There is a lot here, too much, I think. You really do seem to overcomplicating things.
Let me sum up my view and then I will address your specific objections (which I don't believe are actually objections to the view I actually hold!) (My Scripture quotations are generally from the ESV, also sometimes I use NIV, Scriptures quoted from memory tend to be NIV, since I've been immersed in that version longer. If a point requires looking into the Greek text, I tend to use USB4, and then I would post the actual text along with a rough translation.)
God created Adam and Eve, and through them created every other person. So God created every person, also see Psalm 139:13 "You knit me together in my mother's womb".
So you see that we have life through God and only because of God. Without God, we can't have life. He created us and He sustains us. This applies whether or not we are believers. God created people, some are believers and some are not, but the Lord created us all.
The Bible says in Romans that (which you will also recall from Genesis) that man sinned and this is how death came into the world. Romans 5:12 says "Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned-". Paul goes on to to say in Romans 6:23 that the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life. See how this all makes sense and fits together? If the penalty for sin was something other than death, then death would not have come into the world because of sin. If the penalty for sin was eternal conscious torment, then Paul would have said "Just as sin came into the world through one man, and eternal conscious torment came through sin..." But of course, Paul did not say that.
So our problem is that all of us have sinned, and we will all die because of sin. But we also know that God can resurrect the dead. You agree, right? So even if we die, we can be resurrected again. Impossible for us, but very possible for God, who made us and sustains us. But God says that the wages of sin is death. If we have sins credited to us, we still owe the penalty for sin which is death. The outcome of sin is death. Paul said in Romans 6:21 "But what fruit were you getting from those things (sin) of which you are now ashamed? For the end of those things is death." So do you agree that the natural result of sin is death? So the question is, How do we receive eternal life having sinned?" The answer to that is having our sins paid for by Christ's death on the cross. We give Him our sins, and His death pays the debt of death that we owe. He takes our death upon Himself, and in exchange He gives us eternal life. We will receive this gift of eternal life when He returns in glory. So, those who reject Jesus Christ, do they also receive eternal life? No, because they hold onto their sins, they do not give their sins to Christ, so their sins are not forgiven. They remain under the penalty of death. When they are resurrected on judgment day, there is still sin on their "account". They owe the wages of sin, which is death. When they die after the resurrection, they no longer live. They remain dead. The Bible refers to this second death as "the second death". I don't know why you would have the slightest problem accepting any of this, since this is specifically what the Bible says.
So to recap:
1. We are born.
2. We live (either giving our sins to Christ or keeping them on ourselves)
3. We die
4. We are all resurrected on Judgment Day (For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ - 2 Corinthians 5:10)
4A. Those who have had their sins forgiven remain alive forever, for the wages of sin is death, but they no long have sin, their sin was removed by Christ on the cross.
4B. Those who held onto their sin also appear before the judgment seat of Christ, and as you know, the wages of sin is death, so these go off to their second death. This death is eternal, since there is no other resurrection except for the resurrection of Christ, who they rejected.
Now to address your specific objections to what I have told you from the Scriptures:
Again and let me be clear, asking a question is not a claim I said you said something or even that you MUST believe something.
A straight denial that your view has God changing His Mind about our existence. Ok. But consider, at least in the orthodox world, God is the reason we exist. He created us and in a very real sense He holds our existence in the palm of His Hands. So am unclear how a view which says we exist from birth, all cease to exist at death, all return to exist "again" and then finally some cease to exist "again" does not represent God changing His Mind about whether we should exist or not. Again a question is not a statement about what you believe. Does God not make us exist or not exist? And if not what controls our existence?
As I said, we exist because of God, and we can be destroyed because of sin. Sin entered the world through one man and death through sin.
Copies vs resurrection of same people - what is the difference in your view.
There is no reason to believe that the person who is resurrected from death is a different person than the person who died. Look at an example of a resurrection from the Bible. Luke 7:11-15, the resurrection of the widow's son. Luke 7:12 says "a man who had died was being carried out." Luke 7:15 says "And the dead man sat up..." Luke doesn't say "A different man sat up" or "a copy of the dead man sat up". Luke says "The dead man sat up", this means the SAME man, not a copy of the man. Our resurrection will be the same, when I am resurrected from the dead, it will be ME who sits up, not a copy of me.
Yes that God brings people back is indeed part of our Creed but in our case our existence as individual persons is continuous,
The resurrection of the dead is part of your Creed, the continuous of existence is not part of the Nicene Creed. The Creed says "I look for the resurrection of the DEAD", it doesn't say "I look for the resurrection of the LIVING".
I hope I fully answered your objection of the resurrection of the dead versus a resurrection of a copy of the dead.
Ok, so the question about how in a non-continuous view of all of our existences, how can we view non-existence as punishment.
The wicked are punished by being destroyed. How is that NOT a punishment? They no longer exist, this is the worst possible outcome. Their punishment is their destruction, If you want to claim that this is NOT a punishment, so need to prove that they are in the same condition after their destruction as they were before they were destroyed. In other words you need to prove that destruction is equal to non-destruction. Is destruction exactly the same as the opposite of destruction? How so?
(I deleted your rehash of the "resurrection-copy" argument since I addressed this earlier in the post)
So if the dread of non-existence is part of the punishment then we all face that dread.
I do not believe that the DREAD of destruction is part of the punishment. I believe that eternal destruction is the punishment. See 2 Thessalonians 1:9 "These pay the penalty of eternal destruction", see also every other verse that says the penalty is destruction.
The only punishment of the damned is fear/dread and then only a fear/dread of the knowledge that one is facing something for the last time.
No. The punishment is not the fear/dread of destruction, instead the punishment is the actual destruction of the wicked.
I would suggest that some people would object that having all the damned face the exact same punishment (which is not the orthodox view BTW) makes there being Justice for any unpunished wickedness very doubtful, which means God leaves the injustice of this world not fully accounted for.
If you object to all of the wicked facing the same punishment, then you should object to all of the wicked facing the same punishment of eternal conscious torment. But you shouldn't object to all of the wicked facing the same punishment, since all sin is sin against God and requires the punishment that God requires, and He said in the Bible that the wages of sin is death.
He doesn't say that the penalty for BIG sins is Big Death and the penalty for little sins is little death.
So that point now about this view and the issue it raises with restoring universally the balance of Justice is reinforced by having all the damned face the same punishment - if indeed that is your belief.
Justice is acheived when the wicked are no more.
If you are concerning with restoring the balance of justice, and if you believe that only eternal torment restores the balance, then the balance of justice will never be restored, since by definition eternal torment never ends so the balance is never ultimately accomplished. The argument of restoration of judgment is "damning" to the doctrine of eternal torment, because neverending torment also never reaches the goal of reaching completion. The doctrine of the destruction of the wicked doesn't suffer from this flaw.
