Why God stopping the sun in the sky is utterly stupid.

Post Reply New Topic

Um...evidence, please? It seems to me you're operating under an anti-supernatural bias. The stories in the Bible are only false if there is no God. Science, that being a purely human-oriented look at the natural universe, is ill-equipped to observe anything above the physical universe. A naturalist view can detect God by establishing what is and what is not physically possible, ergo when impossible things happen it is likely God's hand is in it. If someone really saw something out of the ordinary, it doesn't make sense to tell that person they didn't see anything. It is illogical to call someone a liar because prejudice dictates there is no God.

Besides, everyone knows that not ALL of the Bible is intended literally. The psalms are poems/songs, and other books have obvious references to things that are purely symbolic of other things. Listing the kings and describing their reigns as either in line with God's righteousness or in defiance to it (and even referencing other sources that were verifiable at the time) isn't an attempt at fine story-telling. Beyond the accounts of Saul/David/Solomon, Kings and Chronicles are tough books to get through.

God (it It exists at all) just might be nothing or very little like the vengeful being that old Hebrew beduins wrote about. God could exist and the bible still be a fairy tale..

ruveyn

Last edited by ruveyn on 08 Oct 2012, 1:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

That is not how one typically determines the truth. First find proof that such a thing did happen and then discuss how it could of been possible. Remember that if the only such "evidence" is in the bible, it doesn't count. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Otherwise, so far the best and simplest explanation is that it didn't happen at all, it's a made up story.

So it's acceptable to be prejudiced against the Bible? That doesn't seem very scientific to me, imposing personal biases against a historical document.

Also, what "extraordinary claims"? To a Christian, it isn't extraordinary that God has the power to stop the earth from moving, nor is it extraordinary that God can work through the timing of the universe He created to get the same effect. Remember, the Bible never says the earth stopped rotating. From a land-based perspective, the earth's rotation isn't immediately detectable. So what the Israelites saw could have been anything from a disruption of space-time (though I don't see how), to a total suspension of the laws of physics, to a mass altered state of consciousness.

I mean, you don't get to say that just because the Bible says something, it's impossible. The Bible describes Jerusalem, other places in Israel and Judah, and other places in the Middle East. The Bible says those places exist. Does that mean they don't exist? When I hear something on the news about something that happened in Jerusalem, is that all fiction, too?

I think you're both misunderstanding what Jono said and how 'extraordinary claims' are defined. Lemme jump back on this Merry-Go-Round and see if I can't educate you on this go:

So, 'extraordinary claim'. It doesn't mean 'claim that violates the currently understood natural order', though it can. Most typically, it means a claim about something improbable or that doesn't match current evidence (for example, claiming that the city-state of Troy really existed as it was depicted in the Illiad would be an extraordinary claim, because the current body of evidence suggests that it was much smaller). Likewise, claims of supernatural events are normally considered extraordinary claims because they're either made in the absence of evidence or in direct contravention of available evidence. If any part of that explanation is unclear, please, let me know.

Now, history is much like science in that it thrives on peer review and the ability to prove a claim from multiple sources or experiments. The reason the Bible isn't accepted as a 'historical document' is that not all of its statements are verifiable or match up with other equally-ancient sources. It is a source and has served as a useful jumping-off point for enterprising archaeologists and believers alike, but it's not universally trustworthy. Many of its claims - in this case, the sun stopping in the sky - are only verified by the Bible itself, which makes them unreliable not because the Bible said it but because you can't use a source to verify itself. Historians don't accept them out of hand because of an absence of collaborating evidence. Not every event in the Bible that can be classified as 'supernatural' is like this, though - for example, there's more than one culture that claims a global flood, and there's many sources claiming the presence (and then subsequent absence) of a 'bright star' around the time we can approximate the birth of Christ.

In this particular case, though, only the Bible makes the claim. No other culture has an event like this, nor do events that could be classed as similar (such as the sun vanishing into a cave in Shinto legend) have a similar timeframe. With no fashion of interviewing witnesses or checking the event for veracity, history must then state that there's insufficient evidence to support the claim and then subsequently discount it until or unless other sources (or physical evidence) can be found.

Does that make sense?

While it may not equate to accurate scientific knowledge of what happened, the observations of the event isn't as likely to shift over time because it was written about when it happened by people that actually observed the event. This isn't simply a matter of being passed down from one generation to the next via verbal storytelling, the Jewish people had a written language at the time and thus we have to take into account that is rather likely they accurately recorded what they observed.

Not necessarily true. For example, it could've been written by someone chronicling second or even third-hand sources. It could've been written well after the event, and for that matter there's always the possibility that the event itself was fabricated. Them having a written language doesn't certify or even suggest veracity, any more than modern humans having a written language does.

The problem with that argument is that they didn't exactly have a printing press, or any other means of mass producing written works. Writing down some random story someone made up on the spur of the moment is unlikely, if it was an epic story that used to be verbally passed down, then yeah; but when the event in question took place, the Jewish people had a rather strong written tradition... The fact the Book of Genesis even included material information and dimensions of various items, strongly indicates that the Jewish people had a strong tradition of writing things down even then.

According to the Book of Exodus, God instructed Moses on Mount Sinai during his 40-day stay upon the mountain within the thick cloud and darkness where God was (Ex. 19:20; 24:18) and he was shown the pattern for the tabernacle and furnishings of the Ark to be made of shittim-wood to house the Tablets of Stone. Moses instructed Bezalel and Oholiab to construct the Ark (Exodus 31).[10]

The Book of Exodus gives detailed instructions on how the Ark is to be constructed. It is to be 2½ cubits in length, 1½ in breadth, and 1½ in height (as 21⁄2×11⁄2×11⁄2 royal cubits or 1.31×0.79×0.79 m, or 4.29 × 2.59 × 2.59 feet). Then it is to be plated entirely with gold, and a crown or molding of gold is to be put around it. Four rings of gold are to be attached to its four feet—two on each side—and through these rings staves of shittim-wood overlaid with gold for carrying the Ark are to be inserted; and these are not to be removed.[11] A golden cover, adorned with golden cherubim, is to be placed above the Ark. The Ark is finally to be placed behind a veil (Parochet), a full description of which is also given.[12]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ark_of_the_Covenant

That's a little too detailed for a made up religious item.

Maybe it was a sundog.

In the arctic/antarctic polar regions they get ice chrystals in the high atmosphere that can reflect the sun ( or the moon) after the sun (or the moon) have gone below the horizon resulting in a Sundog (or moondog)- a false image of the disk of light in the sky when it aint there.

UFO' s often turn out to have been misaprehended sundogs or moondogs.

Maybe there was a freak occurance of atomospheric ice in the lower middle latitudes of the Mediterranean Levant during this battle that made it look like the Sun was loitering around in the sky longer than it supposed to. So the earth didnt have to stop spinning.

Just thought Id throw a little more gasoline into the fire.

Improbable according to who? Supernatural claims are improbable in a purely naturalist worldview. Natural observation isn't equipped to observe supernatural events. Divine intervention isn't naturally falsifiable because you can't put God in a test tube, shake it up, and see what comes out. You can't subject God to human will and continually recreate conditions in which you'd know God would intervene in any kind of reproducible way since that violates God's character. By His nature, He can't become inferior to human beings. So if you're going to "test" God or explore God's nature and character, you have to go beyond science to do so. Philosophy and religion are generally good places to answer those kinds of questions.

If God exists, supernatural events aren't improbable at all. Or if they are, at least they're not IMPLAUSIBLE.

And certainly not extraordinary. It's only when you take a biased view of the Bible and say, "nope, couldn't have happened" that it even appears unlikely. It's only extraordinary if the supernatural is dismissed without evidence that it should be dismissed.

What it really boils down to is goalpost-moving. Given the textual reliability of the Bible, as a historical document it's pretty strong evidence. Demanding unreasonably strong evidence, or "extraordinary evidence," is fallacious reasoning. How do I know if I could produce what you consider "extraordinary evidence" you wouldn't just say, "nope, still not good enough" simply because you dislike what that would mean? If you don't want to accept any claim, you're not going to.

Did you entirely miss the rest of my post, Angel?

Look, people aren't discriminating against the Bible or, rather, the academic community at large isn't. The trouble is, again, that you cannot use a source - ANY SOURCE - to verify itself. Where's the collaborating evidence? Where's the other cultures that witnessed this event? Such testimony is nonexistent.

The thing is, there's a lot of writings, both ancient and modern, that claim supernatural intervention. What the academic community is doing is treating the Bible just like it treats all of those other writings. Yes, if you assume the God of Abraham exists then the story becomes extremely plausible - but the assumption that God exists is not automatically granted. It's a theory that's put on equal ground with all others, tested for supporting evidence, and then modified or dismissed (in this case, mostly dismissed) academically based on that evidence or lack thereof.

Now, before we get into a gigantic row about what constitutes evidence for God's existence, I must ask - what about other writings that mix historical elements with supernatural claims? Histories by Herodotus references real events and people right alongside griffons and dragons - should we assume that griffons and dragons are real because he spoke about real events? What about the Prose and Poetic Eddas? The Aenad? The story of Oedipus? Roman accounts of dog-headed cannibals? All of these writings combine historical elements (Atilla the Hun, the founding of Rome, Greek history in general, city-states such as Thebes) with supernatural elements (magical she-wolves, gods of various kinds, valkyries, etc). Being able to verify some of those claims does not automatically make the others valid - and the Bible is treated in the exact same fashion. Yes, many things written in the Bible are both verifiable and verified. Others have been disproven pretty comprehensively and only remain 'valid' in the eyes of believers.

If you want to believe in something on faith alone, fine, then by all means. But please, stop attempting to distort the academic process in order to somehow justify that belief.

Or maybe the Jews don't exist and the universe is created by God 5 minutes ago.
If 'God' can make everything happen then you may well believe anything and explain away any reason against it.


Just your ignorance. In fact evidence is AGAINST the existence of Gibbon at that time.


Because people can write down what they see therefore everything they is what they see? Fail.


Read 'The Bible Unearthed'.

Good title. Maybe the Bible should be reburied. Along with the Q'ran and other "holy" books.

ruveyn

Not only that, but what the hell ever happened to "thou shalt not kill?" God says don't kill, and then he makes the day last longer so someone can commit genocide? DOES NOT COMPUTE. God is a hypocrite.

It's because Yahweh probably thought this way was more fun. Yahweh just LOVES blood.

I think we need to introduce a new "law of debate" which is formulated roughly as:

RA+1 (Rational argument + 1) which is the answer to the question, how many ad hoc explanations can a religious person find to justify his or her delusion? So, technically that means that religious people are the perpetual motion machines of ad hoc explanations. I suppose God suspended the law of thermodynamics to allow it.