₦airaland Forum

AnonyNymous:
You don't expect me to memorise the coordinates of those locations, but google is your friend, it answers you unlike your god, and if you want to know the coordinates so badly you can check them. Anyhoo, the biblical land is I'm the middle east and Alaska is closer to the north. So you're wrong. I'm done here.

Why are you back pedalling? If Google is all our friend then get me the coordinates of both in relation to themselves. Its a simple task for you to do really.

4everGod:
Answer me simply. Where is the earths magnetic force generated?

How does that disprove inertia? How does that prove that is the earth slows down we would experience a targential force that would simple throw every unfixed object off the face of the earth?
Don't know why you want to start talking about magnetic field. Is it the magnetic field that would pin us down?

HardMirror:
How does that disprove inertia? How does that prove that is the earth slows down we would experience a targential force that would simple throw every unfixed object off the face of the earth?
Don't know why you want to start talking about magnetic field. Is it the magnetic field that would pin us down?

I am bringing rhis to ur level so u would understand the basics. So just answer the question.

AnonyNymous:
Then you might as well say that the earth stopped and god also magically put everything in place. My point is, there's no logical way to explain it, I used the earth stopping as examples here because it's, as ,I said, commonly parroted by Christians here and I had to put an end to that.
Their claim involved tampering with already existing creations but yours involves the creation of a new super lens that somehow magically balances everything out so as not to kill them from the concentration of the sun's radiation sent to a single spot. That's on a whole different level, and my point is that your stories defy logic. Telecommunication satellites in space already do something like that(reflect light), and as large as they are, their light is not even noticed on earth. What you want to do will require ridiculously enormous material, manufactured from thin air (and made to disappear immediately after). An occurrence like that would've left some traces in the modern world, but as it is nothing of such has been noticed so I refuse to believe your justification for this biblical myth.

Your op as I understood it is about the impossibility of making the sun appear still without upsetting the laws of physic and you gave two examples to prove your point.
I responded by showing you that I know of at least one example that this can be done without breaking the laws of physics.

You then responded by questioning the technology that would make it happen.

Now my answer to you is this. If we can theorise that it is reasonable to expect that if a hypothetical alien civilisation should visit the earth from across the galaxy, it would mean that their technology would be so advanced that we would think it is magic, then why would you expect less from the creator of the universe.
Before you reply, you should remember that your op is not about the notion of God but about a God that breaks his rules.

AnonyNymous:
How did Joshua make the sun stand still by the power of yahweh? You said the earth stopped rotating. I just showed here how that's impossible.

You see why I still see atheism as foolishness?

Please, before you argue about God, you should to understand what we mean as God and argue and around OUR knowledge of God. And not you argue on your false knowledge of christian God and then messing yourself up.

I even thought atheist can argue? But, guy I am very surprise that it is actually the opposite.

You are arguing about an ALL-POWERFUL God yet, you are saying that it is impossible. Are you really arguing about an ALL-POWERFUL Christian God? Or another god that is not a christian God?

dorox:
Your op as I understood it is about the impossibility of making the sun appear still without upsetting the laws of physic and you gave two examples to prove your point.
I responded by showing you that I know of at least one example that this can be done without breaking the laws of physics.

You then responded by questioning the technology that would make it happen.

Now my answer to you is this. If we can theorise that it is reasonable to expect that if a hypothetical alien civilisation should visit the earth from across the galaxy, it would mean that their technology would be so advanced that we would think it is magic, then why would you expect less from the creator of the universe.
Before you reply, you should remember that your op is not about the notion of God but about a God that breaks his rules.

Yes, their idea was that God tampered with the workings of already existing creation, while yours is that he added a new creation. But still, adding things means the original is not perfect, you only put addons on your computer browser because it doesn't have the functions you want already existing there. You see my point?

AnonyNymous:
Yes, their idea was that God tampered with the workings of already existing creation, while yours is that he added a new creation. But still, adding things means the original is not perfect, you only put addons on your computer browser because it doesn't have the functions you want already existing there. You see my point?

You are continuously changing your argument. Initially your objection was that God would have had to violate his laws to make the sun stand still.

Your analysis of the problem as you saw it implied that your objection was not with God subjecting our realm to his force but with the conservation of energy if it were done the way you cited.
Now that I have shown you one way it could be done, and I am by no means saying that it was done that way or that it could not have been done any other way, you are now withdrawing some of the assumptions that was inherent in your op.
There is no magic or addition in the example i gave if you think of God as having power and technology in orders of magnitude above what we can imagine possible.

dorox:
You are continuously changing your argument. Initially your objection was that God would have had to violate his laws to make the sun stand still.

Your analysis of the problem as you saw it implied that your objection was not with God subjecting our realm to his force but with the conservation of energy if it were done the way you cited.
Now that I have shown you one way it could be done, and I am by no means saying that it was done that way or that it could not have been done any other way, you are now withdrawing some of the assumptions that was inherent in your op.
There is no magic or addition in the example i gave if you think of God as having power and technology in orders of magnitude above what we can imagine possible.

One way it could be done is by using already existing materials and upsetting laws of physics.
Another way it could be done is creating new materials and keeping to the laws of physics.
The boldened both disprove perfection. My main quarrel with Christianity is how they claim perfection, and want to alter it. In the op, I did not think of any way that it could be done without tampering with the laws of physics. I didn't consider creating a material that did not exist before.

AnonyNymous:
One way it could be done is by using already existing materials and upsetting laws of physics.
Another way it could be done is creating new materials and keeping to the laws of physics.
The boldened both disprove perfection. My main quarrel with Christianity is how they claim perfection, and want to alter it. In the op, I did not think of any way that it could be done without tampering with the laws of physics. I didn't consider creating a material that did not exist before.

As limited and rudimentary as our technology is, we are able to create stuff without breaking the laws of physics. So I would not question God's ability to do even more.

There is really no need to drag this argument any further, it was based on a faulty premise that needed just one contrary example to disprove which I did.
Accepting the fact that the premise of your op is wrong does not in anyway prove or disprove the notion that there is God. Not doing so now that I have addressed all the points in your op would only call intellectual honesty into question.
If I had previously held the belief of the examples you gave and I was unable to find a reasonableanswer to your question, I would have been honest enough with myself to acknowledge the merit of your argument to say that I don't know while being confident in my fundamental belief in God to say that not knowing now does not mean that it is impossible .

It doesn't help when we conflate issues in a discussion. I uderstand that you don't believe that God exist, so by implication, any action attributed to God is no better than a fairy tale from your point of view. But when you create a tread where you have conceded for the sake of argument the existence of God, you shoud be polite enough to admit your error before defaulting to your principal position.

hahn:
Where in the bible did you get this from? Or did you come to this conclusion yourself?

Sorry for my late reply, somehow I managed to miss this post.
I was only showing the op that there are other ways to make the sun appear stationary beside the examples he gave. I do not claim to know how God did it, but that limiting God's options to his two examples in order to set up a srawman is wrong.

dorox:
As limited and rudimentary as our technology is, we are able to create stuff without breaking the laws of physics. So I would not question God's ability to do even more.

There is really no need to drag this argument any further, it was based on a faulty premise that needed just one contrary example to disprove which I did.
Accepting the fact that the premise of your op is wrong does not in anyway prove or disprove the notion that there is God. Not doing so now that I have addressed all the points in your op would only call intellectual honesty into question.
If I had previously held the belief of the examples you gave and I was unable to find a reasonableanswer to your question, I would have been honest enough with myself to acknowledge the merit of your argument to say that I don't know while being confident in my fundamental belief in God to say that not knowing now does not mean that it is impossible .

It doesn't help when we conflate issues in a discussion. I uderstand that you don't believe that God exist, so by implication, any action attributed to God is no better than a fairy tale from your point of view. But when you create a tread where you have conceded for the sake of argument the existence of God, you shoud be polite enough to admit your error before defaulting to your principal position.

I actually do believe in some form of a god, I'm agnostic, but a deist. And I feel that whatever god exists does not interfere with activities in the universe.That's the mindset with which I made the op.
The thread however is not about the existence of god or not, but a rational explanation for the story of the sun. So weve established that using materials already existing to create the effect is illogical. But, I didn't consider the option of creating an item from nothing. So, for excluding that from my initial argument, you could say it was incomplete/flawed, because that's another quality Christians ascribe to their god. However, I still stand on my claim that perfection doesn't need addons, but yes, I accept that that is a totally different argument from what is in the op. Maybe I'll create another thread so I can hear your opinions on that. Nice discussing with you.

dorox:
Sorry for my late reply, somehow I managed to miss this post.
I was only showing the op that there are other ways to make the sun appear stationary beside the examples he gave. I do not claim to know how God did it, but that limiting God's options to his too examples in order to set up a srawman is wrong.

OK

AnonyNymous:
I actually do believe in some form of a god, I'm agnostic, but a deist. And I feel that whatever god exists does not interfere with activities in the universe.That's the mindset with which I made the op.
The thread however is not about the existence of god or not, but a rational explanation for the story of the sun. So weve established that using materials already existing to create the effect is illogical. But, I didn't consider the option of creating an item from nothing. So, for excluding that from my initial argument, you could say it was incomplete/flawed, because that's another quality Christians ascribe to their god. However, I still stand on my claim that perfection doesn't need addons, but yes, I accept that that is a totally different argument from what is in the op. Maybe I'll create another thread so I can hear your opinions on that. Nice discussing with you.

It was nice chatting with you too. You remind me of Johnydon22 in the way you stayed calm and respectful all through our discussion, it is one quality that is becoming increasingly hard to find among my religious compatroits.

KingEbukasBlog:
So your argument is that an all powerful , all knowing God can't circumvent this "impossibility" to achieve His aim

Genesis 18:14
14 Is any thing too hard for the Lord?

Jeremiah 32:17
17 Ah Lord God! behold, thou hast made the heaven and the earth by thy great power and stretched out arm, and there is nothing too hard for thee:


Isn't the point of God being all powerful and all knowing surmounting difficult problems for His Glory ? Please I expected better bro .

Luke 18:27
27 And he said, The things which are impossible with men are possible with God.

so an all powerful God decides to do the impossible just so Joshua can finish off a bunch of guys yet He couldn't interfere during hurricane Katrina? Seems biased.

theoneJabulani:
so an all powerful God decides to do the impossible just so Joshua can finish off a bunch of guys yet He couldn't interfere during hurricane Katrina? Seems biased.

Its funny how the god did not just finish them off for Joshua