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 #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.

Not with me. I don't say the Bible proves the supernatural events true, but only that the Book's inerrancy proves they can be true eyewitness accounts.

The stated title has nothing to do with proving the Bible record of supernatural events. Only an effort to disprove them by a debunked argument of:

1. No other recorded confirmation. In history and law, confessed eyewitness accounts are entered as direct evidence, and need nor other confirmation to accept them as true. Only confirmed evidence contradicting them can deny their testimony is true.

2. Demand for natural footprint. By definition, supernatural events are not by natural means, and so not with natural results. Only natural events demand natural footprint.

3. Arguing against the supernatural by natural means alone, only argues for natural events. It becomes an argument of natural faith alone, that does not disprove the supernatural.

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 when disbelief in the supernatural drives the appeal to natural things alone. It's now an argument of faith in natural things alone, vs supernatural events.

; 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.

False. The supernatural claim is not made as proof. Only natural disbelievers are demanding proof.

And their 3 different efforts to disprove Joshua's eyewitness testimony, are unconvincing, disingenuous, and by natural disbelief alone...

Otherwise, any story - Greek, Hindu, or Norse - becomes equally “possible,” and truth collapses into personal belief.

And disproving supernatural by natural truth, collapses into personal disbelief.

Supernatural truth is by faith, not by sight. And natural truth is by sight, not by faith. One does not try to disprove the other, because neither can by themselves alone.

2. “Supernatural intervention” and evidence

If an event affected the physical world - sunlight, tides, human speech - it left a physical trace.

Already answered. If you want to respond to it my answer, I'd be glad to see it.

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.

Already answered. If you want to respond to it my answer, I'd be glad to see it.

3. Eyewitness testimony

History accepts eyewitness reports only when corroborated.

This is a false historical rule, made up for purposes of disbelief alone.

In history and law, all eyewitness reports are direct evidence. They can be accepted without corroboration, so long as they are not contradicted by proven records.

The Joshua story is anonymous, undated, and written centuries later -

Already answered. If you want to respond to it my answer, I'd be glad to see it.

According to Muslims, Muhammad split the moon in half and rejoined it. This story has been passed down the centuries.

Quote it from the Koran. Otherwise, it has nothing to do with Muhammed's writings.

Manufactured traditions about a book, do not judge the book itself. The same for silly things like Jesus elongating wood, in order to make it fit to a broken chair.

4. “Inspired pen” argument

Claiming divine inspiration does not increase reliability; it merely adds another unverified claim.

Disbelieving a writer's testimony for writing does not increase reliability; it merely adds another personal rejection.

5. Genre and meaning

Labeling a narrative “mythic” is not an accusation of deceit. Ancient authors used myth to express theological meaning,

It is when the author denies it's myth. No mythographer ever includes a disclaimer.

Calling the Bible a myth, proves personal disbelief, based upon ignorance of what makes a myth.

When a writer record something as factual record, especially by eyewitness testimony as true, then calling it myth is personal accusation of lying, or self-deceiving.

just as Jesus used parables.

And the Bible writer calls them parables, as well as allegory, and symbolic mystery...

6. “The Bible contains scientific detail”

There is no verse that describes gravity, orbital motion, plate tectonics, or germ theory.

Useless Non sequitur. Name a book on taxonomy, that includes 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.

Useless gerrypicking. It's also the same word for compass depth in Prov 8.

It's also falsely non contextual:

Isa 40:22
It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers;


He's not calling the Lord a supergiant Atlas standing on the earth, and seeing all the Lilliputians in comparison, walking between his legs...

Inferring modern science from pre-scientific language is retrofitting, not revelation.

Inferring myth from scientific language is personal accusation, not objective understanding.

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.

Already answered. If you want to respond to it my answer, I'd be glad to see it.

10. Integrity of the text

Accepting that ancient writers wrote from their worldview honours their humanity.

So accusing someone of lying and/or being delusional, is honouring their humanity.

Mat 15:8
This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.

That bit of sophistry would make a court jester laugh...

11. The epistemic core

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Claims immune to falsification are immune to confirmation.

Already answered. If you want to respond to it my answer, I'd be glad to see it.

Respecting faith does not mean suspending critical reasoning.

Respecting literary and historical integrity suspends disbelief for objective critical reasoning.

I am not trying to ban all religions.

Well, that's good to know. Like it matters?

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

When a miracle leaves no trace but testimony alone, honest skepticism is not stated disbelief.

[RBD]

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).

So, you now demand a 3rd record to confirm the 2nd.

There’s no evidence that Thallus actually wrote anything of the sort.

Not if it's Christian evidence?

In any case, the charge is no other evidence.

This is, at best, a third-hand account from centuries later by a sympathetic author, and postdates the gospels by at least a century.

We already have a first-hand account by an eyewitness author from the same years. Since that's rejected, then no surprise the 2nd report from decades later is also rejected.

Moreover, NASA simulations find no evidence of an eclipse during this time,

Supernatural events by definition are not by natural means, and so are not subject to natural footprints.

A God who keeps Himself hidden from natural eyes, can also keep His supernatural works hidden from future natural confimation.

and no other cultures (Chinese, Persian, Indian) record darkness at this time.

1. Any other record confirming the event was demanded, not many.

2. Other cultures at night, would only know it's still night.

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.

3. And any Chinese, Persian, or Indian Christian need not bother...Just a prejudiced busybody spreading rumors and lies worldwide...

If objective historical demands are sought, then keep it to objective historical records. If personal disbelief is the argument, then it's a non-starter. Neither believers nor objective skeptics care that someone else personally disbelieves it.

Do you now believe that astronomically impossible event?

No I do not, given the background evidence.

You mean the Christian background.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to RBD in post #51]

You raise a number of points about eyewitness evidence and the relation between faith and reason. I’ll respond systematically.

1. On eyewitness testimony and historical method

You write that “in history and law, confessed eyewitness accounts are direct evidence and need no corroboration.” That’s not accurate. In both history and law, credibility depends on corroboration, proximity, and consistency.

In law, testimony is weighed against physical evidence and cross-examination. A claim without supporting data can be dismissed as hearsay.
In history, contemporaneous, independent sources and archaeological traces determine reliability. The further a document is from the alleged event, the lower its evidentiary weight.

Ancient miracle accounts - whether from Egypt, Greece, Israel, or India - are anonymous, late, and written in theological genres. They function as faith proclamations, not as verifiable history. To treat them as direct evidence without corroboration would oblige us to accept every miracle tradition, from Hindu avatars to Norse gods, on equal footing.

2. On the “no natural footprint” argument

Saying “supernatural events leave no trace” makes the claim unfalsifiable. If the event affects physical reality - the sun standing still, walls collapsing, global flood, seas parting - it necessarily leaves a physical consequence, measurable in principle. If it leaves no measurable consequence, then by definition, we have no grounds to distinguish it from imagination or legend.

Faith may be content with that, but history and science cannot be. A claim that shields itself from testing removes itself from the domain of knowledge.

3. On the burden of proof

It is not “faith in nature” to require evidence for a physical claim; it is simply applying the same standard to all claims. If we accept “supernatural exceptions” whenever a story demands them, then no distinction remains between truth and myth. The burden of proof always rests with the claimant - whether religious or secular. Disbelief requires no alternative explanation until belief provides evidence.

4. On myth and genre

Calling a text “mythic” is not an accusation of deceit; it is a recognition of form and function. “Myth” in academic terms means a sacred narrative conveying meaning, not necessarily falsehood. Ancient authors wrote within symbolic frameworks - flat earth cosmology, divine councils, heavenly wars - that we now recognise as pre-scientific metaphors. Understanding that context honours their humanity by reading them as they understood themselves, not by imposing modern literalism.

5. On “extraordinary evidence”

Extraordinary evidence doesn’t mean “bias against the supernatural”; it means proportionate verification. A claim that defies the entire record of natural observation needs proportionally stronger evidence than a claim that fits within it. That’s why physics requires replicable data and why historians ask for multiple attestation. Belief without that may be faith, but it isn’t knowledge.

6. On “respecting literary integrity”

Respecting a text’s integrity means reading it critically, not suspending disbelief. Critical reasoning distinguishes between what the author believed and what can be verified today. We can appreciate the cultural and moral significance of the Bible while acknowledging that its miracle stories are not independently confirmed events.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #40]

Thank you for your reply. I’ll address the key issues in turn.

1. On “Lack of Confirmation ≠ Disproof”

You wrote that the absence of corroboration doesn’t disprove a supernatural claim. True - but it also doesn’t confirm it. History and science work by proportioning belief to evidence.

The only attempt to prove or disprove anything here, is that it couldn't have happened, not that it is proven to happen.

In law and history, an eyewitness account is firsthand evidence, and without proven contradiction it can be accepted as true evidence, entered in court and historical accounts.

A claim that the sun and moon literally stopped would, if true, have left worldwide observational, orbital, and tidal consequences still visible in astronomy and geology.

The definition of supernatural, is unexplained by the natural science and footprint. Natural scientists only seek natural footprints of natural events, not supernatural.

Any argument of proving or disapproving a supernatural event by natural standards, is by definition a non-starter. Such arguments have no intelligent bearing on possibility and belief in supernatural events...

Their absence doesn’t merely “lack confirmation”; it positively contradicts the claim’s physical implications.

The absence of natural explanation and footprint, doesn’t merely “lack natural confirmation” of a supernatural event; it positively contradicts any claims of being a natural event.

Many try to explain supernatural events by natural means, and they all fall short the same as trying to explain them away.

Any argument of proving or disapproving a supernatural event by natural standards, is by definition a non-starter. Such arguments have no intelligent bearing on possibility and belief in supernatural events...

To call such a claim “false” is not to accuse the ancient scribe of deceit but to note that the described event did not occur in reality.

To call a supernatural claim “false” by lack of natural confirmation alone, is to accuse the ancient scribe of deceitful myth, by noting that the described event did not occur naturally.

Any accusation to disapprove a supernatural event by natural standards, is by definition a foolish accusation. Such accusation have no honest bearing on possibility and belief in supernatural events...

2. On the “Natural vs. Supernatural” Escape Hatch

You say that “supernatural events change natural law” and leave no physical trace. But the moment a supposed event affects matter - the sea parting, the sun halting, the dead rising - it does intersect the physical world.

Correct. It can certainly be seen, experienced, and affecting at that time, whether to man or beast.

An event that interacts with matter yet leaves no measurable trace is indistinguishable from a story that never happened.

An event that interacts with matter yet leaves no measurable trace, is indistinguishable from any claim of a supernatural event.

By redefining “supernatural” as “beyond detection,” you render the claim unfalsifiable - and therefore outside knowledge, not above it.

By redefining “supernatural” as “naturally detectable,” you render the claim of the supernatural into natural event - and therefore no more a claim of supernatural event.

3. On Burden of Proof

You claim that “the prosecution must prove its case,” implying skeptics bear the burden to disprove miracle stories.

I claim that “the prosecution must prove its case,” because accusing an eyewitness testimony of falsehood is not skepticism but accusatory, which bears the burden to disprove the testimony of a miraculous event.

In rational inquiry, the burden of proof lies on whoever asserts existence.

Only in order to convince a skeptic.

An irrational accusation against the supernatural, has the burden of proof on whoever asserts it.

Any argument of proving or disapproving a supernatural event by natural standards, is by definition a non-starter. Such arguments have no intelligent bearing on possibility and belief in supernatural events...

If someone claims, “The moon once stopped mid-orbit,” the responsibility to substantiate that claim lies with them, not with everyone else to disprove it.

If someone claims, “The moon once stopped mid-orbit,” the responsibility to substantiate that claim lies with them trying to prove, and not only claim it.

Everyone saying it's false must try to disprove it.

Any argument of proving or disapproving a supernatural event by natural standards, is by definition a non-starter. Such arguments have no intelligent bearing on possibility and belief in supernatural events...

Jos 10:13
And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

The record does not speak of any terrestrial changes, other than a prolonged daytime. Therefore, it is an eyewitness testimony of a supernatural event, that cannot be explained nor recorded naturally.

Any argument of proving or disapproving a supernatural event by natural standards, is by definition a non-starter. Such arguments have no intelligent bearing on possibility and belief in supernatural events...

Otherwise, we’d have to believe in every untestable story ever told — dragons, fairies, and contradictory miracles alike.

False. No one has to believe any supernatural event, even the ones recording it. And believing one recorded supernatural event does not demand believing in all supernatural events...

4. On Faith as “Its Own Evidence”

If faith is its own evidence, then all mutually incompatible faiths are equally validated - Islam, Hinduism, Christianity, Scientology, Jainism, Bahaism, Daoism, Animism, Judaism, Shintoism, Sikhism, Buddhism, etc.

...no more than believing in one religion demands believing in all religions.

If you agree that not all contradictory religions can be simultaneously true, then faith alone cannot serve as epistemic proof of any one of them.

The evidence of faith is that people have faith, and that evidence is proven in practice.

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.

However, faith in a recorded event cannot be proven by faith alone, no more than disbelief in the same event can be proven by disbelief alone.

5. On Selective Credulity

You accept biblical miracles but reject those in the Qur’an, the Book of Mormon, or the Bhagavad Gita. Yet your stated method (“faith is its own evidence”) would validate them all equally.

False. The evidence of faith in practice is only the same, if the practices are the same. Therefore, not all faith and religion are the same, nor believed and practiced the same.

To privilege one text over others requires independent, inter-subjective evidence - the very standard you dismiss as “naturalism.”

To privilege one text over others requires independent, inter-objective study to prove the chosen faith.

the very standard you dismiss as “naturalism.”

Only when comparing spiritual with spiritual and natural with natural. Not in comparing natural with spiritual, that by definition is not comparable.

1Co 2:13
Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

1Co 2:15
But he that is spiritual judgeth all things.

The spiritual man can judge both spiritual and natural things. The natural man can only judge natural things, since the spiritual is foolishness to him.

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.

6. On “With God All Things Are Possible”

That verse simply asserts divine omnipotence; it’s not an explanation.

False. It's spiritual explanation, that is foolishness to the natural man.

Saying “God can do the impossible” does not convert an impossibility into evidence.

Correct. It's impossible to convert the supernatural into natural evidence. The spiritual man knows this by simple definition alone. The natural man does not acknowledge the supernatural, nor even comprehending the simple argument of definition...

If anything can be explained by “God changed the rules,” then nothing can be tested or confirmed.

If anything can be explained by “God changed the natural rules,” then nothing supernatural can be tested or confirmed naturally.

Any argument of proving or disapproving a supernatural event by natural standards, is by definition a non-starter. Such arguments have no intelligent bearing on possibility and belief in supernatural events...

This is special pleading: you exempt your favored stories from every standard you apply elsewhere. That's inconsistent and hypocritical.

This is special pleading: you change the natural vs supernatural standard into natural alone. That's inconsistent and nonsensical.

7. On the Alleged Historical Record

A written record is data, not a demonstration. Ancient texts record talking serpents, shape-shifting gods, and dragons; the mere presence of a record tells us what people believed, not what objectively occurred.

A written record is evidence, not a demonstration. Ancient texts record talking serpents, shape-shifting gods, and dragons; the mere presence of a record tells us what people testify, not what is objectively proven.

Any argument of proving or disapproving a supernatural event by natural standards, is by definition a non-starter. Such arguments have no intelligent bearing on possibility and belief in supernatural events...

Without independent verification, a document remains a claim, not evidence of truth.

Without independent verification, an eyewitness account remains a testimony of direct evidence. Only independent disproof can the eyewitness testimony be proven untrue.

8. On “Faith vs. Science”

Science is not “faith in naturalism.” It’s methodological naturalism - a process that tests hypotheses against observations.

Correct.

Faith in naturalism is faith in science alone.

Natural science does not forbid the supernatural, but only doesn't prove or disprove it. Natural scientists can be disbelievers and believers in the spiritual. The disbelievers in the spiritual only believe in natural science.

If the supernatural affects the natural world, that effect is testable.

Any argument of proving or disapproving a supernatural event by natural standards, is by definition a non-starter. Such arguments have no intelligent bearing on possibility and belief in supernatural events...

If it never yields observable effects, then it lies outside rational discourse altogether.

If it never yields observable effects, then it lies outside natural discourse altogether.

Any attempt to argue the supernatural with natural discourse, is irrational.

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.

9. On Prudence vs. Prejudice

Withholding belief until sufficient, cross-cultural, verifiable evidence appears is not bias - it’s intellectual honesty.

Concluding disbelief until sufficient, cross-cultural, verifiable evidence appears to disprove it, is bias - it’s not objective intelligence.

If someone asserts a miracle that leaves no trace, no confirmation, and contradicts physics, prudence requires suspension of belief, not accusation nor credulity.

If someone testifies a miracle that leaves no natural trace, nor confirmation, independent of natural physics, skeptical prudence requires suspension of belief.

Only the believers in naturalism alone accuse it as uncredible.

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.

Claims that violate known physics require proportionally stronger evidence, not an exemption from evidence.

Supernatural claims independent of natural physics require proportionate supernatural evidence to prove it, because by definition it is exempt from natural evidence.

Labeling an unverified story “supernatural” is not an explanation; it’s an evasion.

Labeling an unnatural event unverified by natural means, “supernatural”, is by definition. Labelling a supernatural event mythical deceit by natural means, is not proof; it’s an evasion.

Any argument of proving or disapproving a supernatural event by natural standards, is by definition a non-starter. Such arguments have no intelligent bearing on possibility and belief in supernatural events...

Faith may comfort, but it cannot verify.

False. The comfort verifies the faith comforts.

Absence of corroboration in every other civilization’s records and in modern astronomy makes the Joshua miracle empirically false, not merely “unconfirmed.”

Absence of corroboration in every other civilization’s records and in modern astronomy makes the Joshua miracle naturally false, and merely “unconfirmed” naturally.

Any argument of proving or disapproving a supernatural event by natural standards, is by definition a non-starter. Such arguments have no intelligent bearing on possibility and belief in supernatural events...

I remain open to any independently testable evidence that any such supernatural event occurred.

I remain closed to any naturally testable evidence, that any such supernatural event could occur.

I remain closed to any naturally testable argument, that any such supernatural event cannot occur.

Any argument of proving or disapproving a supernatural event by natural standards, is by definition a non-starter. Such arguments have no intelligent bearing on possibility and belief in supernatural events...

[Compassionist]

[Replying to RBD in post #54]

Thank you for your detailed post. You’ve repeated one claim in many forms:

“Any argument for or against a supernatural event by natural standards is a non-starter.”

That position may sound humble, but it carries fatal consequences for knowledge itself.

1. If the supernatural affects the natural world, it is testable.
The Joshua story says the sun and the moon stood still - that is a physical event involving orbital mechanics, day length, and tidal forces.
Any process that halts the Earth’s rotation would produce global geological and astronomical effects.
The absence of those effects isn’t “lack of natural confirmation”; it is positive evidence of absence.
You can’t claim both that the event changed nature and that nature shows no change.

2. If the supernatural never leaves detectable effects, it is indistinguishable from imagination.
A story that cannot be confirmed or falsified by any conceivable observation lies outside epistemology.
Once you exempt a claim from all possible verification, you remove the distinction between “happened” and “invented.”
At that point, “truth” becomes whatever anyone says it is.

3. “Eyewitness testimony” is evidence only when it survives critical scrutiny.
Courts reject uncorroborated testimony when it contradicts physical evidence.
A witness who says the sun stopped for a day is not automatically credible; physical impossibility outweighs hearsay.
That’s not bias - it’s proportional belief to evidence, the same standard used everywhere else in life.

4. Appealing to 1 Cor 2:14 simply admits that faith and reason use different currencies.
If you say the “natural man” cannot grasp spiritual truth, you’ve moved the discussion from truth claims about the world to psychological conviction.
That’s fine as personal faith, but it’s not an argument about reality.

5. Burden of proof is asymmetric.
The skeptic doesn’t need to “disprove” every miracle claim any more than you need to disprove every alien-abduction story.
The responsibility lies with the one who asserts that something extraordinary happened, because extraordinary claims require proportionally extraordinary evidence.

In short:

If a miracle affects matter, it’s open to scientific testing.
If it doesn’t, it’s not a claim about the world.
Either way, invoking “supernatural” as an escape hatch adds no explanatory power and removes accountability.

That’s why appealing to faith isn’t “another route to truth”; it’s a retreat from the shared methods that let us tell truth from fiction.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #31]

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.

Why are you not a Hindu? The Vedas are written as a physical book for all to believe, unless predetermined not to believe (by your own standard).

We are contradicting the false supposition, that there is no evidence of the Bible God, when the evidence is the Bible itself. Acknowledging historical and literary evidence is objective and equal for all written testimonies. The books on Hindu are evidence themselves of the Hindu spirits and gods. I don't deny that. Denying that the Bible is evidence of the Creator God is selective literary and historical ignorance, that is based upon predetermined unbelief.

But, acknowledging written evidence, does not demand belief in the written testimony. And, now that I do believe the Bible God, then I judge all other books by it. Not everything contradicts the Bible, but that which does, I don't believe. With the Hindu gods, I don't deny them, but only now acknowledge they are false gods not to be believed, worshipped, nor followed:

Isa 45:5
I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me:

Exo 20:3
Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

1Ki 8:23
And he said, LORD God of Israel, there is no God like thee, in heaven above, or on earth beneath, who keepest covenant and mercy with thy servants that walk before thee with all their heart:


I also know there are other angels than those of God, and so conclude the angels inspiring other books, that are contrary to the Bible, are not by angels of the Bible God:

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.

But even then, any book can have some truth in it, that agrees with the true God of the Bible. However, even the truth can be used to deliver a lie:

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.

I guess Vishnu doesn’t love you enough to predetermine you to believe?

Does Vishnu speak of loving any person on earth, other than the goddess Lakshmi? Did Vishnu ever lay down his life for a man or woman on earth?

In any case, all other Gods than the Bible God are false gods, and not all love is the divine love the Creator and true God.

1Jo 2:15
Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.

Vishna and Lakshmi no doubt attempts a nontemporal account of better love than carnal lust alone, but it's not revelation of the Bible God.

Can you not see how this line of reasoning is unfalsifiable (and therefore meaningless)?

Only if you forsake the original argument, and wrongly apply it elsewhere. Predetermined disbelief is proven by refusing to even acknowledge that written testimony is evidence in itself. Saying there is no evidence of the Bible God, is denying the physical Bible itself. And since much is written as eyewitness, then by law and historical standard, it has firsthand direct evidence.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to RBD in post #56]

RBD, thank you for your detailed explanation - I appreciate that you’re engaging seriously with questions of evidence and belief.

1. The Bible’s existence is evidence of belief, not evidence of God

I agree that any written text is evidence that people held certain beliefs. The Rig Veda, the Qur’an, and the Book of Mormon are all historical evidence of what their authors believed and taught.
But that’s not the same as evidence that the events described actually occurred.
A document can testify to faith without verifying its content - otherwise, every religious text would automatically prove its own worldview true, and contradictory religions would all be simultaneously correct, which is impossible.

2. Circular confirmation

Your reasoning is:

1. The Bible says there is only one true God.
2. Therefore, all other gods are false.
3. Therefore, the Bible is true.
But this simply assumes what it sets out to prove. A Muslim, Hindu, or Mormon could make the same argument from their scriptures with equal internal consistency. Logical validity requires independent confirmation beyond the text itself - archaeology, astronomy, genetics, or historical corroboration that can be tested intersubjectively.

3. Selective application of standards

You grant that Hindu and other scriptures are “evidence of their gods”, but then dismiss them because the Bible forbids belief in them. That’s not objective evaluation - that’s using one text’s authority to judge all others, which begs the question of why that text should be privileged in the first place.

4. On “predetermined disbelief”

People who don’t accept the Bible as divine revelation aren’t predetermined to disbelieve - they simply require the same evidential standards that you apply everywhere else in life. When a claim has no independent confirmation, is self-contradictory and is contradicted by rival texts making the same kind of claim, skepticism isn’t rebellion; it’s consistency.

So yes, the Bible is evidence - literary and historical evidence that certain people believed what it says.
But belief and truth are not identical.
Until a text’s supernatural claims are verified independently of the text itself, its evidential value remains testimonial, not demonstrative.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #51]

You raise a number of points about eyewitness evidence and the relation between faith and reason. I’ll respond systematically.

1. On eyewitness testimony and historical method

You write that “in history and law, confessed eyewitness accounts are direct evidence and need no corroboration.” That’s not accurate. In both history and law, credibility depends on corroboration, proximity, and consistency.

False. You're mistaking direct evidence with evidence proving or disproving it.

All eyewitness testimony is a record of direct evidence, and is accepted as true, en lieu of evidence proving otherwise.

In law, testimony is weighed against physical evidence and cross-examination.

In law and history, eyewitness testimony is direct evidence, that can be confirmed or denied by investigation.

The Bible is a written record of testimonial direct evidence. Cross examination is between the testimonies, and any outside evidence.

A claim without supporting data can be dismissed as hearsay.

False. Try telling that to the court with recorded eyewitness testimony. Direct testimony must first be proven false or unreliable, in order to dismiss it.

In history, contemporaneous, independent sources and archaeological traces determine reliability. The further a document is from the alleged event, the lower its evidentiary weight.

Which does not include the Bible, other than the first 6 days, which is all be revelation of the Creator. Other than prophecy, the events recorded were contemporary. Notwithstanding later literary revisionism about the writers...

Ancient miracle accounts - whether from Egypt, Greece, Israel, or India - are anonymous, late, and written in theological genres. They function as faith proclamations, not as verifiable history.

They function as faith proclamations, not as verifiable history. [/quote]
False. They are recorded as eyewitness testimony, not proclamations of belief. They are direct evidence of historical natural and supernatural events.

To treat them as direct evidence without corroboration would oblige us to accept every miracle tradition,

To treat the direct evidence of testimony as proven without corroboration, would oblige us to accept every miracle tradition.

2. On the “no natural footprint” argument

Saying “supernatural events leave no trace” makes the claim unfalsifiable.

Correct. Not by natural means.

If the event affects physical reality - the sun standing still, walls collapsing, global flood, seas parting - it necessarily leaves a physical consequence, measurable in principle.

False. If the event affects physical reality - the sun standing still, walls collapsing, global flood, seas parting - and does not necessarily leave a physical consequence, measurable in natural principle, then it is supernatural, not a natural event.

Arguing the supernatural by natural means, is by definition a non starter. Your arguments against the supernatural by natural means alone, is circular.

If it leaves no measurable consequence, then by definition, we have no grounds to distinguish it from imagination or legend.

If it leaves no naturally measurable consequence, then by definition, we by have ground to call it supernatural.

Faith may be content with that, but history and science cannot be..

Faith is content with testimonial evidence. Natural science cannot prove nor disprove the supernatural.

A claim that shields itself from testing removes itself from the domain of knowledge.

A claim that cannot be proven or disproven by natural testing, is supernatural, and is not natural knowledge.

A demand for natural proof is by faith in natural knowledge alone.

6. On “respecting literary integrity”

Respecting a text’s integrity means reading it critically, not suspending disbelief.

Nor suspending belief.

Critical reasoning distinguishes between what the author believed and what can be verified today.

Critical reasoning distinguishes between an author testifying of an event, vs only believing in it. Eyewitness testimony is direct evidence, not testimonials of faith.

We can appreciate the cultural and moral significance of the Bible while acknowledging that its miracle stories are not independently confirmed events.

True. No one can honor the Bible by declaring the eyewitness testimonies false without disproving them.

Natural means does not disprove supernatural events, nor does disbelief by faith in natural means alone...

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #54]

Thank you for your detailed post. You’ve repeated one claim in many forms:

“Any argument for or against a supernatural event by natural standards is a non-starter.”

That position may sound humble, but it carries fatal consequences for knowledge itself.

It's a statement of fact by definition between natural and supernatural. Humbleness is acknowledging it, and not trying to argue against the supernatural by natural means alone, whether by natural science or footprint.

It carries fatal consequences for natural arguments alone.

1. If the supernatural affects the natural world, it is testable.

Not naturally.

The Joshua story says the sun and the moon stood still - that is a physical event involving orbital mechanics, day length, and tidal forces.

I'll no longer be responding to natural arguments against supernatural events.

The fatality of it has been pointed out enough for any humble person to accept: Supernatural by definition is not natural, and cannot be explained by natural means. Nor explained away by faith in natural means alone.

2. If the supernatural never leaves detectable effects, it is indistinguishable from imagination.
A story that cannot be confirmed or falsified by any conceivable observation lies outside epistemology.
Once you exempt a claim from all possible verification, you remove the distinction between “happened” and “invented.”
At that point, “truth” becomes whatever anyone says it is..

So says the natural man who only believes in natural things, and rejects anything not naturally explained, recorded, and proven...

3. “Eyewitness testimony” is evidence only when it survives critical scrutiny.
Courts reject uncorroborated testimony when it contradicts physical evidence.

Only after investigation. Until then, it is direct evidence of eyewitness testimony.

It's historically and judicially false to dismiss any eyewitness testimony, based upon lack of confirmation alone...The objective skeptic does not do so, but only the committed disbeliever.

4. Appealing to 1 Cor 2:14 simply admits that faith and reason use different currencies.
If you say the “natural man” cannot grasp spiritual truth, you’ve moved the discussion from truth claims about the world to psychological conviction.

False. The Scripture also applies to those who reject the spiritual, by faith in natural things alone.

They can't even discern that rejecting the supernatural by natural means alone, is a definitional non-starter...Hence they continue to push a fatally natural argument.

5. Burden of proof is asymmetric.
The skeptic doesn’t need to “disprove” every miracle claim any more than you need to disprove every alien-abduction story.

The skeptic doesn’t need to “reject” any miracle claim, any more than accept it, confirmation or disproof.

Anyone concluding a miracle claim is false, without factually disproving it, is a subjective disbeliever.

The responsibility lies with the one who asserts that something extraordinary happened, because extraordinary claims require proportionally extraordinary evidence.

I'll no longer respond to arguing about proving something, when the only argument is rejecting it without disproving it.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to RBD in post #58]

RBD, thank you for your detailed response. I think our main difference lies in how we treat testimony as evidence.

Eyewitness testimony is indeed a kind of evidence, but in both law and history it is not accepted as fact until corroborated. Courts regularly dismiss or overturn eyewitness accounts when they conflict with physical data, internal consistency, or known psychology. The Bible’s miracle stories may be sincere, but they are anonymous, undated, and written long after the events they describe. By modern standards, that’s hearsay, not direct observation.

As for “supernatural events leaving no trace,” that’s precisely the problem: if something cannot be detected, measured, or independently verified, then we have no way to distinguish an actual event from imagination. Calling the gap “supernatural” doesn’t explain it - it only labels our ignorance.

Science doesn’t claim that all reality is “natural by faith”; it claims only that testable causes produce reproducible results. Claims that remove themselves from testing remove themselves from knowledge. That’s why the same standard applies not only to Christianity but also to the miracle claims of every other faith - they may be meaningful stories, but without verification, they remain stories.