The Day The Earth Stood Still

[BeHereNow]

Myles, here is your evidence:

Joshua 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.


Now where is your counter evidence it did not happen?

~ ~ ~ ~


Snakelord, I will deal with you later.

 

[Enmos]

A bible quote is not evidence.

 

[SnakeLord]

Yes it is. It's evidence that people can write.

 

[Enmos]

Yes it is. It's evidence that people can write.

lol you got me..

 

[Cris]

BeHereNow

Joshua 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.


Now where is your counter evidence it did not happen?

This is not evidence but an unsupported claim. If you make a claim then the onus is entirely on you to support that claim. You are not free to present any imaginative fantasy and expect everyone else to prove you wrong.

 

[Myles]

Stand by for another broadside of drivel !

 

[Lori_7]

Lori,

The latter part is fine “why are the laws what they are?”, but the first part is a theists attempt to answer the question assuming there is no other natural answer, i.e. a god made the laws. But that doesn’t help very much since then, if we assume, as you state, that everything has an explanation, then how do we explain a god and how did such a thing originate, etc.

With the invention of a god concept to answer the how of natural laws we simply haven’t progressed. Questions are raised as to how did he do it and why didn’t he do it differently.

The question of “why” is perhaps a red herring. The assumption is that everything has a purpose and that there is intent behind why the universe exists and the way it is. But why make that assumption? Why does there have to be a “why”?

If we look closer at the history of science we note that its findings take us to smaller and smaller component objects until we have the latest concept of string theory; that everything that exists is composed of combinations of these fundamental components. One could then ask the question of why these fundamentals exist and why they behave the way they do, but then that is the same question we would ask of a why a god would exist and why it behaves the way it is claimed.

The two alternatives of “how”, (1) fundamental particles or (2) a god, imply one of two extremes, ultimate simplicity or ultimate complexity. Ultimate simplicity suggests that everything can be explained through using basic building blocks to build any degree of complexity, and the issue of “why” is redundant. I.e. this is the way the universe operates and no further explanation is needed. If we choose ultimate complexity (a god) as the origin of “how” then we are left with how would something so vastly complex ever come into existence etc, and why would it create the universe the way it is? I.e. to offer a god as an explanation of how and why answers neither question.

I think it more that atheists would say that the “why” doesn’t exist and isn’t needed, and that theists simply claim it is all magic and label that magic god. Which is what you have done, correct?

no, i don't see that as what i've done. maybe the question should be, "what is god?" and maybe it all comes down to a matter of respect. we as humans certainly don't seem to have much do we? and that causes our sickness and suffering and ultimate demise. one of my friends was explaining what he was familiar with in regards to string theory once, and he wrapped it up by saying that einstein had said, that he wasn't sure which was which, but he thought, that one was good, and one was bad. and with that i exclaimed, "strings are good and circles are bad! strings are good and circles are bad!" it's like, you eventually get to the same place but you can take the easy or the hard way.

reminds me of the isrealites going around that mountain for 40 years...maybe of reincarnation...to keep doing the same thing over again til you get it right.

 

[Myles]

Myles, here is your evidence:

Joshua 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.


Now where is your counter evidence it did not happen?

~ ~ ~ ~


Snakelord, I will deal with you later.

That is not evidence; it's just something someone wrote in a book. Why should I believe it ?

BTW the sun standing still would entail the earth ceasing to rotate on its axis,

The moon standing still is another matter. If the moon stopped orbiting the earth, it would spiral in toward us. These things were not known to whoever wrote the book, but you should know better,

 

[Cris]

Hi Lori,

maybe the question should be, "what is god?"

Traditional religionists define their gods through their scriptures, although the details always remain significantly vague. But you do not follow those religions and scriptures, yours is an independent personal story. Yet I suspect you have absorbed the god concept from others as part of your perspective.

So are you able to answer your own question, what is your god?

I was raised in a country where religious teaching was mandated by law to be taught throughout school life. I participated in daily acts of worship until the age of 16. Throughout that time and of course beyond I have persistently considered the question ‘what is a god’.

The answer seems to be fairly simple – a god is defined by people who need answers to answerable fundamental questions about their existence, their emotions, and environment, but do not have the patience to wait for objective answers. I.e. in the absence of real data we are going to take a guess that satisfies what we perceive and what we want. It is this need to have satisfactory answers that drives human imagination to create ideas about gods. There is nothing beyond that that indicates that gods might or could be real.

and maybe it all comes down to a matter of respect. we as humans certainly don't seem to have much do we?

Mutual respect for diverse peoples, with different beliefs, races, color, etc? It seems to depend on where you live. In my community here in California I am surrounded by everyone from all over the world. I manage a team of 12 people who originate from 8 different countries. And we all recognize this vast diversity and make it work. Perhaps it is different to where you live.

The only real conflicts I see frequently are in these forums, especially on religion. The real world, at least my part of it, appears to be different.

and that causes our sickness and suffering and ultimate demise.

No, those issues are because we exist within fragile biological bodies that age and decay.

 

[glaucon]

Priceless! ! ! !
You have made my point marvelously.

Given that this is a forum for discussion, feel free to extrapolate.

 

[BeHereNow]

SnakeLord What you 'already explained' was wrong. The amount of believers something has is absolutely inconsequential and besides the point to it being a consideration of science. Whether it has 1 believer or 2 billion changes nothing. Once you understand that this can progress.

Previous: "There is no god" is no more of a scientific premise than "there are no invisible aliens on planet Warglebop", the question is merely one of where such things fit into the realm of science.

Scientific premises are based on what people believe or assume to be true.
Of course there is never proof for them, but often there is convincing scientific evidence, and sometimes they are just suppositions, things that seem to be real, or have a likelyhood of being real. They are never based on imaginary things that no individuals believe to be true.

If 60 percent of NYC reported seeing a flying saucer, and it was obvious that they were all sincere, Scientists would soon be busy formally and informally making premises about what might be happening. Mass hysteria?; LSD in the drinking water?; ergot in the rye bread?; or an actual flying saucer?

Premises are made of the stuff individuals believe, not imaginary stuff.

You try to insinuate that god is imaginary stuff, because that is your belief system and you are not open minded.

Evidence that is offered is not even considered.
You say you recognize that there are other belief systems.
Do you have any respect for them?
Do you have any evidence yours is superior to the others?

Let us agree with andbna, and say science has no premises ”
Everyone has been trying to tell you that because you started a thread with the sentence:

"The first premise of that process referred to as Science, is that there is no god"

That you now disagree with yourself is at least one small step in the right direction.

This is called agreeing for the sake of the argument. It speeds things up. I have not changed my position, I only say, so what, who cares, lets get to the real point.
I’m sure you wouldn’t mind that. Let’s get to the heart of the matter.

If science can prove nothing, it is not impossible for the earth to have stood still. It is truly possible.

If you say science can prove this did not happen, make your case. It should be easier than proving there is a god to an atheist.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Enmos A bible quote is not evidence.

Why?

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Cris This is not evidence but an unsupported claim. If you make a claim then the onus is entirely on you to support that claim. You are not free to present any imaginative fantasy and expect everyone else to prove you wrong.

Well, of course I offer no proof, not even science can do that.
I can only offer evidence.

First, we know it is possible, that is to say, there exists no proof it did not happen, or could not happen.

There is also the strong evidence that so many individuals have believed it to be true. Now we know an appeal to numbers is a fallacious proof, I do not offer this as proof, only evidence.

If 60 per cent of the people believe George Bush is a good president, this is certainly not proof, but it is some measure of evidence. It might easily be shown to be a false representation of his abilities, but it is still evidence.

When a majority of a society believe something is true, it is evidence to consider. Not proof, never. That would be a fallacy. Convincing evidence, sometimes.

A Fallacy does not mean something is false, it merely means something is not proven true.
I do not say this to you, but to some of our younger lurkers who may not realize that.

They are not as well versed in the logical arts as yourself.

My claim is supported by any reasonable consideration of what evidence can be considered.
It is recounted in a book known for much historical, geologically, genealogically, and other information, by secular and religious scholars.

I do not expect you to find it convincing, judging from your comments. It is of course convincing to many individuals. Of course that does not make it true, anymore than your belief it did not happen makes that true.

There is a truth as to whether it happened or not, and you have one belief you cannot prove. You may play the odds, but you have no sure winner.

Others have their beliefs, and they can not prove it to others, although for themselves, they have no doubt.

For those who might consider the conviction of a belief to be some evidence, what you would believe cannot be proven, other believe with a conviction you can only imagine.

I assume you agree with the conventional wisdom of the regulars on this board who say there is no proof by the process of science, of any truth.
If you disagree with them, please present your position.



~ ~ ~ ~ ~

glaucon Given that this is a forum for discussion, feel free to extrapolate.

My apologies, I should have explained.

glaucon]/b] The first premiss of science is that events are predictable.
Later you say Furthermore, there is no assumption of predictability; merely the possibility that we may characterize events as predictable. Admittedly, the difference is subtle; I can understand if you find it difficult.

See, first you say it is a premise of science that events are predictable.
A premise is an assumption of the truth of an idea. You are saying the first assumption of science is that events are predictable, then you say there is no assumption of predictibility.

If you assume events are predictable (as you state in your first quote), how could you not have an assumption of predictability?
These are contradictory beliefs, unless you have another explanation.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

myles That is not evidence; it's just something someone wrote in a book. Why should I believe it?

Do you have a rule to never believe what you read in books, or just this particular book?

If just this particular book, why?
It has been shown to have a lot of accuracy historically, geologically, genealogically, geographically, especially considering it’s age. Some people also put spiritual meaning to much of it, but that would be another matter.

As books go, it is a common reference book for millions of persons. If one had am open mind, it seems such a book might be at least considered as evidence. The strength of it would of course be variable among individuals.
To say that it is, out of hand, “just something someone wrote in a book”, not acceptable evidence, seems to me to be counter to common sense, ot reasonableness.

Surely a good explanation is order as to why you will not even consider such a valuable reference book as some measure of evidence. I consider that an extraordinary claim.

BTW the sun standing still would entail the earth ceasing to rotate on its axis,

The moon standing still is another matter. If the moon stopped orbiting the earth, it would spiral in toward us. These things were not known to whoever wrote the book, but you should know better,

You have me confused.
Is it your claim that you have scientific proof this could not have happened?

Now that is an extraordinary claim. The conventional wisdom on this particular board is that science can prove nothing. If you are telling me you go against the regulars on this board, I think a very good explanation is in order.
I believe I understand their position well, and will be glad to defend it against any argument you are willing to present. We can be sure they will be in the wings to correct me and guide me.

If you are merely saying this would be a difficult thing indeed, with little likelihood of ever happening, certainly I will agree. The fact that it is such an unusual event would certainly make it memorable.

Of course it is possible it is an allegory, or other fable.

We both know the bible is a respected reference book among educated men.
Does it prove anything scientifically? Of course not.
Does it prove anything to those of Biblical belief systems, who are sometimes at odds with those of the Scientific-atheist belief system? Yes, of course.

Now if you can prove your belief system is more accurate than theirs, we might have reason to accept your beliefs.
Even such strong beliefs that you claim that the Bible is not a suitable reference book on the history of the Jewish people and the events that shaped thier lives.
Your belief system is no better than theirs, unless you can show otherwise.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

 

[glaucon]

See, first you say it is a premise of science that events are predictable.
A premise is an assumption of the truth of an idea. You are saying the first assumption of science is that events are predictable, then you say there is no assumption of predictibility.

If you assume events are predictable (as you state in your first quote), how could you not have an assumption of predictability?
These are contradictory beliefs, unless you have another explanation.

To begin, you haven't answered my question: how is it that this then 'makes your point' for you???

In any case, you've misunderstood. A premiss is granted a priori status in a functional sense, i.e., simply to service the argument in question. It says nothing whatsoever concerning any actual state of affairs. Regardless, you're misconstruing the concept of predictability: in negative terms, the assumption of predictability means the denial of total chaos (epistemologically). So, while we do assume that we can describe our reality in terms of predictability, this does not entail that anything can in fact be predicted. There is a disctinct difference between an event and one's conception of it. As I said, the difference is subtle.

 

[SnakeLord]

You try to insinuate that god is imaginary stuff, because that is your belief system and you are not open minded.

I am open minded enough to recognise that there might be some god entity, and open minded enough to recognise that it might be any of the millions of named gods or one currently unnamed. You, the theist however, assert that it is only the god that you believe in that is true so who are you claiming is not open minded?

I recognise that this planet could have formed naturally, or aliens made it, or gods made it, we're actually living in the matrix, or we're just the dream of some weird invisible flying space pancake. I recognise a billion possibilities, you refuse to recognise more than one, the one you assert is true without argument. Who are you claiming is not open minded?

Please, the smell of your post is annoying.

Btw, which god is it we're talking about? How can you assert that I say it's imaginary when we haven't even established which particular god it is? I'm a big fan of Thor I'll have you know.

Evidence that is offered is not even considered.

You're talking nonsense, plain and simple. What "evidence" do you claim has been offered and not considered? Oh wait.. "it says in this book". If you cannot work out why a book is not evidence of anything other than that humans have the ability to write then we're never going to get very far at all.

You argue that "the bible has lots of historical things in it", which is true even of Harry Potter and Interview with the vampire and is to be expected from most written works.

You say you recognize that there are other belief systems.
Do you have any respect for them?

Depends in which context you mean it. I respect that an individual or group of people can believe any old shit they want to. I do not respect it when they knock on my door, damn me to hell, force it upon myself and my children, don't pay taxes like the rest of us, and go around killing innocent bystanders in the name of the shit they believe.

Do you have any evidence yours is superior to the others?

My what?

If science can prove nothing, it is not impossible for the earth to have stood still. It is truly possible.

It's "truly possible" that toys come to life when nobody is looking as well, but I personally think you'd have to be a bit of a twat to give it too much in the way of serious consideration. However, like I said, you can believe any old nonsense you like - nobody here is preventing you from doing so. But if you would like to present it as a serious case, then you're going to need to substantiate it with something, (no pal, not an old book).

If you say science can prove this did not happen, make your case.

I'll entertain the notion when you provide something of substance to suggest it did.

 

[Lori_7]

Hi Lori,

Traditional religionists define their gods through their scriptures, although the details always remain significantly vague. But you do not follow those religions and scriptures, yours is an independent personal story. Yet I suspect you have absorbed the god concept from others as part of your perspective.

well, i'm vaguely familiar with what it says in the scriptures, albeit i'm no bible thumper for sure. the way it's worked for me in the past is that he'll take an experience that i've had, and then later i'll randomly hear, or be reminded of a scripture that coincides with it. it seems to me that's backwards to the way most people approach scripture. most people read it, try to interpret it, then think they understand it. if you mean some long white-haired, bearded dude wielding thunder bolts from some throne in the sky, i'd have to say "no". it's not that i don't think he is what he says he is. i just think that we as human beings have a hard time interpreting what he says he is. we pick and choose what we want to believe about him, or envision him based on what could only be a very limited perspective. but then we often don't realize our limitations.

So are you able to answer your own question, what is your god?

i can say that he is the most important thing to me. i can say that i've given my life up to him out of trust. i can say that trust came from a relationship i have had with him. and that in the course of that relationship, he has shown me things about himself. i can say that he is NOT what i expected, given the exposure i've had to religion. i can also say that he IS who he says he is. it is a wonderous and torturous thing to know him. the life of your flesh dies to the life of your spirit. it hurts, and yet it heals at the same time. and you're given a new perspective that changes everything, and what you're looking at stays the same. it's not about doctrine. it's not about following rules. he is no dictator. he's like jesus...a loving and forgiving couselor...and that's what makes him a master. i can't define him, but i can tell you what i know of him.

I was raised in a country where religious teaching was mandated by law to be taught throughout school life. I participated in daily acts of worship until the age of 16. Throughout that time and of course beyond I have persistently considered the question ‘what is a god’.

did you conclude that he was the master of ceremonies in the big top circus?

The answer seems to be fairly simple – a god is defined by people who need answers to answerable fundamental questions about their existence, their emotions, and environment, but do not have the patience to wait for objective answers. I.e. in the absence of real data we are going to take a guess that satisfies what we perceive and what we want. It is this need to have satisfactory answers that drives human imagination to create ideas about gods. There is nothing beyond that that indicates that gods might or could be real.

i don't really care if i don't know everything or understand everything. i think that people are so hung up on having to be right about everything. i wanted to know the truth about whether he existed or not because i wanted to know the truth about whether he existed or not. trust me when i say that knowing him does NOT make you feel right about much of anything. but you do know.

Mutual respect for diverse peoples, with different beliefs, races, color, etc? It seems to depend on where you live. In my community here in California I am surrounded by everyone from all over the world. I manage a team of 12 people who originate from 8 different countries. And we all recognize this vast diversity and make it work. Perhaps it is different to where you live.

The only real conflicts I see frequently are in these forums, especially on religion. The real world, at least my part of it, appears to be different.

No, those issues are because we exist within fragile biological bodies that age and decay.

i'm talking about respect for ourselves, and our planet. a difference between considering it ours to abuse, or his, to cherish as a precious gift and privilege to take care of. in a general and global sense, we human beings do not take care of ourselves, or each other, or our planet very well. and the effects are easy to see. we abuse ourselves, each other, and our resources, because of sin. most of us are slaves to it and enslaved by it, and are suffering because of it. and most of us don't have a problem with it. we can't envision another way. i think that the potential that's wasted is sad, and i honestly think that if there were no sin in the world, that we would all live forever. it's idealistic.

 

[Myles]

BeHereNow,

To understand what woul happen if the moon stopped moving, think of how a space shuttle returns to earth. If you don't know this in 2008, there is no point in my explaining the associated physics

 

[BeHereNow]

glauconSo, while we do assume that we can describe our reality in terms of predictability, this does not entail that anything can in fact be predicted. There is a disctinct difference between an event and one's conception of it. As I said, the difference is subtle.

I see you have subtly changed the wording of our comment.
In the first case you refer to events being predictable (I take this to be reality).
You now say it was not reality you were referring to, but rather our reality, pointing out the subjective nature of scientific observation. You draw a distinction between what actually occurs, and how we perceive and later describe it. We assume predictability, based on out subjective observation.
We know in fact that all of this might be mistaken, because we viewed not reality, but our reality.

You say there is a subtle difference, but to me it is difference.
For future reference, when there are subtle differences that you consider critical, it is helpful to make that clear, in your opening statement.
When you say “events are predictable”, I am most likely to take it you mean “events are predictable”,
when you actually mean, “in our view events are predictable, but in reality we do not know this”, as this does not entail that anything can in fact be predicted.
Very confusing, but you have explained yourself.


~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~


SnakeLord

At least you have given up this claim that imaginary things no one believes in, have equal status with things the majority of individuals believe in. At least you have failed to respond.

I am open minded enough to recognise that there might be some god entity, and open minded enough to recognise that it might be any of the millions of named gods or one currently unnamed. You, the theist however, assert that it is only the god that you believe in that is true so who are you claiming is not open minded?

I recognise that this planet could have formed naturally, or aliens made it, or gods made it, we're actually living in the matrix, or we're just the dream of some weird invisible flying space pancake. I recognise a billion possibilities, you refuse to recognise more than one, the one you assert is true without argument. Who are you claiming is not open minded?

You put belief in invisible bananas on a par with belief in god.
You see this as open minded.
Well, at least now I have a better understanding about what you consider open minded.
You recognize the beliefs of others as fanciful imagination, where I recognize other belief systems equal in value to my own.
I argue for them as if they were my own. I defend them as if they were my own.
My position is I may disagee with you, but I defend your right to your beliefs.
Your position is You can believe any malarkey you want, just do not claim it has any truth.
In your open minded view, these are equivalent.

Btw, which god is it we're talking about? How can you assert that I say it's imaginary when we haven't even established which particular god it is? I'm a big fan of Thor I'll have you know.

I have continually referred to the Biblical belief system, and yet you are confused about which god I am defending.
What is this “big fan” feeling you have. In the context seems to mean you have a belief in the reality of Thor. This certainly contradicts the majority of your posts.

If you cannot work out why a book is not evidence of anything other than that humans have the ability to write then we're never going to get very far at all.

So you have no acceptance of evidence presented in books. You must have been a joy to teach. It would be interesting to know if you finished the sixth grade. All of those books with no evidence of anything but the ability for someone to write.
Perhaps you didn’t develop this unusual belief until you at least got a high school degree.

You argue that "the bible has lots of historical things in it", which is true even of Harry Potter and Interview with the vampire and is to be expected from most written works.[/b]There you go again, displaying your particular form of open mindedness, comparing Harry Potter books with the Bible, suggesting they are equivalent in the use by individuals for gaining truth.

I respect that an individual or group of people can believe any old shit they want to.

I see. And if you called your father an old shit, would that also be a display of respect for him?
Where I come from, when we say someone is full of shit, we are not showing respect. This must be a localized custom in your part of the world.
But, may be I have the context wrong.

My what?

My, what a low level of reading for content. Probably comes from your distrust of books.

Here is my quote:
BHN: You say you recognize that there are other belief systems.
Do you have any respect for them?
Do you have any evidence yours is superior to the others?

When I say “Do you have any evidence yours is superior to the others?”, I am refereeing to the subject in the previous lines, that of belief systems.

I understand you confusion, and unwillingness to answer the querry.
I’m sure you still do not understand, so let me reword it:
Do you have any evidence your belief system is superior to others?
If you are still confused, I will be glad to go into more detail. Confusion is not a good thing.

It's "truly possible" that toys come to life when nobody is looking as well, but I personally think you'd have to be a bit of a twat to give it too much in the way of serious consideration. However, like I said, you can believe any old nonsense you like - nobody here is preventing you from doing so. But if you would like to present it as a serious case, then you're going to need to substantiate it with something, (no pal, not an old book).

Here you go again equating fanciful imaginations of children with the firm convictions of rational adults.
You fail to see the difference between what other believe as true, and what no one believes as true.

From your posts it is clear there are two beliefs, yours which is true, and all the remainder that is the equivalent of invisible bananas or old shit.

I'll entertain the notion when you provide something of substance to suggest it did.

When the beliefs of all others is any old shit, it is clear the only evidence you will accept is your own.
Be a man and admit it, or explain yourself.
You can of course, run and hide.

 

[BeHereNow]

mylesTo understand what woul happen if the moon stopped moving, think of how a space shuttle returns to earth. If you don't know this in 2008, there is no point in my explaining the associated physics.

You are so vague.
You have no proof the earth did not stand still for a day. That much is clear.
You do show it is unlikely, and I have never denied that.
Rare events are, by definition, unlikely.

 

[SnakeLord]

At least you have given up this claim that imaginary things no one believes in, have equal status with things the majority of individuals believe in. At least you have failed to respond.

1) What have I apparently failed to respond to?

2) You have a case... the day 'truth' is determined by how many people believe in it. Unfortunately for you that is not currently the case but that you keep arguing it shows a serious lack of understanding.

There was a time when nobody believed the earth was round, and indeed believing so would have been ridiculed - but that there were no believers had absolutely no say on what was actually true. Why you keep thinking it does is quite bizarre.

You put belief in invisible bananas on a par with belief in god.

Until you can establish a difference between the two that isn't fallacious, (i.e more believers = more true), you're in a bit of a pickle.

So you have no acceptance of evidence presented in books. You must have been a joy to teach. It would be interesting to know if you finished the sixth grade. All of those books with no evidence of anything but the ability for someone to write.

A book is not evidence, a book is a claim. The "evidence" comes in the form of undertaking that which the book states, (testing the claims the book makes).

Example: A book states that there was a town called Sodom in a certain region. That is a claim. An archaeologist then goes and looks for it. That is evidence gathering.

A book can never be considered 'evidence', it is merely a claim.

You're concerned that I never finished school, I'm concerned that you never started.

There you go again, displaying your particular form of open mindedness, comparing Harry Potter books with the Bible, suggesting they are equivalent in the use by individuals for gaining truth.

Both Harry Potter and the bible cannot be considered 'evidence' - even though both contain accurate data, (historical etc). That was your claim, I have merely showed you the stupidity of it.

You have made 2 main arguments:

1) Something is true only if loads of people believe in it.

2) The bible is true because it contains some factual data, (geographical locations etc).

Both arguments are complete and utter nonsense, (although quite common for the theist debating newcomer).

Where I come from, when we say someone is full of shit, we are not showing respect. This must be a localized custom in your part of the world.

Where did I say anyone was full of shit? I said anyone can believe any old shit they want, and they can. How do you equate one to the other?

My, what a low level of reading for content

Now, now. You want to start to behave before I bend you over my knee and give you a spanking.

Do you have any evidence your belief system is superior to others?

And my question: What belief system is that then?

Here you go again equating fanciful imaginations of children with the firm convictions of rational adults.

1) The stories of toys coming to life were written by "rational adults". If someone held the notion to be true, what evidence would you have to say otherwise, (this is your form of argument. I am the opposite espousing that the claimant needs to provide evidence, I'm just interested to see you contradict yourself).

2) Do be aware that even "rational adults" have irrational beliefs.

You fail to see the difference between what other believe as true, and what no one believes as true.

One has more believers. What other difference is there? Oh wait yeah.. the more believers = the more true.. bwahaha :bugeye:

From your posts it is clear there are two beliefs, yours which is true, and all the remainder that is the equivalent of invisible bananas or old shit.

You're projecting. Isn't it you that has a belief in one particular sky entity while dismissing invisible bananas etc as crap? Ah yes, it is. Lol.. silly boy.

When the beliefs of all others is any old shit, it is clear the only evidence you will accept is your own.

Nope, I'll take a look at any evidence you care to provide, (no my boy, a book is not evidence).

 

[Myles]

You are so vague.
You have no proof the earth did not stand still for a day. That much is clear.
You do show it is unlikely, and I have never denied that.
Rare events are, by definition, unlikely.

You also mentioned that the moon stayed. If it had stood still for a day, i.e., 24 hrs, we would not be here to talk about it. That would not be a rare event, but an imposssible one, given that we ARE still here. It's the moon's motion that keeps it in orbit.

How do you know it was a day ? The definition of a day is the time it takes for the earth to make a complete revolution on its axis, For the sun to stand still the earth would have to stop rotating on its axis, No rotation, no day !

There is an excuse for whoever wrote the book of Jasher because such things were not known in biblical times. There is no excuse for your ignorance, which would not be a problem if you did not make such ridiculous claims.

I can see what is coming; god can do anything he wants, including suspending the laws of physics. That answers every objection, or so you think.

I'll leave you with a reminder. You are making the claim. which puts the burden of proof on you. You may, of course, believe that god has changed a cardinal rule of rational debate for this this thread Another rare event !

 

[Enmos]

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Why?

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Why ?? Are you serious ? :bugeye:

Are you telling me that whatever anybody writes up in a book must be true ?
If the claim was also supported in that book with sound evidence then it would be eligible as evidence.