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.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to RBD in post #98]

He appeared to all His apostles several times, excluding Judas.
At least 3 of His apostles record the events in their gospels.
Mark may or may not have written for Peter.

The key issue raised was not what the texts claim, but whether we possess verifiable firsthand testimony.

1. The gospels are formally anonymous. The names “Matthew,” “Mark,” “Luke,” and “John” were attached later in church tradition.
2. The texts themselves do not explicitly identify their authors as eyewitnesses in the way ancient autobiographical works typically do.
3. Modern textual scholarship — including conservative scholarship — recognizes that authorship is debated, not established by direct internal evidence.

Appealing to later tradition is not the same as demonstrating contemporary firsthand documentation.

Even if Mark wrote based on Peter’s preaching, that would make it second-hand testimony, not direct written eyewitness documentation.

Ok. They eyewitness apostles wrote the gospels years later. One of them publicly preached His resurrection 40 days later.

There is no surviving document written 40 days after the crucifixion.

The earliest Christian writings we possess are the letters of Paul (c. 50–60 CE), roughly 20–30 years after Jesus’ death.

The gospels are generally dated:

• Mark: ~70 CE
• Matthew & Luke: ~80–90 CE
• John: ~90–100 CE

That is 40–70 years after the events described.

It is not “contemporary diary evidence.” It is later theological narrative written in communities of belief.

Also, Paul explicitly states he was not an eyewitness of the earthly Jesus and describes his experience as a visionary encounter.

Written by apostles that are not believed by 'theologians and scholars'. The same kind of theologians and scholars that had Jesus crucified as a blasphemer.

This conflates two very different groups.

The Jewish authorities in 1st-century Judea are not the same as modern historians and textual scholars.

Appealing to Acts 17:11 (“search the scriptures”) ironically supports careful examination — which is exactly what historical scholarship does.

Rejecting scholarship entirely creates a problem:

• If we reject scholars when they disagree,
• but accept tradition when it supports us,

that is selective skepticism.

If someone says “just read the book yourself,” that works only if we already assume the book is historically reliable. But that is the very question under debate.

Then thank God we have exact copies, that are just as unerring as the originals must have been.

This claim is factually incorrect.

We do not have “exact copies.”

What we have are thousands of Greek manuscripts with textual variants. Most differences are minor (spelling, word order), but some are significant:

• The longer ending of Mark (16:9–20)
• The story of the woman caught in adultery (John 7:53–8:11)
• Variants in resurrection narratives

Modern Bible translations openly acknowledge these textual differences in footnotes.

Textual preservation has been very good compared to many ancient works — but “exact and unerring copies” is not a historically supported statement.

If the Bible Author is who He says He is, then preserving His written Scriptures is assured.

This is circular reasoning. I have noticed that you apply circular reasoning only in support of the Bible, but not of other religious books. This shows your confirmation bias. I apply the same evidential requirements to all books because I am committed to the truth, not religious or secular beliefs.

It assumes divine authorship in order to prove divine preservation.

That is theology, not historical argument.

When debating historical claims (such as resurrection testimony), the question must be approached without assuming the conclusion.

He also prophesied that His gospel would be heard in all nations on earth, which is come to pass today.

Global spread does not establish truth.

Islam has spread globally.
Buddhism has spread globally.
Hinduism has spread globally.

Geographical expansion shows sociological success, not divine validation.

The last writer of Bible Scripture was John in 90's AD.

Even if we accept that dating, that places the final gospel roughly 60 years after Jesus’ death.

The original question still stands:

Where is the identifiable, contemporary, firsthand written testimony from named eyewitnesses?

We have:

• Later anonymous narratives
• Attributed by church tradition
• Written decades after the events
• Preserved in manuscripts centuries later

They do not justify the claim: “recorded firsthand direct testimony of several writers.”

Extraordinary claims require proportionate evidence.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to RBD in post #99]

They are in history and law.

No, they are not identical in history or law.

In both disciplines there is a clear distinction between:

• Admissibility (allowed to be considered)
• Credibility (how trustworthy it appears)
• Weight (how much it counts)
• Proof (whether the burden of proof is met)

Courts routinely admit eyewitness testimony that later proves mistaken.

History routinely records testimonies that are sincere but wrong.

Acceptance for consideration ≠ justified belief.

That distinction is not philosophical nitpicking. It is foundational to legal reasoning.

Multiple independent eyewitnesses of the same event, without contradiction, is verified proof.

Only under specific conditions:

1. The witnesses are identifiable.
2. Their independence is demonstrable.
3. Their statements are contemporaneous.
4. They are subject to cross-examination.
5. The event falls within ordinary human experience.

None of these conditions are fully satisfied for the resurrection accounts.

• The gospels are formally anonymous.
• Literary dependence exists (Matthew and Luke use Mark).
• They were written decades later.
• No cross-examination occurred.
• The claim is a violation of uniform human experience, i.e. the dead remain dead and are not resurrected.

Multiple agreement does not automatically equal proof.

People have agreed in large numbers about:
• Marian apparitions
• UFO sightings
• The golden plates of Joseph Smith
• The miracles of Apollonius of Tyana

Agreement is not verification.

Absence of disproof is proof in history and law for multiple agreeing firsthand witnesses.

This is incorrect.

Burden of proof lies with the claimant.

If absence of disproof established truth, then:

• Every ancient miracle claim would stand as proven. There are many miracles in many religions.
• Every conspiracy theory lacking disproof would stand as proven.
• Every alien abduction account lacking refutation would stand as proven.

That collapses rational inquiry.

Absence of disproof only preserves logical possibility — not justification.

Longevity and widespread knowledge increases validity.

Longevity increases influence, not truth.

The Epic of Gilgamesh is ancient.
Hindu scriptures are ancient.
Buddhist traditions are ancient.
Zoroastrianism is ancient.

Widespread belief is sociological data.

It is not epistemic validation.

If longevity proved truth, polytheism would still be verified.

The Bible is written by many firsthand eyewitness accounts that have never been proven contradictory.

Several problems:

1. The authorship of the gospels is debated.
2. The resurrection accounts contain narrative differences:
• Who went to the tomb?
• How many angels?
• What were the women told?
• Where did Jesus first appear?
3. Literary dependence undermines independence.

Minor differences do not destroy credibility.

But claiming “no contradiction” overstates the case.

More importantly: even perfect internal harmony would not prove a miracle occurred.

Consistency can exist within fiction, legend, or sincere error.

If the Bible records were put on trial, the verdict must verify proven true.

No court in the modern world would treat anonymous decades-later miracle claims as legally verified proof of a bodily resurrection.

Courts demand:

• Forensic evidence
• Chain of custody
• Living witnesses
• Cross-examination
• Corroborating physical data

Ancient theological narratives would not meet that standard.

They might be admissible as historical documents.

They would not be ruled verified supernatural events.

Accepting one supernatural book does not demand accepting all.

Correct.

But then the criteria must be consistently applied.

If your standard is:

• Multiple writers
• Internal agreement
• Longevity

Then other traditions qualify in varying degrees.

If your standard is:

• It agrees with itself

That is circular.

Rejecting supernatural events due to natural law is faith in nature alone.

No.

It is inference from uniform experience.

Every verified case of death in medical history has remained permanent.

That is not “faith in nature.”

It is inductive reasoning.

When someone claims an exception to universal experience, evidential standards increase proportionally.

That is not anti-supernatural bias.

It is proportional reasoning.

Are you saying you believe in the supernatural?

Possibility is not the same as probability.

I am open to supernatural claims in principle.

But openness does not remove evidential standards.

If tomorrow there were:

• Medically documented resurrections
• Repeatable verified cases
• Controlled documentation

Belief would adjust accordingly.

That is not faith in naturalism.

That is responsiveness to evidence.

If it's not by faith, prove your personal knowledge beyond the grave.

The burden is misplaced.

I am not asserting post-mortem knowledge.

You are asserting a bodily resurrection.

The claimant carries the burden.

Saying “prove the negative” does not strengthen the positive claim.

Core Issue

Your argument ultimately reduces to:

• The Bible is internally consistent.
• It is ancient and widely preserved.
• Therefore it is proven true.
• Therefore miracles recorded in it are verified.

That does not follow.

Internal consistency can support credibility.

It cannot establish that a suspension of biological death occurred.

Extraordinary claims require proportionate evidence.

The resurrection may be believed on faith.

But calling it “verified proof in history and law” overstates what the evidence can support.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to RBD in post #100]

And so your intelligence is not real, but only hypothetical.
Spiritual intelligence simply means that all intelligence, thinking, knowledge, imagination is spiritual in nature, not natural physical matter.

This is an assertion, not a demonstration.

No one denies that intelligence is real. The question is what kind of thing intelligence is.

Modern neuroscience shows strong correlations between:

• Brain states and thoughts
• Brain injury and loss of cognitive function
• Electrical stimulation and altered perception
• Neurochemistry and mood

If intelligence were non-physical in the sense you suggest, then:

• Brain damage would not alter personality.
• Anesthesia would not eliminate consciousness.
• Neurodegenerative disease would not progressively erase memory and cognitive capacities.

But it does.

Calling intelligence “spiritual” does not explain it. It merely re-labels it.

Intelligence and reasoning is proof of itself: Spiritual nor physical.

Reasoning proves that reasoning exists.

It does not prove that reasoning is immaterial.

That is a non sequitur.

Electricity exists.
Magnetism exists.
Gravity exists.

None are visible as “mass,” but all are physical phenomena.

Something being invisible does not make it non-physical.

Understanding is spiritual, not natural matter.

This confuses category levels.

Thoughts are not lumps of matter — but they are instantiated in physical neurochemical activities.

A computer running code does not contain “the idea” as a lump of silicon — yet the idea depends entirely on physical processes.

Emergent properties are not identical to their base components — but they are dependent on them.

That is not materialist dogma.
That is explanatory coherence.

If the natural universe were only uncreated natural matter... there would be no intelligence.

That is an argument from incredulity.

The fact that you cannot imagine how matter gives rise to mind does not entail that it cannot.

History repeatedly shows:

• Lightning once attributed to gods.
• Disease once attributed to spirits.
• Planetary motion once attributed to divine movers.

Complexity does not imply immateriality.

Thinking about it, proves itself.

Thinking proves thinking exists.

It does not prove dualism.

If thinking “proves spirit,” then artificial intelligence would also prove spirit — because it reasons.

But most theists reject that conclusion.

So the reasoning is inconsistent.

You cannot deny your own intelligent spirit.

I deny the inference, not the existence of cognition.

There is a difference between:

• “Consciousness exists.”
• “Consciousness is an immaterial eternal soul.”

The second does not follow from the first.

The gospel accounts are independently written books compiled into one Book, where independent eyewitnesses all agree.

This overstates the historical case.

1. The Synoptic Gospels share literary dependence.
2. The resurrection narratives contain differences in detail.
3. The texts are anonymous.
4. They were written decades after the events.

Independence is not established simply by later compilation.

Agreement within a tradition does not equal independent verification.

All other supernatural books are by one writer.

This is factually incorrect.

The Hindu Vedas are multi-authored.
The Buddhist canon developed across centuries.
The Hebrew Bible itself is multi-authored across time.

Multi-authorship does not uniquely identify divine origin.

Consistent independent testimonies of the same thing is accepted as proven evidence.

Only when:

• Independence is established.
• Witnesses are identifiable.
• Claims fall within known experience.

Multiple testimony does not prove:

• Alien abductions.
• Marian apparitions.
• Miracles in many religions.

Consistency increases credibility.
It does not convert miracle into verified fact.

You only believe in natural means.

Incorrect.

I believe in proportional reasoning.

If tomorrow a verified resurrection occurred under medical documentation, my beliefs would change.

Openness to revision is not “faith in nature.”
It is intellectual integrity.

If you have no spirit, you have no intelligence.

That is false.

You define intelligence as spiritual, then conclude intelligence proves spirit.

That is circular.

The real question is explanatory:

Which model better explains the data?

• Dualism — an immaterial soul interacting with matter.
• Physicalism — emergent cognition from neural systems.

Neuroscience strongly supports the second.

If the soul were independent:

• Why does dementia progressively erase the person?
• Why does a stroke alter personality?
• Why does anesthesia suspend consciousness?

The dependency relation is consistent and measurable.

Core Issue

You are not presenting evidence for spirits or souls.

You are redefining cognition as spirit, then declaring spirit proven.

That is not an argument — it is a semantic move.

Consciousness is real.
Reasoning is real.
Imagination is real.

The question is explanatory grounding.

So far, every measurable piece of evidence points to:

Mind depends on the brain.

If better evidence appears, positions can change.

But asserting that thought “proves spirit” does not establish dualism — it merely assumes it.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #79]

Why This Still Reduces to Faith Assertion, Not Knowledge

RBD, your reply makes the underlying divide unmistakably clear — and it confirms rather than resolves the core problem.

1. Competing Worldviews Are Not a Rebuttal

You write:

Where you see the natural evolution of belief systems shaped by environment and culture, I see pseudo-social philosophy, instead of seeing divine revelation.

You are entitled to interpret reality theologically. I am entitled to interpret it naturalistically.

Correct. But natural evolution only attempts to explain itself without divine creation. Divine revelation does not reject natural life, but explains it.

You object to my claim that divine communication, if perfect, should be clear and universal:

It is clear and universal, but not everyone accepts it. Natural philosophers dismiss themselves from divine communication of clear universal things.

• A perfectly loving, all-knowing, all-powerful being
• who desires relationships with humans and obedience
• would not rely on ambiguous, culturally contingent, disputed texts.

A natural philosopher would not care about divine communication, much less take time to defraud it. Unless you seek to clear your conscience by fraudulent means against divine communication.

That is not an accusation; it is a logical expectation.

It's a purposed accusation, because it's not a natural inquiry, that any natural evolutionist would make.

Honest naturalists do not try to disproof nor undermine what they already conclude it false illusion or delusion. Anyone claiming to be a naturalist, that goes out of your way to disprove divine revelation, is only trying to convince themselves there is none.

Responding by quoting miracle stories does not address the structural issue: those stories are themselves mediated by the very texts whose adequacy is
Omnibenevolence would plausibly involve ensuring that sincere, morally serious agents are not left in radical uncertainty about matters carrying eternal consequences.

He doesn't leave you in the dark about your own foolish morality:

Isa 64:6
But ye are all as an unclean thing, and all your moralities are as filthy rags; and ye all do fade as a leaf; and your iniquities, like the wind, have taken you away.

Anyone claiming to be unsure about the Divine word of righteousness is, only blinds themselves willingly.

John 1:2
And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

Mat 6:23
But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!

[/i]
Clarity is not coercion. Understanding is not compulsion.

Clear warning is mercy.

Ezek 18:31
Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O house of Israel?

2 Peter 3:9
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

You argue that Jesus’ crucifixion despite doing good shows the inadequacy of “natural proof.”

No idea what you're talking about. Quote someone before trying to explain them.

5. “It’s God’s Fault You Disagree” Is Not a Defense
You write:

It's God's fault, for not coming and Personally stop you from arguing against Him.

Finding fault with God for not personally coming to you, is not a defense, especially since you hate him by your personal moral judgment.

The eternal righteous God needs no defense against irrelevant moral judgments that end in the grave.

• You must already believe in order to receive the evidence.

You must be objectively open when seeking the truth.

You must be subjectively closed to seek fault.

• If you do not receive the evidence, it proves you did not believe.

Without accusation, it proves skepticism.

With accusation, it proves unwillingness to believe,

7. Eternal Stakes Magnify the Problem — They Don’t Solve It

Judgment magnifies the warning. Without consequences, warning is irrelevant.

No consequences for rejecting your morality, proves you morality has no relevance.

You deny fallibility verbally while relying on fallible human mediation substantively. That is the contradiction.

Taking a text at it's word is objective confirmation. Personally changing the text is mediation.

2Pe 3:15
As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #82]

Why This Still Fails as an Epistemic Framework

RBD, your latest reply helps clarify the position — and it also makes clear why the disagreement is not terminological, but structural.

I’ll respond in order.

1. “Acceptance” Is Not Epistemic Justification

You keep insisting on this distinction:

Corroboration is not necessary to accept eyewitness testimony.

That is true in a narrow procedural sense — but irrelevant to the epistemic issue under discussion.

Historians and juries may consider uncorroborated testimony, but they do not thereby treat it as established fact, especially when the claim is extraordinary.

The epistemic hierarchy is not:

• testimony → truth (unless disproven).

It is:

• testimony → provisional consideration → probabilistic weighting → belief proportional to evidence.

Your framework quietly inserts “accept as true” where critical inquiry inserts “hold as tentative.”

That is the reversal being identified.

2. Future Miracles Cannot Retroactively Justify Present Claims

You write:

If He does come again in Person with clouds… He Himself will corroborate His own resurrection.

This is not an argument; it is an eschatological promise.

Appealing to a future event as retroactive confirmation does nothing for present-day epistemic justification. Every religion can — and does — appeal to future vindication.

Until such an event occurs, the historical claim stands or falls on present evidence alone.

3. You Are Still Conflating “Eyewitness Record” with “Eyewitness Event”

You repeatedly assert:

The Bible is direct evidence by eyewitness record.

A written claim to eyewitness status is not itself eyewitness evidence.

Between the event and the modern reader lie:

• unknown authorship (in multiple cases)
• oral transmission
• redaction
• theological shaping
• manuscript variation

No historian treats a text as “direct evidence” merely because it presents itself that way. Doing so for the Bible but not for other ancient texts is special pleading.

4. “Spiritual Intelligence” Does Not Solve the Disagreement — It Explains It Away

You now say:

All people are born with spiritual intelligence… Only the natural man rebels against it.

This is not an epistemic explanation; it is a theological diagnosis of dissent.

Once disagreement is framed as rebellion against an allegedly innate faculty, rational adjudication ends. Any counter-argument becomes evidence of spiritual failure rather than a challenge to the claim.

That move does not establish truth — it immunizes belief.

5. Discernment Without Criteria Is Not Knowledge

You say:

Spiritual discernment is just spiritual acknowledgement of what is said.

But acknowledgement is not a truth-tracking mechanism.

If spiritual discernment:

• does not generate testable expectations
• does not discriminate reliably between conflicting revelations
• yields mutually incompatible conclusions across cultures

then it cannot function as a method of knowledge.

It may function as faith, conviction, or identity — but not epistemic warrant.

6. The Schellenberg Problem Is Not “Natural Proof Demands”

You reframe the problem of divine hiddenness as a demand for “natural proof.”

That misstates the argument.

The issue is not how God reveals Himself, but whether a perfectly loving God would permit sincere, morally serious seekers to remain in reasonable non-belief.

Your answer — that God prefers faith without evidence — concedes the point rather than resolving it.

If ambiguity is intentional, then disbelief is no longer culpable in the way your theology requires.

7. Scripture Quoting Presupposes the Very Authority in Question

Throughout your reply, biblical citations are used to settle philosophical disputes.

But citing Scripture to validate Scripture is not evidence — it is internal consistency within a closed system.

That may sustain faith.
It cannot establish knowledge across worldviews.

Final Clarification

At this point, the disagreement is fully exposed:

• I am asking for publicly accessible standards that distinguish truth from error.
• You are asserting that truth is spiritually accessible but morally resisted.

Those are incompatible epistemologies.

Once disagreement is reclassified as rebellion, the conversation ceases to be about evidence at all.

That is not a criticism of faith.
It is simply an acknowledgment of what faith is — and what it is not.

Everything here is self-repetition. With counter-arguments already given.

At this point, only something new will be answered.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #83]

Why Your “Objective Review” Still Collapses into Circular Validation

RBD, your reply is useful because it finally makes explicit where the real disagreement lies. Unfortunately, it also confirms the core critique rather than answering it.

I’ll respond concisely and structurally.

1. Your “Natural Man” Syllogism Is a Strawman

You repeatedly attribute to me (and to skeptics generally) this chain:

1. Only natural things exist.
2. There are no supernatural things.
3. Any recorded testimony of a supernatural event is a foolish lie.
4. Such records cannot be critically reviewed.

That is not my position, and I have not argued anything like it.

1. You do not believe supernatural things exist.
2. You have called the recorded supernatural event a foolish myth.
3. Your rejection by natural means is subjective accusation, not critical review.

Your examples involving Islam and Mormonism reduce to this:

One text says X about God.
Another text says not-X.
Therefore one must be false.

You have smuggled in an extra step:

• “The Bible is already known to be true.”— which is precisely the circular move under dispute.

RBD said:
Much of the Bible is already proven true by more outside evidence, that is added to the firsthand evidence recorded in the Bible.

By several such occasions, you've now proven yourself a fraud.

You keep treating the claim “these authors were sincere” as equivalent to “these authors are independent witnesses.” They are not the same.

Another fraud.

I never speak of the Bible writers as sincere, but as independent witnesses.

You give lip service to sincerity, while accusing them of lying.

Multiple texts drawing from a shared tradition, oral or written, do not constitute independent attestation — even if every author is honest.

This is not an accusation of lying.

Compassionist wrote: ↑Wed Nov 05, 2025 3:56 pm
To say “the Bible is wrong about the sun standing still” is not to say “its authors lied.”
To say “the Bible is lying about the sun standing still” is not to say “its authors lied.” Is to say the Bible has no author when lying.


Sophistry of a proven fraud.

8. The Core Problem Remains Unanswered

That you ignore the proof of the Koran author lying about himself and his words, in order to fraudulently equalize Bible and Koran internal integrity.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #84]

Why Calling Disagreement “Accusation” Still Evades the Epistemic Issue

RBD, your reply is rhetorically forceful, but it rests on a persistent conflation that continues to derail the discussion. I’ll address that directly.

1. Objective Skepticism Is Not “Declaring War”

You write:

Once again, when someone declares themselves an accuser of fraudulent documents… Why try to play the role of objective skeptic?

This framing is mistaken.

Objective skepticism does not require neutrality between “true” and “false” indefinitely.

Your definition of objective skeptic is false, in order to continue playing the role of objective skeptic, while accusing the writers of lying.

If objective skepticism meant never judging claims false, it would be epistemically useless.

Since present objective skepticism means not judging true or false, then claiming objective skepticism while judging false, is false.

2. You Keep Erasing the Crucial Distinction

You insist that:

To say “the Bible is lying” dissociates authorship from the record.

Another fraud.

By saying the Bible is lying, but the author is not, is separating authorship from the record. More lip service respect to an accused liar.

Your arguments are not only becoming more self-repetitive, but also more fraudulent.

You repeatedly accuse critics of having “faith in natural things alone.”

I repeatedly say natural faith, and faith in natural things alone, is only believing in natural things, and only trusting in natural evidence.

If you have a different sophistical term for it, then say so. Perhaps, it's having no faith in natural things, since only natural things exist? Or, since only natural things exist, then faith in natural things is unnecessary.

But since all natural thinking ends in the grave, then it's takes natural faith to only accept natural things are true.

[RBD]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #1]

Because it is a story. But suppose it is a historical event, then obviously it is speaking from the point of view of man. The earth would have had to stop, and not the sun. If we are talking about a miracle, then God could easily make it so that only the people in the event see the event. God could easily make it look like the sun was still moving in the sky to the rest of the world, but as if it stopped to those at Jericho.

The objection assumes that a miracle must obey global physical consistency, which defeats the whole point of calling it a miracle.

Exactly. Well said. By definition, supernatural events do not behave naturally.

Every natural argument against it, is just faith in natural things alone, and trusting only in the natural universe. By definition, the natural man things all spiritual things are foolishness, because they cannot be explained, proven, or disproven naturally.

1Co 2:14
For 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.

His natural conceit is proven by the presumption of claiming knowledge beyond the grave, which he denies having knowledge beyond the natural earth.

Ecc 10:14
A fool also is full of words: a man cannot tell what shall be; and what shall be after him, who can tell him?

[Compassionist]

[Replying to RBD in post #104]

RBD, I’m going to respond point-by-point. Not rhetorically. Not emotionally. Directly.

Your reply does not resolve the structural issues raised — it reinforces them.

1. “Competing Worldviews” Still Isn’t a Rebuttal

You say:

Divine revelation does not reject natural life, but explains it.

That is an assertion.

You have not shown that revelation explains reality better.
You have not shown that revelation is necessary.
You have simply stated that it does.

The core issue is epistemic:

• How do we distinguish genuine revelation from human religious development?
• What neutral method allows an outsider to verify your claim?

Saying “it explains it” is not evidence — it is a conclusion.

Competing interpretations are not equal. The burden remains on the worldview that introduces supernatural agency to justify it.

2. “It Is Clear and Universal — People Just Reject It”

You claim revelation is clear and universal but rejected.

This does not match observable reality.

• Thousands of denominations.
• Doctrinal disputes on salvation.
• Billions of sincere non-Christians.
• Believers who deconvert after study e.g. Friedrich Nietzsche, Bertrand Russell, Dan Barker, Charles Darwin, Francis Crick, Richard Dawkins, John W. Loftus, Bart D. Ehrman, Greta Christina, Julia Sweeney, Jerry DeWitt, Ryan Bell, Robert M. Price, Charles Templeton, and me. I left Christianity after I studied the whole Bible, the whole Quran, the top 20 religions on Earth, the evidence for evolution, the evidence for the universe being approximately 13.8 billion years old, and the Earth being approximately 4.54 billion years old.

If the message is clear, its content should not produce this degree of fragmentation — especially when eternal consequences are attached.

Dismissing disagreement as moral rebellion does not solve the epistemic problem.
It relocates it.

3. Accusing Naturalists of Fraud or Self-Deception

You suggest that questioning revelation is an attempt to “defraud” it or “clear one’s conscience.”

That is not argumentation.
That is motive attribution.

The position being argued is simple:

If an omnipotent, omnibenevolent being wants universal recognition and obedience,
then the communication channel should not be:

• geographically clustered
• historically contingent
• textually mediated
• interpretively disputed

That is not hostility.
That is a structural observation.

4. Quoting Scripture Does Not Resolve the Meta-Problem

You cite Isaiah, John, Matthew, Ezekiel, and 2 Peter.

Quoting the text under examination cannot establish its authority.

The question is not:
“What does the Bible claim?”

The question is:
“How do we know those claims are true?”

Appealing to verses about blindness or darkness assumes the conclusion you must first justify.

5. “Clear Warning Is Mercy”

You argue that warning plus consequences justifies the structure.

But warnings only function morally if:

• The authority issuing them is clearly authenticated.
• The consequences are clearly verified.
• The recipient has reasonable access to understanding.

If eternal stakes are involved, ambiguity becomes morally significant.

Infinite punishment magnifies the burden of clarity.

It does not reduce it.

6. “You Must Be Open” vs. “You Are Closed”

You state:

You must be objectively open when seeking the truth.

Agreed.

But openness does not mean presupposing the truth of the claim.

A Muslim could say:
“You must be open to the Qur’an.”

A Hindu could say:
“You must be open to the Vedas.”

Openness is not the same as prior commitment.

If evidence only appears after belief, that is circular.

7. Eternal Judgment Does Not Solve the Problem

You argue consequences make warning meaningful.

But consequences do not establish truth.

If someone claims:
“Believe this or suffer eternally,”

the threat increases the need for verification.
It does not substitute for it.

Severity increases epistemic responsibility.

8. “Taking the Text at Its Word Is Objective Confirmation”

This is the most revealing claim.

Taking a text at its word is not objective confirmation.

It is blind acceptance.

Every religion has sacred texts.
They contradict each other and scientific knowledge.
They all claim divine origin.

Without an independent verification method, “taking it at its word” cannot distinguish truth from error.

9. The Core Issue Remains Unanswered

The fundamental question has not changed:

If an all-powerful, perfectly loving being desires universal relationship and obedience,
why rely on:

• ancient texts
• translation chains
• fallible scribes
• disputed canon formation
• interpretive traditions

instead of universally accessible, unmistakable communication?

You respond:
“It is clear.”

But the global evidence shows it is not clear in the way gravity is clear.
Not clear in the way pain is clear.
Not clear in the way sunlight is clear.

10. This Is Not Hatred of God

You say moral disagreement equals hatred.

That only works if the existence and nature of God are already established.

Questioning a claim is not hatred.
It is analysis.

Conclusion

Your reply ultimately rests on:

• Asserting revelation.
• Interpreting disagreement as rebellion.
• Quoting the text under dispute.
• Defining skepticism as blindness.

None of these address the epistemic structure of the problem.

The divide is not emotional.
It is methodological.

The question is not:
“Why don’t people accept revelation?”

The question is:
“How do we know that the Bible is true when it makes many extraordinary claims without providing evidence for those claims?”

That question remains unanswered.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to RBD in post #105]

You didn't resolve the issues I raised. You just assert that the Bible is true. That does not prove that the Bible is true.