Hypothetical question for my fellow atheists

[Czernobog]

Oh, for ****'s sake! Are you incapable of any research for yourself?!?! The primitive root word, (qana') can mean zealous. The specific derivative - used in Ex 20:5 only has one meaning - Jealous!!! Again, if you are going to make claims about what the Bible "originally" did, and did not mean, please make certain that you understand how the original languages work!

Ahem, you are posting the incorrect english translation which you already admitted really should be zealous, not jealous. God is passionately devoted, not envious.


Who was it out there who wanted a righteous example about how to slaughter a he-goat "without blemish" for the expiation of sin?

There you go.

I admitted no such ******* thing! Post where I ever said the word was zealous!!!

Go back and read it yourself.

Even in the context of 20:5 Jealous is not the correct word. Zealous, like passionate is. Zealous has nothing whatever to do with envy. May you would punish out of jealously but thats just you.

Yes it is. קַנָּא (qanna) - the word used in Exodus, and translated as "jealous" IS. NOT. the same as the word קָנָא (qana'), which can, under certain circumstances be translated a zealous.

I made the two words in Hebrew as large as I could. Study them closely, and see if you can spot the difference that makes then two. Different. Words.

And, fateer this, don't presume to tell anyone what the Bible "originially meant", as you clearly have no understanding of how the original language in which the bible was written works!!!!

Torah means teaching. What is the teaching?

What leads to life if not understanding, what leads to death is not failing to understand?

You thinking that God is a petty tyrant rife with human flaws that makes you hate that God reflects more of a hatred of self than anything else..

If you read the same story and get the teaching that there are generational consequences in life for throwing your mind in the trash and adopting false beliefs and imitating degrading practices you won't be a dick about the subject.

Beware! for it is written, if you stay on Pleasure Island for too long, those donkey ears are there to stay.. (Pinocchio 3:14)

 

[hobelim]

Ahem, you are posting the incorrect english translation which you already admitted really should be zealous, not jealous. God is passionately devoted, not envious.


Who was it out there who wanted a righteous example about how to slaughter a he-goat "without blemish" for the expiation of sin?

There you go.

I admitted no such ******* thing! Post where I ever said the word was zealous!!!

Go back and read it yourself.

Even in the context of 20:5 Jealous is not the correct word. Zealous, like passionate is. Zealous has nothing whatever to do with envy. May you would punish out of jealously but thats just you.

Yes it is. קַנָּא (qanna) - the word used in Exodus, and translated as "jealous" IS. NOT. the same as the word קָנָא (qana'), which can, under certain circumstances be translated a zealous.

I made the two words in Hebrew as large as I could. Study them closely, and see if you can spot the difference that makes then two. Different. Words.

And, fateer this, don't presume to tell anyone what the Bible "originially meant", as you clearly have no understanding of how the original language in which the bible was written works!!!!

Torah means teaching. What is the teaching?

What leads to life if not understanding, what leads to death is not failing to understand?

You thinking that God is a petty tyrant rife with human flaws that makes you hate that God reflects more of a hatred of self than anything else..

If you read the same story and get the teaching that there are generational consequences in life for throwing your mind in the trash and adopting false beliefs and imitating degrading practices you won't be a dick about the subject.

Beware! for it is written, if you stay on Pleasure Island for too long, those donkey ears are there to stay.. (Pinocchio 3:14)

Now that you have been proven wrong, you're just babbling.

Thank you for playing. Do feel free to pick up your parting gifts on the way out.

You have proven nothing except that you can't understand the teaching of a bronze age fairy tale.

 

[Czernobog]

I admitted no such ******* thing! Post where I ever said the word was zealous!!!

Go back and read it yourself.

Even in the context of 20:5 Jealous is not the correct word. Zealous, like passionate is. Zealous has nothing whatever to do with envy. May you would punish out of jealously but thats just you.

Yes it is. קַנָּא (qanna) - the word used in Exodus, and translated as "jealous" IS. NOT. the same as the word קָנָא (qana'), which can, under certain circumstances be translated a zealous.

I made the two words in Hebrew as large as I could. Study them closely, and see if you can spot the difference that makes then two. Different. Words.

And, fateer this, don't presume to tell anyone what the Bible "originially meant", as you clearly have no understanding of how the original language in which the bible was written works!!!!

Torah means teaching. What is the teaching?

What leads to life if not understanding, what leads to death is not failing to understand?

You thinking that God is a petty tyrant rife with human flaws that makes you hate that God reflects more of a hatred of self than anything else..

If you read the same story and get the teaching that there are generational consequences in life for throwing your mind in the trash and adopting false beliefs and imitating degrading practices you won't be a dick about the subject.

Beware! for it is written, if you stay on Pleasure Island for too long, those donkey ears are there to stay.. (Pinocchio 3:14)

Now that you have been proven wrong, you're just babbling.

Thank you for playing. Do feel free to pick up your parting gifts on the way out.

You have proven nothing except that you can't understand the teaching of a bronze age fairy tale.

So says the guy who can't understand the language of the Bronze Age Fairy Tale. And why would you try to use that Bronze Age Fairy Tale to justify believe in a mythical God, if you think it is only a fairy tale?

 

[hobelim]

Go back and read it yourself.

Even in the context of 20:5 Jealous is not the correct word. Zealous, like passionate is. Zealous has nothing whatever to do with envy. May you would punish out of jealously but thats just you.

Yes it is. קַנָּא (qanna) - the word used in Exodus, and translated as "jealous" IS. NOT. the same as the word קָנָא (qana'), which can, under certain circumstances be translated a zealous.

I made the two words in Hebrew as large as I could. Study them closely, and see if you can spot the difference that makes then two. Different. Words.

And, fateer this, don't presume to tell anyone what the Bible "originially meant", as you clearly have no understanding of how the original language in which the bible was written works!!!!

Torah means teaching. What is the teaching?

What leads to life if not understanding, what leads to death is not failing to understand?

You thinking that God is a petty tyrant rife with human flaws that makes you hate that God reflects more of a hatred of self than anything else..

If you read the same story and get the teaching that there are generational consequences in life for throwing your mind in the trash and adopting false beliefs and imitating degrading practices you won't be a dick about the subject.

Beware! for it is written, if you stay on Pleasure Island for too long, those donkey ears are there to stay.. (Pinocchio 3:14)

Now that you have been proven wrong, you're just babbling.

Thank you for playing. Do feel free to pick up your parting gifts on the way out.

You have proven nothing except that you can't understand the teaching of a bronze age fairy tale.

So says the guy who can't understand the language of the Bronze Age Fairy Tale.

You already know that the book reflects the contemporary concerns of unknown editors over periods of centuries..


Even the OT itself, the stories of genesis and exodus leviticus, etc, reflect the differing traditions that had developed in the scattered tribes that were awkwardly woven together into its current form after the Babylonian exile.

The OT stories and their minor contradictions were edited and woven together, The NT left the stories about Jesus in their differing forms.

Thats why you have to think deeply to find the teaching, its hidden. The teaching is the point. Any jackass can point out the contradictions in a fairy tale. You have already dug a hole for yourself too deep to climb out of. You lack the honesty and humility required to rise to life.

Thats why you have nothing except one word to harp on which only reflects a quite understandable self loathing...

 

[Czernobog]

Yes it is. קַנָּא (qanna) - the word used in Exodus, and translated as "jealous" IS. NOT. the same as the word קָנָא (qana'), which can, under certain circumstances be translated a zealous.

I made the two words in Hebrew as large as I could. Study them closely, and see if you can spot the difference that makes then two. Different. Words.

And, fateer this, don't presume to tell anyone what the Bible "originially meant", as you clearly have no understanding of how the original language in which the bible was written works!!!!

Torah means teaching. What is the teaching?

What leads to life if not understanding, what leads to death is not failing to understand?

You thinking that God is a petty tyrant rife with human flaws that makes you hate that God reflects more of a hatred of self than anything else..

If you read the same story and get the teaching that there are generational consequences in life for throwing your mind in the trash and adopting false beliefs and imitating degrading practices you won't be a dick about the subject.

Beware! for it is written, if you stay on Pleasure Island for too long, those donkey ears are there to stay.. (Pinocchio 3:14)

Now that you have been proven wrong, you're just babbling.

Thank you for playing. Do feel free to pick up your parting gifts on the way out.

You have proven nothing except that you can't understand the teaching of a bronze age fairy tale.

So says the guy who can't understand the language of the Bronze Age Fairy Tale.

You already know that the book reflects the contemporary concerns of unknown editors over periods of centuries..


Even the OT itself, the stories of genesis and exodus leviticus, etc, reflect the differing traditions that had developed in the scattered tribes that were awkwardly woven together into its current form after the Babylonian exile.

The OT stories and their minor contradictions were edited and woven together, The NT left them in their differing forms.

Thats why you have to dig to find the teaching. The teaching is the point.

Thats why you have nothing except one word to harp on which only reflects a quite understandable self loathing.

That has nothing to do with it. I have demonstrated many failing of the bible. YOU chose to incorrectly claim that a specific passage of the bible "really means" something that it clearly does not. The only thing I did was expose your blatant ignorance of the Bible, and complete lack of understanding of the exegesis (if you don't know what that word means, look it up) of the Bible.

If you don't want people exposing your ignorance, don't display it with easily exposed untrue statements.

 

[hobelim]

Torah means teaching. What is the teaching?

What leads to life if not understanding, what leads to death is not failing to understand?

You thinking that God is a petty tyrant rife with human flaws that makes you hate that God reflects more of a hatred of self than anything else..

If you read the same story and get the teaching that there are generational consequences in life for throwing your mind in the trash and adopting false beliefs and imitating degrading practices you won't be a dick about the subject.

Beware! for it is written, if you stay on Pleasure Island for too long, those donkey ears are there to stay.. (Pinocchio 3:14)

Now that you have been proven wrong, you're just babbling.

Thank you for playing. Do feel free to pick up your parting gifts on the way out.

You have proven nothing except that you can't understand the teaching of a bronze age fairy tale.

So says the guy who can't understand the language of the Bronze Age Fairy Tale.

You already know that the book reflects the contemporary concerns of unknown editors over periods of centuries..


Even the OT itself, the stories of genesis and exodus leviticus, etc, reflect the differing traditions that had developed in the scattered tribes that were awkwardly woven together into its current form after the Babylonian exile.

The OT stories and their minor contradictions were edited and woven together, The NT left them in their differing forms.

Thats why you have to dig to find the teaching. The teaching is the point.

Thats why you have nothing except one word to harp on which only reflects a quite understandable self loathing.

That has nothing to do with it. I have demonstrated many failing of the bible. YOU chose to incorrectly claim that a specific passage of the bible "really means" something that it clearly does not. The only thing I did was expose your blatant ignorance of the Bible, and complete lack of understanding of thee exegesis of the Bible.

If you don't want people exposing your ignorance, don't display it with easily exposed lies.

Any jackass can point out the contradictions in a fairy tale.

congratulations.

but the fact remains, what bronze age nomads and first century peasants were teaching their children remains above your grasp..

 

[Czernobog]

Now that you have been proven wrong, you're just babbling.

Thank you for playing. Do feel free to pick up your parting gifts on the way out.

You have proven nothing except that you can't understand the teaching of a bronze age fairy tale.

So says the guy who can't understand the language of the Bronze Age Fairy Tale.

You already know that the book reflects the contemporary concerns of unknown editors over periods of centuries..


Even the OT itself, the stories of genesis and exodus leviticus, etc, reflect the differing traditions that had developed in the scattered tribes that were awkwardly woven together into its current form after the Babylonian exile.

The OT stories and their minor contradictions were edited and woven together, The NT left them in their differing forms.

Thats why you have to dig to find the teaching. The teaching is the point.

Thats why you have nothing except one word to harp on which only reflects a quite understandable self loathing.

That has nothing to do with it. I have demonstrated many failing of the bible. YOU chose to incorrectly claim that a specific passage of the bible "really means" something that it clearly does not. The only thing I did was expose your blatant ignorance of the Bible, and complete lack of understanding of thee exegesis of the Bible.

If you don't want people exposing your ignorance, don't display it with easily exposed lies.

Any jackass can point out the contradictions in a fairy tale.

congratulations.

but the fact remains, what bronze age nomads and first century peasants were teaching their children remains above your grasp..

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Oh, for ****'s sake! Are you incapable of any research for yourself?!?! The primitive root word, (qana') can mean zealous. The specific derivative - used in Ex 20:5 only has one meaning - Jealous!!! Again, if you are going to make claims about what the Bible "originally" did, and did not mean, please make certain that you understand how the original languages work!

Ahem, you are posting the incorrect english translation which you already admitted really should be zealous, not jealous. God is passionately devoted, not envious.


Who was it out there who wanted a righteous example about how to slaughter a he-goat "without blemish" for the expiation of sin?

There you go.

I admitted no such ******* thing! Post where I ever said the word was zealous!!!

Go back and read it yourself.

Even in the context of 20:5 Jealous is not the correct word. Zealous, like passionate is. Zealous has nothing whatever to do with envy. May you would punish out of jealously but thats just you.

Yes it is. קַנָּא (qanna) - the word used in Exodus, and translated as "jealous" IS. NOT. the same as the word קָנָא (qana'), which can, under certain circumstances be translated a zealous.

I made the two words in Hebrew as large as I could. Study them closely, and see if you can spot the difference that makes then two. Different. Words.

And, fateer this, don't presume to tell anyone what the Bible "originially meant", as you clearly have no understanding of how the original language in which the bible was written works!!!!

Torah means teaching. What is the teaching?

What leads to life if not understanding, what leads to death is not failing to understand?

You thinking that God is a petty tyrant rife with human flaws that makes you hate that God reflects more of a hatred of self than anything else..

If you read the same story and get the teaching that there are generational consequences in life for throwing your mind in the trash and adopting false beliefs and imitating degrading practices you won't be a dick about the subject.

Beware! for it is written, if you stay on Pleasure Island for too long, those donkey ears are there to stay.. (Pinocchio 3:14)

"You thinking that God is a petty tyrant rife with human flaws that makes you hate that God reflects more of a hatred of self than anything else.."


What an embarrassing , steaming pile of overwrought, dimestore psychology.

 

[Syriusly]

That would mean I have free will.

And you don't.

Nah, free will is an illusion.

Thinking that free will is an illusion- is an illusion.

hmm, no, it is, in fact, an illusion. You are not actually in conscious control of your choices. Now that we have figured out how to test this, we get the same results every single time.

That too is an illusion.

The empirical results are an illusion, eh? fascinating. Are you going to start waving a pocketwatch, and then ask me for $100?

i haven't seen any empirical results- all I have seen is your unsubstantiated claims- less substantial than even an illusion.

 

[Syriusly]

That would mean I have free will.

And you don't.

Nah, free will is an illusion.

Thinking that free will is an illusion- is an illusion.

hmm, no, it is, in fact, an illusion. You are not actually in conscious control of your choices. Now that we have figured out how to test this, we get the same results every single time.

That too is an illusion.

I'm beginning to think YOU are an illusion. Perhaps I should add you to my ignore list.

Oh I suspect you will.

Fools tend to run away from what they are afraid of.

 

[Syriusly]

So, I've a hypothetical for you guys that I am curious about. I maintain that my atheism is a premise, not a conclusion. When I say, "God does not exist", I am presenting a falsifiable premise that is only awaiting objective, verifiable evidence.

Now, with that in mind, let us say that evidence is discovered tomorrow. Now only do we have absolute proof of the existence of God, but we even have absolute evidence that the Christian version of God exists. Could you just "fall in line"? Could you just "become" a Christian.

See, I don't think I could. If we suddenly had the objective evidence necessary to prove that the Christian God exists, that would mean that we, also, have to accept that the Bible is not just a book of stories, and is, in fact, an accurate record of the nature of that God. And that record indicates that he drown the entire race, as far as man understood it to be at that time. This God demanded his favourites to commit genocide...twice. This God chose one person, and intentionally made his life miserable, just for sport (a wager with Lucifer). In short, the Bible portrays a God that is a sociopath.

I don't know that, even with irrefutable evidence that the Christian God exists, that I could become a follower of that God.

I have always said that, given evidence,. I would change my position from atheism to one of theism. However, if I learned that the Christian God was the "God of Creation", I don't think that theism would be a respectful one. I think my position would have to be, "Okay. God exists...and he's a dick," and would accept whatever consequences taking that position would engender.

So, what about you guys? If we suddenly had evidence that Christians had it right all along, could you just become "Good Little Christians"?

So if you had absolute proof, that if you followed the teachings of jesus, got baptized and accepted him as your savior, that you would reside in heaven, for all eternity after death.

and that if you didn't, it's eternal hellfire.


you sir, are a complete idiot.

Maybe. But I will not bend a knee to a genocidal despot.

Yeah I left this argument behind a long time ago. Which is why I answered your question like I did.

Like many I was raised going to church. I never felt any actual belief in 'god' but I was told he existed. So my first path to enlightenment was asking myself why I would worship some entity who needed to threaten me with eternal pain in order to get my 'devotion'? And one who would kill most human beings on earth because they failed to worship him?

I basically left that argument behind though when I realized that wasn't the issue for me- the issue was that I have never seen anything to suggest to me that 'god' exists. So I don't believe in him/her/it.

But- I can appreciate some of the teachings from the Bible, even though I don't believe it to be divinely inspired.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Nah, free will is an illusion.

Thinking that free will is an illusion- is an illusion.

hmm, no, it is, in fact, an illusion. You are not actually in conscious control of your choices. Now that we have figured out how to test this, we get the same results every single time.

That too is an illusion.

The empirical results are an illusion, eh? fascinating. Are you going to start waving a pocketwatch, and then ask me for $100?

i haven't seen any empirical results- all I have seen is your unsubstantiated claims- less substantial than even an illusion.

That's because you have not looked. I invite you to do so.

 

[badger2]

One of the world's most dangerous pieces of self-glossing literature, so rest assured that sooner or later, things are going to get funky in the 'hood. That is because stupidity always gets precisely the reality it deserves, and no amount of education can do a thing about stupidity.

 

[Spare_change]

The OP intrigues me, because it looks like he is beginning to doubt his belief that there is no God.

Like so many others you misunderstand my position. There is no God is not my belief. It is merely a premise. It is a negative premise that awaits objective evidence to falsify it.

Then I invite you to examine the Miracle of the Sun at Fatima. God proved his existence so overwhelmingly that there is no possibility to deny it.

Question. Since the whole world is illuminated by the same sun, how is it that this "miracle" was only visible in one place, by one group of people?

Because the sun did not actually move. It was an image of the sun, visible to only some. Not everyone there saw it happen.

In other words there was no "miracle"; just an optical illusion. Not proof of anything.

By definition ---- if there was proof, it couldn't be a miracle.

Amazing how you try to pervert the English language in order to support an unsupportable supposition.

 

[Spare_change]

Then I invite you to examine the Miracle of the Sun at Fatima. God proved his existence so overwhelmingly that there is no possibility to deny it.

Question. Since the whole world is illuminated by the same sun, how is it that this "miracle" was only visible in one place, by one group of people?

Because the sun did not actually move. It was an image of the sun, visible to only some. Not everyone there saw it happen.

In other words there was no "miracle"; just an optical illusion. Not proof of anything.

So you dismiss it without really looking into it. That's the typical atheist reaction, I thought you were different, but guess not.

I did look into it. And your own admission is that the dancing sun is no different than a rainbow. There is nothing miraculous about a rainbow. It is nothing more than an optical illusion.

I mean, you can back this up, and begin with the appearance of the Virgin Mary". It's rather important to note that the "appearance" occurred with small children - impressionable, and highly imaginative. Tell me, do you remember the Salem Witch trials? It started much the same way. Young, impressionable, imaginative children all claiming to have had very similar circumstances. As the trials continued it became socially important to have "experienced" the terrors of the "Witch". Suggestibility, combined with peer pressure, and before long you have hysteria over witchcraft that wasn't happening. There are many cases in history of this same type of shared imagined experience.

As for the dancing sun, itself, it was nothing more than an optical illusion caused by thousands of people looking up at the sky, hoping, expecting, and even praying for some sign from God. It is of course dangerous to stare directly at the sun, and to avoid permanently damaging their eyesight, those at Fátima that day were looking up in the sky around the sun, which, if you do it long enough, can give the illusion of the sun moving as the eye muscles tire.

Sorry to disappoint. There are very few, if any, "miracles", outside of the Bible, which is highly suspect, that have ever happened throughout history, that do not have perfectly rational explanations. I'm sorry that I wasn't wowed by your dancing sun, but it really wasn't all that remarkable.

Since when is a rainbow an optical illusion? You know something about color bands, based on wavelength, thru a medium that seems to have escaped scientists for centuries?

 

[Spare_change]

Then I invite you to examine the Miracle of the Sun at Fatima. God proved his existence so overwhelmingly that there is no possibility to deny it.

Question. Since the whole world is illuminated by the same sun, how is it that this "miracle" was only visible in one place, by one group of people?

Because the sun did not actually move. It was an image of the sun, visible to only some. Not everyone there saw it happen.

In other words there was no "miracle"; just an optical illusion. Not proof of anything.

So you dismiss it without really looking into it. That's the typical atheist reaction, I thought you were different, but guess not.

I did look into it. And your own admission is that the dancing sun is no different than a rainbow. There is nothing miraculous about a rainbow. It is nothing more than an optical illusion.

I mean, you can back this up, and begin with the appearance of the Virgin Mary". It's rather important to note that the "appearance" occurred with small children - impressionable, and highly imaginative. Tell me, do you remember the Salem Witch trials? It started much the same way. Young, impressionable, imaginative children all claiming to have had very similar circumstances. As the trials continued it became socially important to have "experienced" the terrors of the "Witch". Suggestibility, combined with peer pressure, and before long you have hysteria over witchcraft that wasn't happening. There are many cases in history of this same type of shared imagined experience.

As for the dancing sun, itself, it was nothing more than an optical illusion caused by thousands of people looking up at the sky, hoping, expecting, and even praying for some sign from God. It is of course dangerous to stare directly at the sun, and to avoid permanently damaging their eyesight, those at Fátima that day were looking up in the sky around the sun, which, if you do it long enough, can give the illusion of the sun moving as the eye muscles tire.

Sorry to disappoint. There are very few, if any, "miracles", outside of the Bible, which is highly suspect, that have ever happened throughout history, that do not have perfectly rational explanations. I'm sorry that I wasn't wowed by your dancing sun, but it really wasn't all that remarkable.

So, as a counter-proof to the observation of thousands, you offer the inimitably more unsupportable supposition that those thousands were victims of some mass hysteria? You have no more proof than he poster .... he has an opinion, and you have an opinion ---- nothing more, nothing less. (except that his is supported by thousands of eyewitnesses)

 

[Spare_change]

then you will burn in hell for all eternity.

get it?

This is a hypothetical that god does exist, not if, the bible is true, not edited.

worship or hell


the choice is incredibly simple

So, your moral compass directs you to be a sycophant, in the hopes that God would be stupid enough to mistake it for sincerity, in the hopes of avoiding Hell. Yeah...I'd prefer to just be honest, and let the chips fall where they may.

there are no chips

you either follow and accept jesus as your savior, and get into heaven
or
burn forever


and really, god hasn't taken a direct roll in anything in over 2000 years.

So what? That's even worse. After demonstrating himself to be genocidal, he then just takes a poweder, and leaves us all to the whims of fate, when all along he could have chosen to make a difference.

You don't seem to get that if God is omniscient, he's gonna know that you're only saying the right words to avoid Hell. You think that's gonna cut it? Really??? You don't really think much of God, do you?

now you're making false assumptions to make false accusations.

weak
*******
sauce


dismissed as a nutter

Says the guy who insists that bowing down to a Genocidal God is rational. Thanx for stopping by. Buh bye.

Once again, you have put your stake in the ground about a "genocidal God" - but, of course, you offer no proof. I await, with much delight, your response.

 

[Spare_change]

Then I invite you to examine the Miracle of the Sun at Fatima. God proved his existence so overwhelmingly that there is no possibility to deny it.

Question. Since the whole world is illuminated by the same sun, how is it that this "miracle" was only visible in one place, by one group of people?

Because the sun did not actually move. It was an image of the sun, visible to only some. Not everyone there saw it happen.

In other words there was no "miracle"; just an optical illusion. Not proof of anything.

So you dismiss it without really looking into it. That's the typical atheist reaction, I thought you were different, but guess not.

You failed to respond to his answer

If God had actually done something to the sun, it would have been evident everywhere on earth

The fact that it was only "seen" by a tiny fraction of the people supports a conclusion of hallucination

... this, of course, is viably false. The fact that it was only "seen" by a tiny fraction of the people supports a conclusion that this was the intent, and the work, of God.

Neither is more viable than the other.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Question. Since the whole world is illuminated by the same sun, how is it that this "miracle" was only visible in one place, by one group of people?

Because the sun did not actually move. It was an image of the sun, visible to only some. Not everyone there saw it happen.

In other words there was no "miracle"; just an optical illusion. Not proof of anything.

So you dismiss it without really looking into it. That's the typical atheist reaction, I thought you were different, but guess not.

You failed to respond to his answer

If God had actually done something to the sun, it would have been evident everywhere on earth

The fact that it was only "seen" by a tiny fraction of the people supports a conclusion of hallucination

... this, of course, is viably false. The fact that it was only "seen" by a tiny fraction of the people supports a conclusion that this was the intent, and the work, of God.

Neither is more viable than the other.

"The fact that it was only "seen" by a tiny fraction of the people supports a conclusion that this was the intent, and the work, of God. "

Not only is that utterly ridiculous, you are now attempting to present evidence for a miracle. Just minutes before, you had said that miraclea have no evidence, by definition.

And the phrase "viably false" makes zero sense and is an assault on the English language.

 

[Spare_change]

Because the sun did not actually move. It was an image of the sun, visible to only some. Not everyone there saw it happen.

In other words there was no "miracle"; just an optical illusion. Not proof of anything.

So you dismiss it without really looking into it. That's the typical atheist reaction, I thought you were different, but guess not.

You failed to respond to his answer

If God had actually done something to the sun, it would have been evident everywhere on earth

The fact that it was only "seen" by a tiny fraction of the people supports a conclusion of hallucination

... this, of course, is viably false. The fact that it was only "seen" by a tiny fraction of the people supports a conclusion that this was the intent, and the work, of God.

Neither is more viable than the other.

"The fact that it was only "seen" by a tiny fraction of the people supports a conclusion that this was the intent, and the work, of God. "

Not only is that utterly ridiculous, you are now attempting to present evidence for a miracle. Just minutes before, you had said that miraclea have no evidence, by definition.

And the phrase "viably false" makes zero sense and is an assault on the English language.

LOL - that's the best you got ? That's it? No proof of your supposition? Merely an attack on my comment? That's it?

How pathetic.

However, in the lowbrow manner in which you attacked, I shall respond ... Miracles, by definition, defy proof. Instead, we consider 1) its occurrence (proven by the witnessing by thousands), 2) it's lack of verifiable rationale (proven by the lack of witnessing by another thousand), and 3) no other verifiable proof.

By the way, had your education expanded beyond "Run, Spot, Run" ... you would have come across the phrase "viably false" - it used to describe a false claim that is given a life of its own - typically used within the context of the ignorance of those who spread the falsehood. More explicitly, it is used to describe a phrase that is accepted as truth, despite its falsity, only because it is oft repeated, not because it is true.

Nice try, bucko --- but you are clearly out of your league.