Why isn't the standing still of the sun and the moon not recorded by other cultures?

[Compassionist]

I am quoting from Joshua 10: 12 - 14, the Bible (English Standard Version)

"At that time Joshua spoke to the Lord in the day when the Lord gave the Amorites over to the sons of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel,

Sun, stand still at Gibeon,
and moon, in the Valley of Aijalon.”
And the sun stood still, and the moon stopped,
until the nation took vengeance on their enemies.

Is this not written in the Book of Jashar? The sun stopped in the midst of heaven and did not hurry to set for about a whole day. There has been no day like it before or since, when the Lord heeded the voice of a man, for the Lord fought for Israel."

Why isn't the standing still of the sun and the moon not recorded by other cultures that had invented writing?

The event described in Joshua 10:12–14, where the sun and moon are said to have stood still to allow the Israelites more time to defeat their enemies, would - if taken literally - constitute a global astronomical phenomenon. If the Earth’s rotation truly stopped or slowed (which is what "the sun stood still" would physically mean), it would have had catastrophic global consequences, including massive earthquakes, tsunamis, and changes in atmospheric motion due to sudden deceleration.

Such an event could not have gone unnoticed by other civilisations and would have been recorded by other literate cultures that kept astronomical or historical records.

At the time (around 13th to 15th century BCE, depending on the dating of the conquest narratives), several advanced civilisations with writing and astronomical records existed, including:

Egyptians
Babylonians
Chinese (Shang Dynasty)
Minoans/Mycenaeans
Sumerians
Indus Valley remnants

Yet none of these cultures, despite their meticulous sky observations, record a day when the sun and moon stood still or behaved abnormally. I conclude that this is because the Bible is lying about the Biblical God making the sun and the moon stand still.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #24]


1. On “subjective accusation” vs objective analysis

Skepticism isn’t an accusation; it’s the default position until a claim is substantiated.

Skepticism isn't calling a witness a liar, without substantiation. Unbelief, or no supporting evidence does not conclude lying.

Healthy skepticism suspends belief or unbelief, until seeing further confirmation.

If none other evidence exists, it is not “calling it false by prejudice,” it is simply withholding belief until evidence appears - which is how we treat all historical claims, religious or not.

Right.

Yet none of these cultures, despite their meticulous sky observations, record a day when the sun and moon stood still or behaved abnormally. I conclude that this is because the Bible is lying about the Biblical God making the sun and the moon stand still.

So, in the name of being healthy skeptic, you can now retract the accusation of the written record being a lie.

2. On conflating record with reality
Saying “there is only one record” is not the same as saying “the record is false.”
It’s saying “the record is unconfirmed.”

Correct.

Yet none of these cultures, despite their meticulous sky observations, record a day when the sun and moon stood still or behaved abnormally. I conclude that this is because the Bible is lying about the Biblical God making the sun and the moon stand still.

And so, you can easily rephrase your accusation of lying into something an honest skeptic would say: I conclude that this is because the Bible is unconfirmed about the Biblical God making the sun and the moon stand still.

Therefore, if there were outside confirmation, then you would believe it? Such as with the darkness over the land at midday, during Jesus resurrection? And the total solar eclipse of 1207 BC?

There is no record by Greek astronomers of a total solar eclipse lasting several hours during a full moon.

Or, would you also just dismiss that outside confirmation of the 1207 BC total solar eclipse, and the 202nd Olympiad Greek record? Or. call them lies too?

Historians always seek multiple attesting sources because human memory and oral transmission are unreliable.

Disbelievers always seek to find fault in any record, whether written or oral, whether confirmed or not.

If a global astronomical event occurred, every culture on Earth - has seen it Egyptians, Chinese, Mayans, Greeks, Babylonians - yet no such records exist.

Both false.


The Mayans have remaining books, that record celestial events in their history, and are factually not confirmed elsewhere. Are they also lying?

3. On supernatural explanations

Appealing to “supernatural power overriding natural law” explains anything and therefore explains nothing.

Anything? Who appeals to the supernatural for the caterpillar becoming a butterfly?

Supernatural power overriding natural law, is only when natural law is overruled by supernatural power.

If every contradiction between a story and natural law can be resolved by saying “God changed the laws temporarily,” then no event is testable and all distinctions between myth and reality vanish.

If every contradiction between a record and natural law can be resolved by saying “It did not happen”, then no recorded event happened. Whether natural or supernatural.

Jhn 3:11
Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness. If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?

Science and history rely on regularity - the assumption that natural laws are consistent.

Natural law being consistent, is not the argument here. No one is denying consistency in natural law, but only natural mutability, that it can be changed by spiritual will. In fact, the Bible acknowledges witchcraft, spiritual mediums, and other supernatural powers over nature, by denouncing it as ungodly.

The argument you are making, is that natural law isimmutable, and cannot be changed, altered, broken, nor abolished. Which is an argument of natural faith alone. It's a naturally believes in an uncreated natural universe, where nothing is apart nor beyond the universal natural law.

But then, that contradicts universal expansionism, where the universe is expanding where there is no present universe and natural law.

An uncreated natural universe without beginning nor end, also necessitates faith in pagan universal deism. Life and intelligence in an uncreated universe, must conclude that all natural elements, life, and intelligence must therefore exist the same without beginning nor ending.

Human evolutionists must also come to the same conclusion of old natural deism. In fact, what they call the primordial 'soup', where inorganic material naturally 'becomes' organic life and intelligence, is simply the modern pseudo-scientific version of the old primordial deity.

If those laws can be suspended at will, evidence becomes meaningless and discussion impossible.

I.e. Spiritual being and will apart from a created natural universe, is meaningless and antithetical to faith in an uncreated, unending, natural thinking universe.

4. On the eclipse at the Crucifixion

So long as the 2027 BC total solar eclipse and 202nd record of the crucifixion eclipse are ignored, as though they don't exist, then there is no more 'on' the crucifixion eclipse argument. Nor 'on' the sun and moon standing still...

5. On the charge of “predetermined disbelief”

My position is not “predetermined disbelief,” but conditional belief:

Yet none of these cultures, despite their meticulous sky observations, record a day when the sun and moon stood still or behaved abnormally. I conclude that this is because the Bible is lying about the Biblical God making the sun and the moon stand still.

You can edit this anytime.

I will believe any claim, natural or supernatural, the moment it is supported by independently verifiable evidence.

Perhaps Mayan, but not Bible. At least not with the Bible recorded evidence of the sun and moon standing still. Nor with the Bible and Greek recorded evidence of the crucifixion midday eclipse...

6. On “spiritual things having power over the natural”

If spiritual forces can change physical reality, their effects should still be detectable in physical reality.

Of course, that's what spiritual intervention in the natural universe means. Such as the sun and moon standing still, the crucifixion eclipse, the Red Sea parting for dry ground, the sundial going backward, Jesus walking on the sea, the blind man seeing, the lame man leaping and walking, the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ...

It's also what it means when modern science proves the total solar eclipse of 1027 BC. The detected ancient physical event.

Otherwise, the claim is indistinguishable from imagination or legend. .

Only if the Bible record, as well as other personal witness records, are all lying fables as you declare.

However, there's one common thing about known books of myth and fable. None of them give disclaimers, that they are not myth and fable:

2Pe 1:16
For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

The question isn’t whether the spiritual exists, but whether it leaves measurable traces when it interacts with the physical world.
If it doesn’t, then it lies outside the realm of evidence and cannot be demonstrated to anyone who doesn’t already believe.

I.e. the physical record convinces some to believe, and doesn't convince anyone who doesn't already disbelieve...

7. On credibility and burden of proof

The burden of proof always rests on the person making the positive claim.

And the credibility always rests on the person making a negative claim. If someone claims to disbelieve an ancient written record, solely because it's the only record. Then, credibility demands whether the person would believe with a confirming record.

If someone says a man rose from the dead, the Sun stopped, or darkness covered the Earth for three hours, the question is:

“What evidence would convince a neutral observer that this happened?”

First, the evidence would be consistent with it's own record. Hence Bible inerrancy. Second only further confirm by any outside confirmation.

If the only evidence is “you must already believe,” that’s circular.

Sure. But with recorded evidence, then the belief is by the record. The recorded event first, then faith follows...

Jhn 20:30
And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

Faith can motivate belief, but it cannot serve as evidence for itself.

False as a principle: Faith is it's own evidence to the one believing. Faith is also evidence to others, by the works of the believer.

Jas 2:18
Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

Hebrews{13:7}
Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of [their] conversation.

Specific faith in the eyewitness testimony of another, is generated by the testimony.

Skepticism is not hostility; it is the same standard applied to all claims.

True. Declaring a witness a liar, without proof, is hostility. Lack of confirmation is not proof of lying.

“Unbelief” is not a moral fault; it’s a response to insufficient evidence.

Skepticism is not unbelief, nor belief. Especially not the disbelief that accuses a witness of lying.

Invoking “supernatural exceptions” removes a claim from the realm of history and places it in theology, where verification is impossible.

Only to the committed disbeliever in the things of the spirit. Records of spiritual events place it squarely in history, by virtue of the historical record itself.

If a god truly wanted everyone to believe in such events, leaving clear, cross-cultural, physical evidence would be the most honest way to do so.

If a god truly wanted everyone to believe in such events, leaving clear, cross-cultural, physical evidence would be the most natural way to do so.

Mat 16:4
A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign;


And yet, many will not believe after the event:

Heb 11:6
But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

2Co 5:7
For we walk by faith, not by sight.

God's way of telling anyone to seek Him by faith, and not by sight, is the most honest way.

The absence of that evidence tells us the events didn’t actually happen.

In this case, there evidence is not absent. It's written in a physical book for all to believe, unless predetermined not to be believe. Or, remaining skeptical unless confirmed elsewhere.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to RBD in post #31]

Thank you for your detailed reply. I’ll respond point by point.

1. On Skepticism and Accusation

Healthy skepticism suspends belief until sufficient corroboration appears. Calling a text “unconfirmed” is not equivalent to calling its author a liar, but equally, calling it “true” without evidence is premature. When I said “the Bible is lying,” I meant that the claim is demonstrably false in light of astronomical data, not that ancient scribes consciously fabricated it. Language aside, the epistemic point stands: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If the Biblical God is actually real and is omniscient and omnipotent, then why didn't he/she/it/they make everything he allegedly created (e.g. angels, humans, all the other species) also omniscient and omnipotent? That would have prevented the alleged eating from the forbidden Tree of Knowledge by Adam and Eve.

2. On Historical Confirmation

You wrote: “Therefore, if there were outside confirmation, then you would believe it? Such as with the darkness over the land… and the total solar eclipse of 1207 BC?”

Yes, if independently confirmed, consistently dated, and physically possible. But the 1207 BC eclipse (recorded in the Merneptah campaign stele and discussed by Humphreys & Waddington 2017) occurred centuries before the supposed Joshua event, and cannot explain “the sun and moon standing still.” Moreover, an eclipse during a full moon (as claimed at the crucifixion) is astronomically impossible, since solar eclipses only occur at new moons. No Greek, Roman, Egyptian, or Chinese astronomers recorded any multi-hour worldwide darkness in 30–33 CE. So the “outside confirmation” dissolves upon scrutiny.

3. On Supernatural Overrides

You asked, “Who appeals to the supernatural for the caterpillar becoming a butterfly?” No one, because metamorphosis follows discoverable biological mechanisms. Invoking “supernatural overrides” whenever natural law is violated makes any story unfalsifiable. If an explanation can account for anything - from the Red Sea parting to a coin landing heads - it explains nothing. Science is not “faith in naturalism”; it’s reliance on the only method that has ever produced reproducible knowledge. When alleged “spiritual powers” affect matter, they become empirically testable. When they don’t, they remain indistinguishable from imagination.

4. On “Natural Mutability”

You wrote that natural law can be “changed by spiritual will.” If so, that alteration should leave measurable traces - energy fluctuations, orbital perturbations, mass-energy non-conservation. None exist. Claiming that invisible, undetectable interventions occur without a trace is precisely what separates mythology from science.

5. On Burden of Proof

You said: “Credibility always rests on the person making a negative claim.” That reverses the principle of logic. The burden of proof rests on whoever asserts existence - whether of a deity, a miracle, or a fairy. A skeptic doesn’t have to prove a non-event; they simply withhold assent until the claimant meets a minimal evidential threshold. Can you disprove that undetectable dragons are flying in the sky? No one can. That's because the non-existence of anything can't be proven.

If someone insists the moon once stopped mid-orbit, they must show the global tidal, orbital, and climatic data that such an event would have caused. Absence of corroboration where corroboration must exist is strong evidence against the event.

6. On “Faith as Evidence”

You wrote: “Faith is its own evidence to the one believing.”
That’s precisely the problem: any religion could claim the same. If “faith itself” counts as proof, then every contradictory creed is simultaneously true, and truth collapses into subjective conviction. Historical questions require inter-subjective verification - evidence accessible to anyone, not only the believers.

7. On “Records of Spiritual Events Are History”

A written record makes a story historical in the literary sense, not necessarily factual. Homer, the Epic of Gilgamesh, and the Bhagavad Gita are historical texts, too, yet you are not arguing that their miracles literally occurred. The existence of a record is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for truth. People can and do lie. People can be and are delusional. All the religions contradict each other, and what we know through science. This is why we need evidence to know the truth.

8. On “If God Wanted Everyone to Believe…”

Quoting, “A wicked generation seeks a sign.”
If God’s intent is belief through faith rather than evidence, then disbelief cannot be a moral fault - it’s the expected outcome of honest reasoning with inadequate data. A deity who withholds verifiable evidence while punishing skepticism would be morally indistinguishable from one who values credulity over truth.

Extraordinary claims (sun stopping, resurrection, multi-hour global darkness) lack independent confirmation.
Invoking supernatural exceptions erases the difference between myth and reality.
Faith may comfort (e.g. I will go to the afterlife after I die and be with all of my family and friends forever and ever if I and my family and friends believe in Jesus/Allah/XXXX), but it is not a method of verification.
The consistent application of evidential standards is not hostility - it is intellectual integrity.

Until verifiable, cross-cultural, physical evidence appears, withholding belief remains not prejudice but prudence. Why aren't you arguing for the validity of all the other religions on Earth? The Bible is no more evidence-based than any of the other religious books.

[1213]

The verse says: “Let the waters be gathered together to one place, and let the dry land appear.”
That’s simply a poetic description of the emergence of land from water - a natural observation from any coastal viewpoint. It doesn’t specify plate tectonics, continental drift, or Pangea, which were unknown concepts to the ancients.
Ancient creation myths from Mesopotamia and Egypt also describe the land “rising out of the waters.” So Genesis reflects the same prescientific imagery, not unique divine knowledge.

If water is on one place, then logically there is one dry land area. If multiple sources say the same, maybe they had the same information source? Does it validate the information?

If “earth” merely means “dry land,” then verses about “the ends of the earth” and “the four corners” still reflect a flat, bounded world-view - not a spherical one. Ancient Hebrew cosmology depicted a flat disc of land surrounded by seas,...

Even a dome would have edge and it could be even said it has corners. Edge and corners don't tell anything about is the form flat. The Bible doesn't speak about flat disc. And I think it is silly interpretation by those who want to see it as wrong.

The “return” prophecies (e.g. Deut. 30, Isaiah 11, Jeremiah 29) referred to the Babylonian exile - centuries before the 20th century. The Jews did return from Babylon under Cyrus in the 6th century BCE, exactly as the authors intended.

It is speaking about return from more than one place, therefore I don't think the idea of Babylon is correct.

...Yahweh your God will turn your captivity, and have compassion on you, and will return and gather you from all the peoples, where Yahweh your God has scattered you. If [any of] your out-casts are in the uttermost parts of the heavens, from there will Yahweh your God gather you, and from there will he bring you back:
Deut. 30:1-4

The “degeneration” hypothesis predicts random differences - not shared identical errors across species.

No it doesn't. It predicts degeneration. And degeneration can happen in many cases the same way.

Flood sorting cannot explain the precise, global stratigraphic order of microfossils, pollen, and isotopic signatures that align across continents.

The problem with that is, I would need to see the actual strata you are speaking of, before continuing.

If all layers formed in one year, radioactive isotopes and coral growth bands wouldn’t show consistent, independent dating over millions of years.

Again, I have no reason to believe such data exists.

Also, a flood would mix species by density and habitat, yet we never find humans or modern mammals in the same layers as dinosaurs.

It seems to me that you don't understand how the flood happened. You seem to think it was like a local small river flood.

For example, whales retain tiny pelvic bones — homologous to hind limbs in land mammals. These bones no longer support legs, but still anchor reproductive muscles.

By what I have seen, it is more reasonable to think they are bones that were created to anchor reproductive muscles, nothing to do with legs.

Gene duplication plus divergence has been directly observed to create new proteins and functions - not merely reactivations.
For instance:

The antifreeze glycoprotein in Antarctic fish evolved from a duplicated trypsinogen gene.
Lenski’s E. coli experiment showed the evolution of a new citrate metabolism under aerobic conditions - confirmed by DNA sequencing (not just epigenetic changes).
That’s new genetic information arising through natural mechanisms.

How was the antifreeze glycoprotein development directly observed?

In both cases, before believing, I would need to see what was actually seen.

When they all give concordant ages on the same rock sample, that rules out arbitrary initial conditions.
Isochron methods use internal ratios from the same sample to calculate initial composition, no assumptions needed.

Sorry, I don't think that is true.

The consistency with independent methods (tree rings, ice cores, volcanic layers) confirms the reliability.

Are you saying tree rings and ice cores confirms something that is millions of years old?

11. “Why no agriculture 300,000 years ago?”

Because anatomically modern humans existed long before civilisation.
Agriculture requires climate stability (post-Ice-Age), suitable domestic species, and social organisation.
Those conditions arose only around 10,000 years ago. Population size, not intelligence, was the limiting factor.

I don't see any reason to think climate has been the last 10000 years more stable than before it. But, good that you brought up the population size. The speed how people multiply is also one reason why I believe the Bible story and not the hundred thousands of years. For example, if each generation would be 20 years, and every couple would get on average 3 children, in 1000 years the population would be over 5 billion from 8 people, unless wars or other catastrophes. The speed is quite amazing, which explains why certain tyrants want to limit population growth and why the history is full of wars.

No global layer of uniform flood deposit exists.

When you understand how the flood happened, you understand also that there shouldn't be any uniform flood deposit after the flood.

Sediment layers show different climates, not one chaotic event.

I have not seen that.

I think the sediment layers show one giant event, where vast sediment formations were formed.

Annual tree rings and ice cores extend continuously beyond 10,000 years - impossible if the world was drowned 4,000 years ago.

I actually believe it was about 6000 years, because approximately at that time current development begun and I think it also fits better to what is said in the Bible. Also, some say Sahara turned desert at that time and there was apparently a geomagnetic excursion at that time, which can be seen in sediment layers. Also it is said during that period, the Y-chromosome bottleneck occurred.

I don't believe the tree ring and ice core dating. Tree rings, because by what I know, they are not from the same tree, but combination of trees, which can be wrongly done. And ice cores are not trustworthy, because it actually records only how the ice, water or snow is stored. Melting snow and rain and freezing can happen multiple times in a year, which then makes the record not trustworthy, for calculating years.

You asked to see the tree rings: dendrochronology records from bristlecone pines and oak overlap to more than 12,000 years, independently verified by radiocarbon calibration. I have seen these tree rings under the microscope. You can, too.

Thank you for the example. I don't believe humans can accurately overlap those and make a reliable 12,000 years timeline. But, it is good to know that the oldest known bristlecone pine is allegedly 4,857 years. I think that also fits quite well to the Biblical timeline of the great flood.

That’s why we know Earth orbits the sun

I have no reason to claim is it true or not. But I think it is interesting that there seems to be no way to actually prove earth orbits the sun. All that I have seen, can be explained by otherways, which is why it is not useful for proving earth moving.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to 1213 in post #33]

Thank you for continuing the discussion. I’ll respond point by point, since most of the issues turn on how knowledge is justified rather than on personal belief.

1. On “one water, one land”

“If water is on one place, then logically there is one dry land area.”

The verse reflects an ancient phenomenological view - how the world looked from a human shore, not a geophysical model. All Near-Eastern myths (Babylonian Enuma Elish, Egyptian Nun, Canaanite Baal cycle) describe land rising from cosmic waters. Shared imagery shows a common cultural milieu, not a common eyewitness report. Parallel myths don’t corroborate; they illustrate diffusion.

2. On “corners of the earth”

“Corners don’t prove flatness; the Bible doesn’t speak of a flat disc.”

Ancient Hebrew cosmology, like all ancient Near-Eastern cosmologies, depicted a solid dome (the raqia) over a flat land mass. References to “four corners” (Isa 11:12, Rev 7:1) and “pillars of the earth” (Job 9:6) reflect that worldview.
No verse describes a sphere, rotation, or gravity. Interpreting “corners” metaphorically today reads modern knowledge into the text, not from it.

3. On the return prophecies

“It speaks about return from more than one place.”

Indeed, the Babylonian exile scattered Judeans throughout Mesopotamia. “From all nations” in Deut 30:3-4 was rhetorical hyperbole common in prophetic style. The texts were fulfilled in the 6th century BCE, long before modern Zionism. Reading 20th-century politics into Iron-Age prophecy is anachronistic.

4. On “degeneration” versus shared genetic errors

“Degeneration can happen the same way.”

Shared neutral mutations - identical molecular typos in non-functional regions - are statistically impossible to arise independently in thousands of species. They trace common ancestry the same way shared copying errors reveal a common source manuscript. Degeneration cannot explain identical pseudogene sequences in apes and humans.

5. On “I’d need to see the strata”

They are publicly observable. The Grand Canyon, the Paris Basin, and the Chinese Loess Plateau all display fossil order and isotope continuity that anyone can examine. Geological mapping isn’t a secret; it is the world’s largest open dataset.

6. On “no reason to believe radiometric data exists”

It does, and it’s replicable. U-Pb, K-Ar, Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd, and Ar-Ar dating have independently dated the same volcanic flows with concordant results. These methods are used daily in oil exploration, volcanology, and archaeology; they work because the decay constants are empirically measured.

7. On “the flood wasn’t a local river flood”

Even granting a global deluge, physics remains. A year-long submersion reaching mountain tops would require 4.4 billion km³ of extra water - no source or sink exists. And if waters receded in months, erosion would leave a chaotic global layer, which is absent. Local Mesopotamian floods, however, do match sedimentary evidence around 2900 BCE - the likely origin of the legend.

8. On whale pelvic bones

They are homologous to hind-limb bones in fossil whales (Ambulocetus, Basilosaurus) where legs are still attached. The same nerves and embryonic genes (Hoxd9–13) control their development. That’s inherited morphology, not coincidence.

9. On observed genetic innovation

“How was the antifreeze glycoprotein directly observed?”

By comparative sequencing and laboratory reconstruction. Chen et al. (1997, PNAS 94:3811-3816) showed duplication of the trypsinogen gene, with repeat expansions forming a new protein. Lenski’s long-term E. coli experiment (Blount et al., Nature 2008) directly observed the citrate-utilization gene duplication. Both are open datasets; anyone can read the genomes.

10. On “isochron methods need assumptions”

Isochrons plot isotope ratios from the same rock; the slope gives age, the intercept gives initial composition. Because all minerals crystallized together, the line itself tests the assumption. Random contamination would destroy the linearity, yet it consistently appears.

11. On “tree rings and ice cores millions of years old”

Tree rings calibrate radiocarbon for the last around 12 000 years; ice cores extend to 800 000 years. They don’t measure millions directly - they overlap with radiometric results, showing mutual consistency across timescales.

12. On population arithmetic

“From 8 people to 5 billion in 1 000 years.”

That requires an average annual growth rate of about 1.1 % with zero mortality, disease, or resource limits - biologically impossible before modern medicine. Archaeology shows slow growth: around 5 million humans 10 000 years ago, around 200 million by year 0, and around 1 billion by 1800. Real numbers match long pre-biblical timelines, not post-flood explosion.

13. On dendrochronology and ice cores

Cross-matching is done statistically, not guesswork. Overlaps are confirmed by radiocarbon plateaus and volcanic ash layers (e.g., Thera, Vesuvius, Hekla). Seasonal melt–freeze cycles are distinguishable microscopically; they don’t produce dozens of false “annual” bands per year. Independent labs achieve the same counts, which is why radiocarbon calibration tables are universally consistent.

14. On “no proof Earth orbits the Sun”

The annual stellar parallax discovered by Friedrich Bessel (1838) is direct proof. The apparent shift of nearby stars by arc-seconds every six months cannot occur if Earth were stationary. Today the Gaia spacecraft measures that parallax to micro-arcsecond precision - millions of independent confirmations per year.

1. Saying “I don’t believe it” is not a substitute for evidence.
2. Every claim of “the Bible fits science” collapses when checked against physical data.
3. Science is not belief. It's a reproducible method: prediction, observation, replication.
4. The cumulative, interlocking evidence from geology, genetics, astronomy, and physics forms a single coherent picture billions of years old - no flood, no fixed dome, no halted sun.

Suspending belief until independent verification appears is not bias; it’s the essence of intellectual honesty.

[RBD]

Let me explain why calling it “impossible” is not a mere “natural-bound opinion,” but an evidence-based conclusion.

1. “Impossible” means “contradictory to all known physical evidence.”

When scientists say something is impossible, they don’t mean “God could never do it.”

I.e. people who know something is naturally impossible without supernatural intervention, know that it's not explained by natural rule. It doesn't take a scientist to know nature can't explain supernatural events.

However, the argument here is not about the supernatural not being conformed to nature's law, but rather about people who reject the supernatural, because of personal faith and trust in natural things alone...

Which is the case, when calling recorded supernatural events a lie, based solely upon natural understanding.

They mean there is no known mechanism consistent with physical law that allows it,

Correct. Cannot happen naturally, but only by supernatural intervention.

and no empirical evidence that it ever occurred.

Correct again. A supernatural event that cannot be explained by natural law, nor record.

The Red Sea parting to dry ground, and returning to it's natural flow, does not necessarily leave any natural 'footprint'. Especially when those footprints on dry ground are washed away by the returning sea...

Stopping Earth’s rotation for 24 hours without annihilating everything through inertia is not just “unlikely” -

Of course. If it were a natural event, rather than a supernatural intervention.

To call that “natural-bound opinion” is like saying “gravity is just an opinion.”

A subjectively false accusation in the argument. No one is denying natural law, that nature is bound by. We are only speaking of a natural-bound belief in nature alone, that rejects any supernatural intervention.

To say that gravity is immutable law is a “natural-bound opinion”.

2. Literal or symbolic - both cannot be “scientifically accurate.”

Of course not. One is factual science, and the other is literary art.

If Joshua’s “sun standing still” is taken literally, it’s physically impossible.

By natural law, not only by supernatural intervention.

If it’s taken symbolically, then it’s not a scientific description.

If it's only taken symbolically, then it's not a Bible description.

Either way, it cannot be used as evidence that the Bible gives literal, scientific truth about nature.

Once again. The Bible is an eyewitness record of a supernatural event intervening in nature, not a scientific truth about natural law.

Only arguing nature and nature's law, does not disprove literal supernatural events, but only proves natural natural law cannot explain it.

That doesn’t insult the authors -

It certainly does if their eyewitness testimony is called a lie, without objective proof. In a just court of law, eyewitness testimony is always allowed, unless the witness can be proven mistaken, or lying...

it simply recognises that they were writing ancient literature, not science textbooks.

It simply recognizes that they record an ancient supernatural event, not a textbook on natural science.

The writers described the world as they understood it, using the language and cosmology of their time. That is entirely human and entirely understandable.

??? IS this some kind of excuse-making for lying, by calling them ignorant rubes, that don't know the difference between normal time of day, and extended daylight for a whole day?

Firstly, It's a recorded eyewitness account. Secondly, the sun and moon are still the sun and moon, and standing still is still standing still...It doesn't take a modern person to understand such plain language:

2Co 3:12
Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech:

God didn't write the Bible; people did.

True, that God did not take pen in hand on a scroll. However, the writers inspired by God were His personal pens in hand:

Psa 45:1
My heart is inditing a good matter: I speak of the things which I have made touching the king: my tongue is the pen of a ready writer.

Acknowledging myth or symbolism doesn’t accuse the authors of deception.

Not if it's written as symbol or myth. But if it's symbolic myth written as literal eyewitness record, then it's called lying. And if a literal eyewitness account is called symbolic myth, then it accuses the writer of lying.

These writers were very familiar with such mythical accusations:

2Pe 1:16
For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

No book of symbolic myth was ever written by an author with a built-in disclaimer.

Ancient people used mythic storytelling to express meaning,

Of course. Homer, Aesop. Ovid...As well as more modern, Tolkien.

not to write peer-reviewed science.

??? Peer-reviewed science began in the ancient world, and not just in Greece, but also in Egypt, Mesopotamia, and the far east.

And then of course the Bible is has plenty of scientific, anatomical, horticultural, geological detail, such as the earth being round, and all land beginning in one place, now called Pangea land. It's where the ancient understanding of all-encircling ocean came from. They didn't have Scriptural knowledge of the Lord already dividing the earth into continents in the days of Peleg.

Calling Genesis or Joshua “mythic” is like calling the Iliad “epic poetry” - not falsehood, but genre recognition.

Calling the Bible myth like the Iliad, is calling Homer an eyewitness participant at Ilium.

- not falsehood, but genre recognition.

It's falsehood, if unproven. And it doesn't know what mythic genre is.

Insisting that every story must be literal to be meaningful diminishes the text’s literary and moral depth.

And calling it mythic gives it as much meaning, literary, and moral depth as the Iliad.

Insisting that every story must be mythical to be acceptable, nullifies the text’s literary and holy truth.

4. Why methodological naturalism matters

When speaking of natural law and events. Not when recording supernatural power and events.

Once we say “supernatural power can alter any law at any time,” no statement can ever be tested, verified, or falsified - meaning all knowledge collapses into personal belief.

Once we say “natural power cannot be altered by any law at any time,” no unnatural statement can ever be tested, verified, or falsified - meaning all knowledge collapses into personal natural belief.

The law of the Spirit has power over the flesh, and no natural understanding can explain nor disprove it. Personal belief in natural law alone, can disbelieve it.

5. Faith and evidence serve different roles

Heb{11:1}
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Faith without evidence is dead, being alone. Including faith without recorded evidence.

Faith can comfort or inspire, but evidence is what determines whether an event happened in the external world.

Faith without evidence is comfortless imagination in a practical world.

Bible faith in a sure record applied to practical living, is living by faith in this life and the next:

2Pe 1:19
We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

1 Tim{4:8}
For bodily exercise profiteth little: but godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come.

If the “sun standing still” was a miracle beyond natural law, it belongs to religion, not science.

If the sun stood still, then it was a miraculous event over natural law. It's by faith, not by science:

Jos 10:14
And there was no day like that before it or after it, that the LORD hearkened unto the voice of a man: for the LORD fought for Israel.

Mat 17:20
And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.

If it were a literal, physical event, then its absence from every other culture’s sky records and every geological layer on Earth remains decisive evidence that it didn’t occur.

If it were a literal, physical event as written, then its absence from every other culture’s sky records, is because it was only witnessed locally. Dittoes for the crucifixion midday eclipse.

And no geological layer of earth was affected, because it was not a naturel event by nature's law. Perhaps not even the local foliage was unnaturally changed:

Dan 3:26
Then Nebuchadnezzar came near to the mouth of the burning fiery furnace, and spake, and said, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, ye servants of the most high God, come forth, and come hither. Then Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, came forth of the midst of the fire. And the princes, governors, and captains, and the king's counsellors, being gathered together, saw these men, upon whose bodies the fire had no power, nor was an hair of their head singed, neither were their coats changed, nor the smell of fire had passed on them.

The integrity of the Bible is harmed more by forcing literalism onto ancient myths than by appreciating them as human efforts to understand the divine.

The integrity of the Bible is destroyed by forcing mythicism into ancient records. In order to instead make them human efforts to understand the divine.

2 Tim 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

No book's integrity is 'appreciated' by calling eyewitness testimony lies, and replacing the author's authority with less credible people.

To value a story’s message, we don’t need to pretend its cosmology is scientific truth.

To value a supernatural message, we don’t need to pretend its' cosmological events are naturally true.

Conclusion: No one can sensibly argue a debate about natural vs supernatural, when only acknowledging and arguing from the natural. But the supernatural can be argued, while acknowledging nature and nature's law...

1Co 2:14
The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned...

Jhn 3:31
He that cometh from above is above all: he that is of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth: he that cometh from heaven is above all.

The natural man only understands and speaks of natural things, but the spiritual man understands all things are not natural, but also spiritual and speaks of both in their place and time.

[1213]

The verse reflects an ancient phenomenological view…
…Ancient Hebrew cosmology, like all ancient Near-Eastern cosmologies, depicted a solid dome (the raqia) over a flat land mass. References to “four corners” (Isa 11:12, Rev 7:1) and “pillars of the earth” (Job 9:6) reflect that worldview.
No verse describes a sphere, rotation, or gravity. Interpreting “corners” metaphorically today reads modern knowledge into the text, not from it.

It seems to me that you read to Bible your prejudice and wishful thinking.

….Shared neutral mutations - identical molecular typos in non-functional regions - are statistically impossible to arise independently in thousands of species…

Thousands of species? Would be nice to see proof for that.

However, it is possible that there was for example some event that caused the same effect in multiple species. If the attributes are similar, it is likely that same thing causes same reaction in multiple species.

Even granting a global deluge, physics remains. A year-long submersion reaching mountain tops would require 4.4 billion km³ of extra water - no source or sink exists. And if waters receded in months, erosion would leave a chaotic global layer, which is absent.

It would not need any extra water, if you understand how the flood happened.

And the sings receding water would cause, depends on the speed. By what the Bible tells, it was not very fast. Also, it is likely that the top layer has eroded long time ago from the higher areas.

That requires an average annual growth rate of about 1.1 % with zero mortality, disease, or resource limits - biologically impossible before modern medicine…

And if you look for example how people multiply in Africa, the speed could be even faster, when modern medicine is not causing all kind of diseases.

But, I can agree that there can be many reasons why in reality the speed is not that fast. My point was only to say, it is very fast. If not all kind of problems, we would have lot of people in very short time. And that means, if there would have been 300,000 years, it is weird why not more sings of humans from that long time.

The annual stellar parallax discovered by Friedrich Bessel (1838) is direct proof. The apparent shift of nearby stars by arc-seconds every six months cannot occur if Earth were stationary….

Sorry, I don't believe it would not be possible if earth is stationary. I can understand it doesn't fit to your world view, but your world view can be wrong.

Suspending belief until independent verification appears is not bias; it’s the essence of intellectual honesty.

Ok, so it is not a problem, if don't believe your claims without independent verification?

[Compassionist]

[Replying to RBD in post #35]

Thank you for your detailed answer. The key issue here isn’t whether supernatural events could occur, but how we can know that they did. I’ll respond in order.

1. “Natural-bound opinion” vs. method

Calling an event impossible means “contradicts every tested regularity of nature.” It is not a faith in “nature alone”; it is the result of millions of repeatable observations that have never shown exceptions. To claim an exception, the burden of proof is on the claimant. Otherwise, any story - Greek, Hindu, or Norse - becomes equally “possible,” and truth collapses into personal belief.

2. “Supernatural intervention” and evidence

If an event affected the physical world - sunlight, tides, human speech - it left a physical trace. The absence of every such trace is positive evidence that the event did not occur, just as the absence of volcanic ash falsifies a claimed eruption. “God could erase the evidence” explains everything and therefore explains nothing. Besides, why would God erase evidence of miracles? In fact, why doesn't God use stars to spell out his commandments in the night sky in all the languages? That would prove that God is real. I am convinced that God doesn't do it because God does not exist.

3. Eyewitness testimony

History accepts eyewitness reports only when corroborated. People misperceive, exaggerate, and lie; that is why courts require multiple independent witnesses and physical verification. The Joshua story is anonymous, undated, and written centuries later - far below modern standards of testimony. Calling that recognition an “insult” is misplaced; it is simply applying the same evidential rules to all texts. According to Muslims, Muhammad split the moon in half and rejoined it. This story has been passed down the centuries. Do you accept this story as true, just because the story claims it was witnessed by Muhammad's contemporaries?

4. “Inspired pen” argument

Claiming divine inspiration does not increase reliability; it merely adds another unverified claim. Every religion says its texts are inspired by one God or another. Without external confirmation, “God told me so” cannot distinguish truth from error.

5. Genre and meaning

Labeling a narrative “mythic” is not an accusation of deceit. Ancient authors used myth to express theological meaning, just as Jesus used parables. Recognising genre protects a text’s religiosity; forcing literal physics into ancient poetry diminishes both science and scripture.

6. “The Bible contains scientific detail”

There is no verse that describes gravity, orbital motion, plate tectonics, or germ theory. Verses about the “circle of the earth” use the same word for a flat disc in Isaiah 44:13. Inferring modern science from pre-scientific language is retrofitting, not revelation.

7. On falsifiability

“Once we say supernatural power can alter any law…”

Exactly. If a claim can never be tested or falsified, it leaves the realm of knowledge and enters personal belief. Science confines itself to the testable; religion is free to believe anything, but cannot then claim empirical credibility.

8. On faith and evidence

Hebrews 11 defines faith as belief without sight. That is precisely why faith and evidence are different tools: faith comforts, evidence verifies. Mixing the two only confuses religious conviction with historical demonstration.

9. “Local miracle” defense

If the sun literally stopped, it affected the entire planet’s rotation, not a single valley in Canaan. Astronomy and physics are global; a “local” stopped sun is a logical contradiction.

10. Integrity of the text

Accepting that ancient writers wrote from their worldview honours their humanity. Pretending that poetry is physics, or that hearsay is measurement, does not defend scripture’s integrity - it burdens it with claims it was never meant to bear.

11. The epistemic core

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Claims immune to falsification are immune to confirmation. Respecting faith does not mean suspending critical reasoning. I am not trying to ban all religions. I am debating issues. I am all too aware that religions provide comfort to believers, and I would never ask anyone to leave their religion, whatever that religion may be. I respect everyone's human rights. One of these rights is the right to follow any or no religion.

When a miracle is said to leave no trace and demands belief on testimony alone, honest skepticism is not arrogance - it is intellectual conscience.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to 1213 in post #36]

Thank you for the reply. The issue here isn’t “worldview versus worldview,” but how belief adjusts to evidence. I’ll respond point by point.

1. On “reading prejudice into the Bible”

Calling the ancient Hebrew cosmology “flat-domed” isn’t prejudice; it’s textual and linguistic evidence. Hebrew raqia means “something hammered or beaten out” - a solid expanse. Job 37:18: “Can you spread out the sky as hard as a molten mirror?” That’s how they understood the sky, as every Near-Eastern culture did. Recognising that isn’t hostility; it’s historical literacy.

2. On shared neutral mutations

“Thousands of species? Would be nice to see proof for that.”

Below are some examples. There are many more examples that you can look up.

Endogenous retroviruses occur in the exact chromosomal locations across primates, whales, and other lineages. (Katzourakis & Gifford, *PNAS* 2010).
Pseudogenes such as GULO (vitamin C synthesis) share the same disabling mutation in humans, chimpanzees, and gorillas.
Conserved synteny patterns reveal identical non-coding insertions across thousands of genomes now sequenced.

Simultaneous random errors at identical loci are statistically impossible; the simplest explanation is common ancestry.

3. On the Flood “needing no extra water”

If the oceans merely “rose,” that water had to come from somewhere - atmosphere, ice, or subterranean sources. The total volume required to cover Mount Ararat exceeds all surface and atmospheric water combined several times over.
Slow or fast recession doesn’t fix the mass-balance problem. Physics isn’t optional; it’s what defines what happens when water moves.

4. On population growth

“Look at Africa; growth can be even faster without modern medicine.”

Africa’s growth rate averages around 2.4 % today - with modern agriculture, sanitation, and vaccines. Before 1800, global growth was roughly 0.04 %. Archaeology shows continuous settlement layers, tools, art, and burials stretching back at least 100,000 years, not a 4000-year reboot. Entire museums of Pleistocene evidence contradict the “no sign of earlier humans” claim.

5. On stellar parallax

“I don’t believe it would not be possible if Earth is stationary.”

Belief is not required; geometry is. If Earth were stationary, all stars would maintain constant angular separation. Yet telescopes measure systematic shifts of nearby stars against the background every six months, matching Earth’s orbital diameter. This is confirmed by spacecraft astrometry (Gaia mission: micro-arcsecond precision). To deny that requires assuming a universe that moves in perfect synchrony to fake our orbital data - a conspiracy of cosmic proportions.

6. On verification and fairness

“So it’s not a problem if I don’t believe your claims without independent verification?”

Not at all - that’s exactly the scientific attitude. The difference is: when verification exists, honest skepticism updates. Rejecting evidence because it conflicts with a preferred conclusion is not neutrality; it’s motivated disbelief. The standard I apply to the Bible, I also apply to every other claim - Christian, Islamic, Buddhist, Jain, Daoist, Jewish, Sikh, Animist, Hindu, or scientific. That consistency is intellectual honesty.

1. Evidence must be public, repeatable, and cross-checked.
2. “I don’t believe it” is not a counter-argument until accompanied by data.
3. Selective skepticism - accepting ancient hearsay but rejecting modern measurement - is not skepticism but partiality. Do you accept all the stories of all religions the way you accept Biblical stories? I bet you don't. I have never met a Christian who accepts the stories of other religions the way he or she accepts the Biblical stories to be true despite lacking any evidence.

I’m not asking you to accept anything by authority, only to apply the same evidential standard to all claims, ancient and modern alike.

[Haven]

The Greeks recorded in their 202nd Olympiad, of a total solar eclipse at noon, during the time of a full moon, where the stars shone over all the land for several hours. Which is the one recorded during Jesus' crucifixion from the 6th to the 9th hour of the day.

“The Greeks” did not record this. This is a quote of Thallus (whose works are lost) found in Julius Africanus (who was a Christian writing in the third century CE). This is, at best, a third-hand account from centuries later by a sympathetic author, and postdates the gospels by at least a century. There’s no evidence that Thallus actually wrote anything of the sort.

Moreover, NASA simulations find no evidence of an eclipse during this time, and no other cultures (Chinese, Persian, Indian) record darkness at this time.

This is a likely insertion by Africanus meant to justify Christian myths circulating at the time (including the gospels, or their predecessors), rather than a reliable historical recording of a real event.

Do you now believe that astronomically impossible event?

No I do not, given the background evidence.

[RBD]

1. On Skepticism and Accusation

Healthy skepticism suspends belief until sufficient corroboration appears. Calling a text “unconfirmed” is not equivalent to calling its author a liar, but equally, calling it “true” without evidence is premature.

Agreed.

Compassionist wrote: ↑Tue Oct 14, 2025 12:41 pm Yet none of these cultures, despite their meticulous sky observations, record a day when the sun and moon stood still or behaved abnormally. I conclude that this is because the Bible is lying about the Biblical God making the sun and the moon stand still.
You can explain how the record is proven false by lack of outside confirmation, or change your charge to objective skepticism: I conclude that this is because the Bible is unconfirmed about the Biblical God making the sun and the moon stand still.

When I said “the Bible is lying,” I meant that the claim is demonstrably false in light of astronomical data, not that ancient scribes consciously fabricated it.

Compassionist wrote: ↑Tue Oct 14, 2025 12:41 pm Yet none of these cultures, despite their meticulous sky observations, record a day when the sun and moon stood still or behaved abnormally. I conclude that this is because the Bible is lying about the Biblical God making the sun and the moon stand still.

No astronomical data. Only lack of confirmation by others.

If the Biblical God is actually real and is omniscient and omnipotent, then why didn't he/she/it/they make everything he allegedly created (e.g. angels, humans, all the other species) also omniscient and omnipotent? That would have prevented the alleged eating from the forbidden Tree of Knowledge by Adam and Eve.

This is Bible doctrinal dispute, not the argument at hand. You can start a new challenge on a new thread, or in private.

2. On Historical Confirmation

You wrote: “Therefore, if there were outside confirmation, then you would believe it? Such as with the darkness over the land… and the total solar eclipse of 1207 BC?”

Yes, if independently confirmed, consistently dated, and physically possible.

Compassionist wrote: ↑Tue Oct 14, 2025 12:41 pm Yet none of these cultures, despite their meticulous sky observations, record a day when the sun and moon stood still or behaved abnormally. I conclude that this is because the Bible is lying about the Biblical God making the sun and the moon stand still.

Physically possible was not the argument, by which the Bible eyewitness is called a liar.

The objective question is if outside confirmation persuades belief. Requiring natural confirmation forbids belief in supernatural, and so disannuls any claim of objectivity based upon lack of confirmation.

Your argument now has done away with the original premise, and states plainly that no amount of recorded evidence can persuade you in any supernatural event?

Am I wrong? Have I misread you? Do you not demand physical possibility, in order to believe any event? If so, your loyal faith to the natural world alone, forbids any consideration in the supernatural, much less persuadable belief.

But the 1207 BC eclipse (recorded in the Merneptah campaign stele and discussed by Humphreys & Waddington 2017) occurred centuries before the supposed Joshua event. and cannot explain “the sun and moon standing still.”

Agreed on both points. Here is where I stand corrected. I completely misapplied the total solar eclipse to the sun and moon standing still.

It's the error of trying to explain the supernatural by the natural. It's seductive even to those who believe in the supernatural.

Ex: Some try to explain parting of Red Sea by natural means, as though the sea by natural events become very shallow from shore to shore. But, the supernatural event was dry ground to cross over. And the Egyptian army was not drowned in shallow water, but by the Sea returning to natural flow as they assayed to crossover as the Hebrews.

Conclusion: By definition, 'supernatural' events cannot be explained by natural science; otherwise, they are not supernatural, but just naturally rare.

So, I retract the observation as unnecessary to believe in the supernatural record.

Moreover, an eclipse during a full moon (as claimed at the crucifixion) is astronomically impossible, since solar eclipses only occur at new moons.

Exactly. Naturally impossible, but supernaturally possible.

Mat 19:26
But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men (nature) this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

No Greek, Roman, Egyptian, or Chinese astronomers recorded any multi-hour worldwide darkness in 30–33 CE. So the “outside confirmation” dissolves upon scrutiny.

Astronomer, No. The external record is by a historian. Astronomers are not necessary to record a land-wide eclipse for several hours...

But this challenge is now mute. If the event must conform to physical possibility, then no amount of confirmation can possibly be believed. The argument is no longer about lack of confirmation, but personal disbelief in the supernatural, based upon sole commitment to natural events alone.

Unless, you want to amend your answer, by excluding physical possibility as necessary to believe the recorded event?

3. On Supernatural Overrides

You asked, “Who appeals to the supernatural for the caterpillar becoming a butterfly?” No one, because metamorphosis follows discoverable biological mechanisms.

Exactly. No one appeals to the supernatural for natural events. And no one appeals to the natural for supernatural events.

Compassionist wrote: ↑Tue Oct 14, 2025 12:41 pm3. On supernatural explanations
Appealing to “supernatural power overriding natural law” explains anything and therefore explains nothing.[/quote]

And so, you ought rather say: Appealing to “supernatural power overriding natural law” explains anything supernatural and therefore explains nothing natural.


And likewise, Appealing to “natural power alone” explains anything natural and therefore explains nothing supernatural.

Invoking “supernatural overrides” whenever natural law is violated makes any story unfalsifiable.

Supernatural events change natural law, proving it mutable. The natural universe is not 'violated', since natural law only applies to the natural universe.

Invoking natural law cannot override supernatural events.

Science is not “faith in naturalism”;

Science isn't. Faith in natural science alone, is.

When alleged “spiritual powers” affect matter, they become empirically testable. When they don’t, they remain indistinguishable from imagination.

False. There is no empirical testing for walking on water. No footprints, nor tissue samples...

Conclusion: The natural man cannot disprove the spiritual things, by means of loyalty to natural things alone. Natural circular reasoning against the supernatural.

4. On “Natural Mutability”

You wrote that natural law can be “changed by spiritual will.” If so, that alteration should leave measurable traces - energy fluctuations, orbital perturbations, mass-energy non-conservation. None exist. Claiming that invisible, undetectable interventions occur without a trace is precisely what separates mythology from science.

A supernatural event of walking on water, would not only disprove natural law is immutable, but also any demand for natural traces of all events on earth...

5. On Burden of Proof

You said: “Credibility always rests on the person making a negative claim.” That reverses the principle of logic.

False. Not when a charge is made. The prosecution must always prove it's case.

The burden of proof rests on whoever asserts existence - whether of a deity, a miracle, or a fairy.

No one is trying to prove it. The argument is only one of reasonable possibility and believability, which is based upon the eyewitness record.

Anyone accusing the eyewitness of fraud or ignorance, must now prove it. Or, remain an honest skeptic waiting for outside confirmation, or disproof.

Can you disprove that undetectable dragons are flying in the sky? No one can.

Exactly. And so, accusing a record of the supernatural as a lie, is self-defeating. An objective critic withholding judgment, does not fall into that self-opposing argument.

If someone insists the moon once stopped mid-orbit, they must show the global tidal, orbital, and climatic data that such an event would have caused.

If they insist it is a natural event, that can occur naturally. They would need to give physical evidence by sight, with conformity to natural science.

The spiritual things are not subject to the natural things, nor can they be. Therefore, they are not claimed as natural events under natural law.

6. On “Faith as Evidence”

You wrote: “Faith is its own evidence to the one believing.”
That’s precisely the problem: any religion could claim the same.

Which is precisely the problem of disproving faith by natural means. And, The fact of faith itself cannot be denied, no more than self-aware intelligence. It's the object of faith that is debatable.

And faith in a written record has it's own evidence.

Compassionist wrote: ↑Tue Oct 14, 2025 12:41 pm Yet none of these cultures, despite their meticulous sky observations, record a day when the sun and moon stood still or behaved abnormally. I conclude that this is because the Bible is lying about the Biblical God making the sun and the moon stand still.

This does not qualify as objective historical disproof of recorded historical evidence. The preserved record in itself, is evidence for historical review.

If “faith itself” counts as proof, then every contradictory creed is simultaneously true, and truth collapses into subjective conviction.

Faith does not prove anything, except the evidence of faith.

Once again, the argument here is accusing a record of lying about a supernatural event. The burden is to prove it, not to prove the event did occur.

I believe it did. Lack of supporting confirmation is not necessary for me. And no natural confirmation is possible in a supernatural event, that purposely leaves no natural footprint.

Historical questions require inter-subjective verification - evidence accessible to anyone, not only the believers.

The Bible remains the most widely published and read Book in the world. The land-wide eclipse during the 202nd Olympiad is also open to the public.

7. On “Records of Spiritual Events Are History”

A written record makes a story historical in the literary sense, not necessarily factual.

Obviously. And lack of other historical records, does not necessarily disprove it.

Homer, the Epic of Gilgamesh, and the Bhagavad Gita are historical texts, too, yet you are not arguing that their miracles literally occurred.

??? Believing in one historical account of the supernatural, does not require believing in all.

The existence of a record is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for truth. People can and do lie. People can be and are delusional.

Which is why accusations must be proven. Otherwise, people can personally believe something is a lie, and be deluded about it.

All the religions contradict each other

To some degree or another, which does not disprove true eternal religion:

Jas 1:27
Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

The only objection to this religion, is unbelief, that it's possible to live it.

Mat 19:26
But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

, and what we know through science. This is why we need evidence to know the truth.

Faith cannot be explained by science, nor the supernatural by natural law. And yet faith exists, and is evidence of itself. Especially when acting and living thereby:

Jas 2:18
Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

8. On “If God Wanted Everyone to Believe…”

Quoting, “A wicked generation seeks a sign.”
If God’s intent is belief through faith rather than evidence, then disbelief cannot be a moral fault

Since God’s intent is faith rather than by evidence alone, then disbelief without contrary evidence can be faulted.

- it’s the expected outcome of honest reasoning with inadequate data.

Inadequate data is not no data.

But once again, there is no adequate data for the supernatural, when based upon physical possibility alone. Such as two records of the crucifixion eclipse over all the land of Judea and Greece. So long as the supernatural is dismissed for natural things alone, then so will any number of records saying otherwise.

Extraordinary claims (sun stopping, resurrection, multi-hour global darkness) lack independent confirmation.
Invoking supernatural exceptions erases the difference between myth and reality.

Supernatural claims (sun stopping, resurrection, multi-hour global darkness) lack natural confirmation. Invoking supernatural exceptions to physical possibility, erases immutability of natural law.

Faith may comfort (e.g. I will go to the afterlife after I die and be with all of my family and friends forever and ever if I and my family and friends believe in Jesus/Allah/XXXX), but it is not a method of verification.

Disbelief may comfort (e.g. I will not be judged in the afterlife after I die, and be with all them judged the same), but it is not a method of verification.

Until verifiable, cross-cultural, physical evidence appears, withholding belief remains not prejudice but prudence.

Until verifiable, cross-cultural, physical evidence appears, disbelief remains a commitment to natural things alone.

Until verifiable, cross-cultural, physical evidence appears, withholding belief/disbelief remains natural objectivity, not a prejudiced accusation of a record lying about the supernatural.

Conclusion: Even an objective skeptic can believe in natural things alone, but can be persuaded by confirming records. But there's nothing objective about a prejudiced disbeliever, who is determined to only believe in natural things.

Why aren't you arguing for the validity of all the other religions on Earth? The Bible is no more evidence-based than any of the other religious books.

The inerrancy of the physical Book itself, is sufficient evidence for reasonable and intelligent faith in it's testimony of the supernatural. Other religious, spiritual, philosophical books contracting the Bible, demand a choice of faith. Trying to accommodate all books is intellectual, spiritual, and practical absurdity.

And two specific popular books disprove their own consistency, both of whom claim the God and Lord of the Bible, and yet contradict the witness of the Bible: The Koran claims to speak for the God of Abraham, and yet rejects His begotten Son.

1Jo 2:22
Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

The book of Mormon claims to speak for the Lord Jesus Christ, and yet contradicts His gospel with another new testament of it's own:

Gal 1:8
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

According the Bible record, I don't doubt their claims of being inspired by an angel, just not an angel of God from heaven.

2Co 11:13
For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.