day etc - but they quote them wrong - I'll be more than happy to discuss them later) But the point I want to make is according to many atheists - the men that wrote this book were just pure idiots, mindless superstitious, nomadic idgets. So what do you think? Did they just get lucky here? Or what.

    I mean really - they must have been very high the day they wrote that huh???

    Take special notice of a couple of interesting phrases and word combinations.

    1) The earth brought forth the life - each after it's kind. The earth brought forth the life.

    2) The man and the Woman were told to "REPLENISH" the earth. What's up with that? Why would there be a need to do that? That's odd. Did something happen to it before they got here?

    3) It was the evening and the morning which were a day. Not the day and the evening - as all civilizations record "a day". (as far as I can tell)


    It's late - I'm tired. More later.

    1. Inspirepub profile image88
      Inspirepubposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      This is factually incorrect, Prophecy Teacher. The evidence of a single DNA point of origin which all humans alive today share is much, much further back than 6,000 - 10,000 years.

      Modern humans were living on the continent of Australia between 50,000 and 60,000 years ago, but they were not native to that continent. Their migration (over many generations) has been traced back to Africa around 100,000 years ago.

      And as for your crack about the first rational woman - the DNA all humans share is one passed through the female line, which means the first modern human was a woman,  not a man.

      To equate rationality with the advent of writing is either one of the Seven Deadly Sins (hubris), or pure ignorance of what "rational" means.

      The first modern human was not the first rational primate. Rationality was not the attribute which raised modern humans to the top of the pecking order - it was the ability to form complex sounds and thus develop LANGUAGE - a means for communicating about one's rational insights, and transmitting them to new generations.

      Gorillas are quite rational, and can converse intelligently about complex concepts like death and beauty, once they are provided with a language (in this case sign language) in which to do it. I have never read anything so moving as the conversation Koko had with her keepers when her kitten died.

      You should take the time to acquaint yourself with the ACTUAL evidence, rather than taking the distorted version that Christians apologists will feed you.

      You clearly have some intelligence and can reason, but you have been sorely deprived of good raw material to work with in your reasoning.


      P.S. The answer to the conundrum of the start of the Universe, by the way, is that it was neither God nor a Big Bang.

      Time is an artifact of human perception. Time came into existence at the point where our brains became complex enough to construct the notion, and it will cease to exist when there are no more humans to perceive it. Except even that wording is inaccurate, because the sentence is constructed using the assumption that Time exists and is real.

      It is better said thusly: everything that is, was, and ever will be all exists at once, in a point of singularity, but in order to see separate parts, we pull them out like a string of beads and look at one part at a time. Each part being one split second from one particular individual viewpoint. The feeling that our individual existence is smooth and continuous between all the split seconds of perspective offered by this particular body is actually an illusion.

      Right now I am not only wriitng these words, I am also reading them as Mark, Misha, and you - this is the real meaning of "we are all One". Not just all individuals are one - all moments are also one.

      Time is an illusion, thus "starts" and "ends" are illusions, which is why we are eternal and already have the Kingdom of Heaven at our disposal.

  14. Prophecy Teacher profile image81
    Prophecy Teacherposted 8 years ago

    I KNOW FOR MANY who are not comfortable with the Bible - reading scriptures is like nails on chalkboards. But if you bear with this for a little bit - there is relevant views at the end of this concerning - evolution - and its role in the Bible. I made the claim that I am an old earth Christian (there are many) and that the views are expressed in the Bible. I want to explain the 3 interesting things I mentioned in the last post; but first you have to have a Bible lesson.

    Genesis 1:27

    So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

    28And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.


    So the question arises, why did "man" (Male and Female) need to replenish (refill) the earth and subdue it?



    Many Christians believe the world was created perfect. So what will they have been subduing?

    From this perfect Creation view it therefore follows the fall of man created the fall of the world. But in fact - this can not be shown by verses. From the verses, only man fell. So if man was to replenish and subdue the world - BEFORE HIS FALL - as these Genesis verses show - the fall did not cause the change of the earth - it was already changed. Man's fall eliminated his own ability to subdue it as he had been commanded.

    In other words, the Universe was created perfect, but something changed it, and when man was created, he was to change it back by replenishing and subduing it. That was his purpose. But when he fell, he could no longer on his own - do it.

    (Thus the covenant between God and man - that "someone" in the bloodline would come through Eve's seed - destroy Evil - and would make it possible to do so.)

    So at this point, the creation and man - were in a fallen state. This verse points it out.

    Romans 8:22
    For we know that the whole creation groans and travails in pain together (Waiting for the redemption)

    In order to gain a perspective of what Genesis 1 is talking about here - it is helpful to go somewhere else - where similar language is used - and see what it means.

    Genesis 9:1 And God blessed Noah and his sons,and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply and REPLENISH  the earth.

    Well, this is after the flood, and here we see the same command and in this context it is undeniable what God means. He wants the earth to be refilled with Noah's children. He wants it refilled because the flood had unfilled it.

    (For the time being, let's leave off the discussion of whether the flood was local or worldwide)

    So then, the question arises, "what unfilled the earth before Adam was made?" - and why did it need to be SUBDUED. The very word subdued means there had to be opposition of some sort - either by other THINGS - or by other CIRCUMSTANCES.

    But notice when the command is given to Noah - he is told to replenish it - but not subdue it. Why? Because he couldn't, he was a fallen man. And neither could or did Adam after his fall.

    That's why we see Jesus (the seed) subduing all things as these two examples show:

    Micah 7:18  Who is a God like unto thee, that pardoneth iniquity, and passeth by the transgression of the remnant of his heritage? he retaineth not his anger for ever, because he delighteth in mercy. 19He will turn again, he will have compassion upon us; he will subdue our iniquities; and thou wilt cast all their sins into the depths of the sea. (The subduing and casting here is the renewal of all things at the end of the world age)

    1 Corinthians 15:24
    Then cometh the end, when he (Jesus) shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.(Human and Spiritual)

    25For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.

    26The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.

    27For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.

    28And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

    THESE verse refer to the end of the 1000 year millenium.


    Everything on the earth is subdued, by Jesus and the believers.

    At this point - I would like to submit into the discussion - one of the strangest verses in the Bible. The Genesis commentator says,

    6:4)  There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that....

    GIANTS - were in the land - both before and after the flood.

    All ancient civilizations - have these giants in their stories either as gods or people. But in their stories, these giants are not benevolent, they are always half god and half man, and they exhibit emotions like men. Just angrier. They have super human strength and power. And they have physical anomalies.

    Such a commonality among the civilizations (on all 7 continents) should not go unnoticed, I would think. There is a tremendous amount of literature on it.

    Let's talk about it for awhile - first, by looking at the verses.

  15. Prophecy Teacher profile image81
    Prophecy Teacherposted 8 years ago

    Genesis 6

    1And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,

    2That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

    3And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

    4There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

    5And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

    6And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

    7And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

    8But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.

    9These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.

    10And Noah begat three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

    11The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.

    12And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.

    13And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

  16. Mark Knowles profile image60
    Mark Knowlesposted 8 years ago

    prophecy liar -

    Where are all the young-earth, creation scientists when you need one? lol

    You are certainly exhibiting all the values christians hold dear, i.e, "I know how offensive and annoying it will be to you if I quote the bible - but I am going to do it anyway because it serves my purpose and I don't really care what you think." lol

    I am not sure what you are trying to do here, and it really is a pity you are not interested in learning what the word "atheist" means, but I suggest you read the thread I linked to earlier.

    I understand that you think you have all the knowledge you need in your cult's book, but I am not impressed with you retroactively using scientific knowledge to twist the words in the bible to prove your case - whatever that is.

    Really, you are just convincing me that the OP's opening statement is correct.

    I also know you are a big fan of copying and pasting huge swaths of text, but instead, I will just leave a link


    Because your simplistic explanation of the big bang theory does not help me at all. I understand the theory just fine. What I do not understand is how they reached this conclusion. I do not currently understand how they measure the continuing expansion of the universe, which is what I believe they are basing the theory on.

    And I will add this because it seems as though your parochial view of the world and blind faith has led you to jump to an awful lot of false conclusions:

    My non-belief in your particular cult has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with evolution or the bb theory.

    Which I realize will not fit with your mistaken understanding of the word atheist.

    Every word you say here further convinces me you have no clue about the origin and nature of the universe.

  17. Prophecy Teacher profile image81
    Prophecy Teacherposted 8 years ago

    I'm sorry Mark - I took you at your word when you said you didn't know. I thought it was easier to simplify the theory in ordinary language than copy this from the link you provided. I made the assumption that the average reader would not understand this: (which was but 1 paragraph from the 50 in the article you linked to)

    """"The earliest phases of the Big Bang are subject to much speculation. In the most common models, the universe was filled homogeneously and isotropically with an incredibly high energy density, huge temperatures and pressures, and was very rapidly expanding and cooling. Approximately 10−35 seconds into the expansion, a phase transition caused a cosmic inflation, during which the universe grew exponentially.[23] After inflation stopped, the universe consisted of a quark-gluon plasma, as well as all other elementary particles.[24] Temperatures were so high that the random motions of particles were at relativistic speeds, and particle-antiparticle pairs of all kinds were being continuously created and destroyed in collisions. At some point an unknown reaction called baryogenesis violated the conservation of baryon number, leading to a very small excess of quarks and leptons over antiquarks and anti-leptons—of the order of 1 part in 30 million. This resulted in the predominance of matter over antimatter in the present universe.[25]"""""

    So I made the only points worth mentioning. It's speculative. It was dense, it exploded, physics came into being - and there's a lot of unknowable stuff.


    So I thought it was best to talk about the things we know a little more about - like earth.

    The only thing I copied was the scriptures and one quote. Everything else I wrote.

    As far as me not understanding what an Atheist is - perhaps it is easier for you to tell me what you are - rather than for me to continue to be in ignorance - groping around in the dark - looking for explanations.. Atheist is a big 10th grade word and I quit school in the 9th.

    As far as what I am attempting to do here - is explain origins in the Bible from an Evolutionist old earth perspective - and not the literal 6 days - some hold to.

    Believing you believed in Macro-Evolution, and do not understand the BB theory as you said, and that you are an Atheist and you assume all Christians don't understand this stuff either, I attempted to show you - there are similarities between Evolution theory and the BIBLE. I assumed you didn't know that.

    But you're not interested. So I'll stop. Instead I'll make a pedantic HUB for this story and amuse myself there.

    Here, You have brilliantly destroyed my arguments - and I am embarrassed.


  18. Prophecy Teacher profile image81
    Prophecy Teacherposted 8 years ago

    But - even 9th graders can go to Walmart and buy a dictionary.

    atheist - (noun) someone who denies the existence of god

    noun - nonbeliever, pagan, sceptic, disbeliever, heathen, infidel, unbeliever, freethinker, irreligionist

    BUT I suppose those are too embarrassing for you. Since I suspect you are a militant Atheist - only a refined and more enlightened form of Atheism would suit you. Pantheist perhaps. I shouldn't guess, but I bet this is you.

    http://www.pantheism.net/atheism.htm?OV … 2410755511

  19. Prophecy Teacher profile image81
    Prophecy Teacherposted 8 years ago

    Most Atheists in explaining man, believe in Macro-Evolution. Most Macro-Evolutionists believe in the Big Bang theory. All physics as we know it BEGAN in the Big Bang - after it started.

    Therefore, it is impossible to know - through physics - what is on the other side of the Big Bang. Physics is the RESULT of the Big Bang not the cause.

    But whatever the cause - it is not Physics.

    Therefore - to believe these models as postulated - which the majority of Atheists believe - they have to believe the primeval force was - nothing. (Or perhaps nothing we can ever understand since we are in a Physics universe)

    So, in their belief system - they have increasingly turned to Atheistic Pantheism - as their model for self worth and explanation.

    Now whether you have gotten there yet or not Mark - depends on how much thought you have given to these circumstances. You can see from the link I gave you - Brilliant Atheistic thinkers who have given it thought arrive at the only place they can. God is everything, but He's not personal. He's not an IT.

  20. Prophecy Teacher profile image81
    Prophecy Teacherposted 8 years ago

    But if you want to keep up with the latest theory - this is the state of the art.

    http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ … 062907.php

    They think they have discovered how the Big Bang started. But when you read the new postulate, please - don't over look this line.


    """""""Bojowald's research also suggests that, although it is possible to learn about many properties of the earlier universe, we always will be uncertain about some of these properties because his calculations reveal a "cosmic forgetfulness" that results from the extreme quantum forces during the Big Bounce.""""""""""


    I love it!!! Cosmic Forgetfulness. Whatever happened to Cosmic Consciousness?


  21. Prophecy Teacher profile image81
    Prophecy Teacherposted 8 years ago

    In any event, I'm not trying to overwhelm the discussion here. The author simply states the Big Bang theory as we know it can never explain what happened before the Bang; at the point of the explosion or immediately afterwards. Leaving us with an unknowable beginning to our existence.

    The Priests of Science - grind their teeth on this because it points too strongly to Theism.

    But to the rescue Martin Bojowald has developed a new theory as to how. He's no dummy. Bio:

    Martin Bojowald is an German-born physicist who now works at the Center for Gravitational Physics and Geometry of the Pennsylvania State University, USA. In 2005 he joined the permanent staff of the IGPG, after spending several years at the Max-Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics in Golm, Germany. He works on loop quantum gravity and physical cosmology and is credited with establishing the sub-field of loop quantum cosmology.

  22. Prophecy Teacher profile image81
    Prophecy Teacherposted 8 years ago

    And why does it point to Theism, Mark?

    Well, Theism 101 states:

    Genesis 1:1 - IN THE BEGINNING, GOD

    1. Mark Knowles profile image60
      Mark Knowlesposted 8 years ago in reply to this


      Of course it does not point to theism. How do you come to that conclusion?


  23. Mark Knowles profile image60
    Mark Knowlesposted 8 years ago

    I am quite prepared to say, "I don't know," how the universe came into being and I have trouble with there being a starting point at all, because I am apparently unable to visualize what is the "other side" of either the big bang, or creation.

    I do not understand the theoretical physics behind the big bang and christianity makes no sense to me. Perhaps, if christians were able to actually practice what they preach I might have come to a different conclusion about it - I am not sure.

    Or conversely, if a scientist could show me a quark or an anti-lepton in a way that made sense to me and I could some how grasp the notion that there were no rules of physics before the big bang and that the "nothing" that was there before was genuinely nothing - I might accept that. smile

    What I do not believe is that I came from nothing. Even my rudimentary grasp of physics allows me to understand that this is not possible.

    But - I do not need to believe that I was created by a thinking being with a purpose in mind -

    and you know what that purpose is and what I must do to fulfill that purpose lol

    I have seen the pantheist site you linked to - of course, and yes, this is an acceptable use of the word god to me. As I have said before - the only reason I need to say I do not believe is because people say there is a god.

    I am not sure we will ever be able to answer the question of where we came from without having a starting point based on our own pre-conceptions.

    You cannot imagine that there is not a god because you have already decided - based on nothing, that there is one.

    I do not believe in god, but - I am open to persuasion. Whether this is proving your christian god in any of the ways that are open to true believers - go for it. smile

    My personal preference would be moving the mountain, but bringing a dead person back to life, or walking on water would probably do it.

    By the same token, if Zeus, or some other pre-christian god chose to make himself known to me, I would start building temples and sacrificing animals tomorrow.

  24. Prophecy Teacher profile image81
    Prophecy Teacherposted 8 years ago


  25. Prophecy Teacher profile image81
    Prophecy Teacherposted 8 years ago

    wink got it.

  26. Prophecy Teacher profile image81
    Prophecy Teacherposted 8 years ago


    Ok, so we have come full circle. Your post was very articulate and well spoken - you have laid out your thoughts concisely. Because there is no burden of proof for you - it is a lot easier to be conscise. In your statement....

    """"Perhaps, if christians were able to actually practice what they preach I might have come to a different conclusion about it - I am not sure.""""

    I understand this statement well. I aspire to practice the Christian religion as Jesus lived it. I fail routinely. But I endeavor. It is not about them other Christians - real or imagined - it is always and forever about me. There is only one example in Christianity and that is Jesus. Everyone else is just everyone else.


    That's all I'm going to say about that.

    But concerning where the physics leave us - it is either the Pantheistic Paradigm (or variation like Jenny's - Pan-e-theism)

    Or Theism - a personal God.

    I am not asking you to consider Theism from proof. Or from the personal religious practices of others; but from an alternative perspective about ORIGINS, One that explains the earth more naturally. That is where I was going before our detour. Origins. I don't like to think of myself as coming from nothing - and going to nothing. If that were my world view - I would attempt to find ANYTHING that made sense to me that would contradict it. I'm not talking about mindlessly believing, I'm talking about reason that takes you to a leap of faith.

    Not perfect reason, but reasonable enough - like the reason used when marrying a woman. smile

    Physics also, as we've seen,  has no perfect reason - but we believe it based on reasonable enough.

    The Bible - whether it is a Holy book or not - is clearly a very, very old book. It is the most comprehensive record of the ancient world in any language or history. Forget the stories for a second - and just look at the very, very, old book. Until 1947 - the oldest copies we had of any of the books was 1000 yrs old. Today, we have copies or fragments from all 66 - 2100 yrs old - and some older. What's that worth?

    I don't know. But I do know what the worth of a 1000 year old copy of - other things is worth?

    """An ancient text by the Greek mathematical genius Archimedes sold for $2 million at Christie's... The rare 10th-century Byzantine Greek palimpsest manuscript is believed to be the oldest and most authentic copy of Archimedes' major works to survive, and contains transcriptions of his writing on geometry and physics.""""



    If people can place so much value on a 1000 year old copy of an ancient work - what value should we place on copies of 66 separate books - 1000 years older than that? I would suggest at the very least, an open mind.

    As a history book, the Bible reports itself to go back at least 6000 years in time - in an unbroken genealogy. Plenty of other verifiable ancient History corresponds to the book.

    There is no other book on the face of the earth with as much prediction about the future.

    There is no other race as peculiar as the Jews - and here find them at the center of the world.

    One can shrug - or one can say - alright, I'll look a little closer.

    If you have never looked at the subject of Giants in the Old Testament - which discusses them in the 2500 BC period - I suggest you consider them. Even if it is only from a curious mind.

    There was a universal belief in them - all over the secular world.

    You have a great mind Mark. It shows in everything you say. That's why if you have never considered this subject - it bears at least a casual glance. The problem with Giants - is that if they were real - it destroys the theory of Macro-Evolution.

    This definiton is from Talk Origins:

    “””Macroevolution is between-species evolution.  Macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means at least the splitting of a species into two, or the change of a species over time into another. Any changes that occur at higher levels, such as the evolution of new families, phyla or genera, are also therefore macroevolution. (End quote)

    Giants – destroy that definition.
    So does a multiplicity of new life in a relatively short period of time.
    That is what I have been talking about.

    1. Mark Knowles profile image60
      Mark Knowlesposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      Well - it seems as though you are playing devils advocate here. If everything in the bible was true, we wouldn't be having this discussion smile

      Worth. Value. Monetary value. I spend most of my working life discussing the "value" of things and it is fair to say, ancient art and artifacts are valued on their rarity and possible future value, rather than any intrinsic worth.

      People do not pay millions for a Van Gogh because it is a fantastic piece of art - they buy them as an investment.

      On top of that, our entire value system is completely screwed. How is a nurse "worth" less than a TV anchor girl?

      As to the giants - I am a little lost here. Are you saying that you believe there were actually giants roaming the earth and this is factual - based on what you have read in the bible? the only one I remember clearly is Goliath, so let's take him for a moment.

      Try this - instead of thinking the bible is a history book and the word of god. Just for a moment imagine that the bible is a political tool used to subjugate ignorant people in much the same way TV is used today (And don't worry - I get the muslim broadcasts here and they are just as bad as the christian ones)

      So now look at the story of David and Goliath in that light. The small boy with faith and a slingshot against the huge murdering giant. smile

      I cannot make the leap of faith you talk of - for many reasons, not least of which - it doesn't make any sense to me.

      An all-powerful god, who spoke the world into existence and then created it in such a way that he had to send his only child to "save" us from ourselves and made the message so unclear millions of people have died fighting about it.

      And millions more if what I also believe is going to happen comes to pass. And I don't need a 2,000 year old book to tell me it is coming. smile

  27. Prophecy Teacher profile image81
    Prophecy Teacherposted 8 years ago

    Jenny, Jenny, Jenny. Girllll.

       You paint a few strokes with a very broad brush - and call it a masterpiece. But who is mixing your paints?

       Time is an illusion? You've solved the Big Bang dilemma!!!

    Is that science fact? Or is that the new addition to your Panetheistic religion that makes it all come together? According to New Scientist - it's still guesswork.

         """The thermal time hypothesis is a very beautiful idea," says Pierre Martinetti, a physicist at the University of Rome in Italy. "But I believe its implementation is still limited. For the moment one has just checked that this hypothesis was not contradictory when a notion of time was already available. But it has not been used in quantum gravity."

    Others also urge caution in interpreting what it all means for the nature of time. "It is wrong to say that time is an illusion," says Rickles. "It is just reducible or non-fundamental, in the same way that consciousness emerges from brain activity but is not illusory."


    A great point counter point discussion is here at Physics and Physicists

    http://physicsandphysicists.blogspot.co … usion.html


    When you say what I wrote was not factually correct - you held for yourself that what you wrote was. But I didn't say they were fact based on African Eve - like you did.

    I posted a quote showing how the pool of humans needed for a long development for humans - in order to EVEN GET AN EVE was unreasonable. And I gave dates of 6000-10,000 yrs ago which are more reasonable to assume from the human pool we seem to have.

    You suggest that date is incorrect because of Eve being much older - 120,000 yrs old - some say 200,000.

    But is it???

    Eve being 120,000 years old is based "solely" on the supposition of setting a "molecular clock". But this date is based upon ‘molecular clock’ assumptions, which were calibrated by evolutionary beliefs about when certain evolutionary events occurred, supposedly millions of years ago. When these assumed rates were checked out against the real world, preliminary results indicated that the mitochondrial ‘molecular clock’ was ticking at a much faster rate than evolutionists believed possible. That is, it directly ‘challenges’ the evolutionary long age claim for humans.

    If correct, it means that mitochondrial Eve lived 6,000 to 7.000 years ago. In any event, whoever gets to set the molecular clock assumptions - gets to make the number. As long as you quote evolutionary scientists - you will always be able to post old Eve numbers.

    """"""""The time she lived is calculated based on the molecular clock technique of correlating elapsed time with observed genetic drift.""""""" (Wikipedia)

    """""Mitochondrial Eve is defined via the maternal line. Therefore, she necessarily lived at least as long, though likely much longer, ago than the MRCA of all humanity.""""

    Hmmmmm. At least as long - as the MRCA of all humanity. And how long is that? According to these HOT HOT guys 5000 - 8000 yrs.

    I'm sure you're also familiar with - Rohde, Olson, and Chang (2004) using a non-genetic model, estimated that the most recent common ancestor of all living humans may have lived within historical times. For conservative parameters, he pushes back the date for the MRCA to the 6000 BC area

    That's 8000 yrs ago - (And they're not dreaded Fundamentlalists.)

    I know, I know - I left out the part that said "but most likely much longer" - but that's the part based on the clock.

    So if the Mito-most recent common ancestor, and the non genetic most recent common ancestor, can both be shown to be around 6000-8000 yrs ago that would leave you with two things. It would leave you with humans with a common ancestor and a common genetic link in the modern past - and it would leave other hominids of much older age - in the very remote past.

    I was attempting to postulate a theory for this - young creatures/old creatures paradox - using the Bible. The onus is always on us right?

    You equated rationality with language and writing - I did not. I said that if you take the population we see - and go back in time to where we see the written word - and back a little more for oral traditions to be passed down - we no where find the amount of man necessary to produce the rational man you claim must be - not even at that point -just 6-10,000 yrs ago. Let alone 60,000 yrs earlier.

    You describe him ages further back using African Eve - like you used Time is Illusion. I am saying she was never there. It is unreasonable. And then I quoted a Geneticist - but evidently I should have quoted the Monkey that lost it's kitten - you would have believed it more willingly.

    At the end of the day I don't want to debate this stuff. I am not a scientist. All I want to do is offer a couple of points about Giants in the Bible, evolution in Genesis  - and go to the coffee shop.


  28. Mark Knowles profile image60
    Mark Knowlesposted 8 years ago

    Sandra - I will try and say it more clearly smile

    I experienced something that I am almost certain is what other people refer to as god.

    I am basing this on what other's whom I think have had a genuine experience that they have labeled "god," have described, and it sounds the same. I was certainly driven to my knees in the dirt.

    This does get a little confusing because of all the people who claim to have had experience of god when they clearly have not. (See most religious zealots)

    So,  I have experienced what I think others call god.

    But it wasn't a god with a personality and a purpose. And it certainly wasn't the god I see people talking about.

    Therefore, there is no god.

    Now, it may be that I experienced something totally different. But I do not think so.

    1. mohitmisra profile image59
      mohitmisraposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      The experience of God is the same for all.The divine light.I dont thank you have a problem with god but you do have for fanatics propogating any one prophet or god in a particular way, all else are doomed..smileI have agreed with you on spiritual truths so you are different,I wouldnt say a stauch atheist.smile

    2. 0
      sandra rinckposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      Ok, but then I am saying that you experienced "our God".  So for a person (and I mean no disrespect) who does not believe in God, you do not believe in what we call God even though you experienced it which indicates to me that you have your own idea of God. In anycase, our God does exist, and yours does not...??? Also, to be fair, maybe the purpose of your experience was to get you to believe?

      So there must be, even just a little, piece of you that does to some extent believe there is a God.  And I say that because you have said that if you saw the fiery chaiot, you would believe.

      Long story short, you experienced "our God", but neither you or us has experienced yours.  smile

      Also from reading the Bible, the personality and purpose of God is to realize Love.  And I know you love and are capable of loving, so you can experience God without realizing it is God because you are looking for something else.

      But you are right, you don't have to believe in God or any God and I don't have to be right.  But in some ways it is like saying to someone who thinks their wife is the most beautiful thing in the world, that his wife is not beautiful.  You don't "feel" what you "see" through another persons eyes. 


  29. Mark Knowles profile image60
    Mark Knowlesposted 8 years ago


    This is why I rarely speak of it. You cannot conceive of an absence of god, therefore you think there must be a small part of me that believes in god smile

    Nothing could be further from the truth.

    What I have experienced showed me how minuscule and unimportant I am in the great scheme of things. It makes no difference whom I love, don't love or even if I am a mass murderer. None. I am not going to go to heaven or hell when I die. I am just going to stop existing - for me. smile

    Other people need god and apparently this god tells them that "love," is all important and they should not kill etc......

    We know how that goes. big_smile

    I am not looking for anything. I already found it - I am jusyt seeking the correct language to express it, but I am coming to the conclusion that no matter what I say, people will twist it to suit their pre-existing beliefs. You are the second person to tell me I must believe in god on this thread. lol

    That is why I never quote the bible.

  30. Inspirepub profile image88
    Inspirepubposted 8 years ago


    I suspect that anyone who becomes truly "enlightened" will suffer the same frustration.

    If you say literally what you actually know to be true, "unenlightened" people simply cannot comprehend it.

    Just be thankful they aren't calling you insane, or megalomaniacal, or something else perjorative.

    It is your prerogative to do whatever you wish with your knowledge.

    If you insist on casting pearls, though, don't watch to closely what the swine do to them ... that way lies madness.


  31. Mark Knowles profile image60
    Mark Knowlesposted 8 years ago

    I think you may be right, Jenny.

    I foolishly though I could create a vocabulary that was not based in the christian bible and make people understand, but I am beginning to think I cannot.

    Honestly - it makes no difference anyway smile

    Although my favorite insult recently is Mark Knowles is a Douchebag smile

  32. Prophecy Teacher profile image81
    Prophecy Teacherposted 8 years ago

    Hello Mark, no. That is not what I am saying. I am saying that there are numerous recorded instances of Giants on all 7 continents, in most religions, secular instances and myths. We can leave Goliath out of the story and we would simply be minus 1 giant a boy killed.

    I'm presenting the Bible as an old book with no intrinsic value except historical. I am in the antiques business - and understand well the relative value - of value. That wasn't my point. I am suggesting that if the Bible was any OTHER old relic, most people would at least see it in historical context.

    When I, at the beginning of this thread, showed that the Bible has essentially the same order of Life Origins believed by evolutionists - I was showing early recorded history. But no one wanted to look at that - except to say something like I back dated history or something like that. Geez. Unbelievable. Great arguments roll

    Show me another OLD book that at the very least - was back dating Evolutionary life theory's - 2500 years ago  - in which we have numerous extant copies. Not just fragments. The world has hardly any extant copies of ANYTHING over 1000 yrs old - and yet we fawn over them like a new date.

    My suggestion was that deserves a discussion. But many can not take their anti-thesis opinion about the Bible out of their head long enough to even consider it. See how strong the hypothetical evidence must be in order to overcome a no god - mindset?

    They can't even look at the supposed God book - in order to see - no god stuff. smile


    Creeping things

    That's the Bible order

    It is also the Big Bang/Evolution order

    Did God start it - or the Big Bounce
    Is it Macro Evolution?
    Spontaneous Evolution
    or 7 day Creationism?

    No need to answer, my intent is only to eliminate some of the possibilities - not PROVE any.

    So, I'll talk a little about Giants.

    1. Inspirepub profile image88
      Inspirepubposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      Actually, it's not.

      Creeping things (invertebrates) came before fish and birds (vertebrates).

      Unless you want to consider "creeping things" to be amphibians and reptiles, in which case they still came before birds.


      1. Prophecy Teacher profile image81
        Prophecy Teacherposted 8 years ago in reply to this

        Thank you Jenny for keeping me EXACTLY CORRECT.


        But I believe the operative phrase was at the beginning of the post. I used the word ESSENTIALLY.

        There is no right order. Nothing is proven yet.

        """""the Bible has 'essentially' the same order of Life Origins believed by evolutionists""""

        I apologize for not repeating it - it made the comment confusing.

        But who's to say at this point - which view is accurate? In any regard a 9 out of 10 match rate could still be viewed as - I'm looking for a word here - Miraculous.

        But you probably prefer the word - coincidence. If so, I accept that. It's a coincidence that the Bible proffered the same order of evolution as Darwinists 'essentially' discovered 2500 years later. And it's a coincidence that no other Holy Book or ancient literature does.


        1. Mark Knowles profile image60
          Mark Knowlesposted 8 years ago in reply to this

          I think it would probably be a good idea to go and do some research on evolution and abiogenesis. Darwin made no mention of the beginning of life or "Life Origins" that you are now telling me I believe.

          I know you are here to teach rather than learn, but it might help your argument to have some idea of what others do actually "believe." lol

          But you seem to now be saying that as well as the giants roaming the earth (which I am still waiting to hear your thoughts on), the bible says evolution is how life came into being and it was not created by god - is that correct?

          You are confusing me by keep on telling me what I believe  - especially when I didn't know I believed it.

          This might be a good starting point for your research into what "Abiogenesis" means.


          As for the bible being the first to come up with a creation myth that just happens to be the same but different to what you think Darwin said - lol

          This is a quote from the Bakuba people of Africa's creation myth which was "created" well before the bible.

          Originally, the Earth was nothing but water and darkness. Mbombo, the white giant ruled over this chaos. One day, he felt a terrible pain in his stomach, and vomited the sun, the moon, and the stars. The sun shone fiercely and water steamed up in clouds. Gradually, the dry hills appeared. Mbombo vomited again, this time the trees came out of his stomach, and animals, and people, and many other things.

          If you would like some more I can link to dozens. Oddly enough, they are all pretty much the same. big_smile

  33. Prophecy Teacher profile image81
    Prophecy Teacherposted 8 years ago

    By the way, David and later his men - killed 6 giants.

    The last one they killed had 6 fingers and six toes.

  34. Mark Knowles profile image60
    Mark Knowlesposted 8 years ago

    The bible as a historical book.

    Yes, I agree that it is largely overlooked from that perspective. Mainly because of the uses it has been put to in the past, and the unlikely scenario that whoever is doing the translating has no axe to grind. But I am open to listening to what you have to say about it.

    I am "slightly," more impressed by the pyramids and Stonehenge, both of which have been used as tools of prophecy and both of which were sensibly built to last smile

    As for the "similarities" between bb and creation - I already explained why I have no particular interest in either of those.

    I don't have a lot of time today, but I will respond to your thoughts on giants as soon as I get the chance.

  35. Prophecy Teacher profile image81
    Prophecy Teacherposted 8 years ago

    Honestly Mark, I'm no longer interested. Thanks for an interesting couple of weeks. PT

  36. Mark Knowles profile image60
    Mark Knowlesposted 8 years ago

    My pleasure smile

    Although it is fairer to say you never were interested smile

    I must admit to a certain level of frustration speaking to people such as yourself who insist on saying things about what atheists and evolutionists believe that are patently false.

    And claiming that the bible is the first creation myth.

    There are only two options here.

    1. You are ignorant of the correct facts.
    2. You are willfully twisting them to suit what you are saying.

    The first is fixable - if you choose to do so.

    I don't know what I can really say about the second other than it clearly goes against the teachings you are claiming to promote and follow.

    Which is one of my main issues with your cult.

    So it is also fair to say that people like you are one of the reasons I took a good hard look at the christian religion and decided it was wrong.

    Thank you. big_smile

    1. 0
      sandra rinckposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      Yip, I have to agree with Mark about the myth thing.  The Bible was not the first book written about it.  It goes way back. 

      Even if I chose to believe in bible moral principles mainly, actually really only, to love and forgive etc. PT, if you did read other books, (which you may have) then you would see that the legend of a man being raised from the dead was around oh, 3 thousand years before Christ.  And it was not a prophecy. 
      Among other things.  smile

  37. 61
    Confused Studentposted 8 years ago

    All i can say is i don't have a clue in what i believe about god.
    I believe in miracles but i have logic enough to know that jesus can't walk on water so on...
    Also maybe the bb theory is a reasonable explaination, but then when you think that two atoms were meant to cross again today and create a black hole, it doesn't really make sense. Purely for the fact that it didn't.
    So maybe there is a chance god does exist?
    Seriously through what would you rather do?
    Believe god exist and the world would probably stay the same...
    Or us knowing god doesnt exist, imagine the chaos in the world. People would think twice about commiting crimes, they would do it straight away. 'No need to be good, there is no heaven to go to after we die.' they would say.

    To be Honest, i think we are better off not knowing.

  38. Inspirepub profile image88
    Inspirepubposted 8 years ago

    There are many people who do not believe in God, and most of them abide by the laws of the land and their own personal code of honour perfectly fine without any threats of punishment required.

    The psychological theories of moral development put obedience due to fear of punishment at the lowest of the five levels of moral reasoning. It is characteristic of children aged 3-7, those with have low intelligence, and/or those who have never been exposed to any of the higher forms of moral thinking.

    I rather suspect that if God were proven conclusively not to exist, you would carry on treating your fellow human beings with respect, for your own reasons, which have nothing to do with fear of punishment in the afterlife.


  39. theirishobserver. profile image60
    theirishobserver.posted 6 years ago

    we already have his name is Money the Almighty One....

  40. bonny2010 profile image61
    bonny2010posted 6 years ago

    I think God was invented by Great Aunts to punish kids who rubbed chilly juice on their bloomers and on their neatly cut dunny paper. But I also think God has a sense of humour because he never punished us like they said he would.

  41. theirishobserver. profile image60
    theirishobserver.posted 6 years ago

    Bonny2010 I think he has a sense of humour see my new hub broken love.