B. John Jones

Is the moon not always visible from someplace where it's night? I pointed out in another thread, that although the moon is quite often visible during the day, it must also be visible at one and the same time, from someplace dark, which should correspond to some ancient accounts.

And probably, the moon goes where it's light is needed most--perhaps having to do with the sunlight being more obscured or less. I would further guess that the position and corresponding fullness of the moon would be placed in a way optimizing the light for those regions of the earth during their night times.

 

The moon is not always visible. Immediately before new moon, it is invisible.

What I mean is, at a given time, the moon may be visible from over the horizon where it is night, while it's not visible locally, where it is also night.

If the moon is high in the day sky (which it often is) then It might be visible from somewhere where it is twilight, but not where it is dark.

Are you sure? Is this notion corroborated somewhere online?

Er, no. The moon has no choice about where to go. Are you suggesting that the moon might move because the Sun is obscured by clouds? But (apart from the fact that the moon can't do that) then the moon would be obscured by clouds as well.

I'm suggesting the moon follows darkness to provide light on earth where needed.

If the moon is high in the sky at midday, it can hardly be there because its light is needed.

The earth's need for light might be very sensitive, relative to seasons, ecosystems, etc., perhaps just slightly more light, at twilight for example, at a certain time in earth's history, at a certain location.

(1) It won't be reflecting any light because the Sun will be behind it

Of course it reflects light or you wouldn't see it. The sun's rays are under earth's shadow, but the moon is above the earth to an extent to catch the rays just missing horizon.

(2) It is midday so there is no shortage of sunlight.

Again, time and ecosystems are very sensitive.

(3) When the moon is in the sky at midday, sometimes you get an eclipse where the moon blocks sunlight - the exact opposite of what you claim.

In those cases, the moon makes night of day. As it continues his course, the moon is visible at dawn or dusk, someplace. No, I don't have a source, so I say this in my best estimation. In any case, for the most part, the moon follows the darkness. He appears more often at night.

So your guess is obviously wrong. Maybe you should learn a little about the orbits of the Earth and the Moon before making wild guesses.

Really? So the moon does not appear far more often at night than at day? I would bet that most of the moon's light-time or lumens on earth is spent where night is darkest.

And why then is it usually visible during night-time, and only sometimes at day? Answer? He's smart (the moon)!

No. At the point of the new moon, you have to be able to see the sun to see the moon (most obvious when we have an eclipse), so it is, by definition, not night.

So it's at an interval. But somewhere over the horizon, east, south, west or north, it's not new moon, but it's nighttime, or dawn or dusk, and you can see the moon.

 

The moon isn't "placed", so this is moot.

Would you cite that please?

(To me) A hidden motive seems very apparent in certain leagues of modern science, propagating dependence on digital things, and ultimately total dependence on science; rather than relying on tried and true, guts of solid, organic stuff, like clocks and watches with physical hands. Why? Because watches with hands suggest such things as raw trades, and the notion that people can tell time with total independence, by the heavens and by our own stature. Your shadow, for example, tells perfect time, to the wise, more perfect than any digital device.

Mind you, my minor in college was computer science, and I'm still very active developing web-apps, so I'm not at all a technophobe or "anti-electronics." It's just smarter to learn to tell time by the shadows and satellites.

The real fact is that nothing is unnatural, but there are indeed things that are against nature: bad bacteria are natural, but at enmity with life. Viruses, death, disease, these are natural, but at enmity with life.

Is the moon not always visible from someplace where it's night? I pointed out in another thread, that although the moon is quite often visible during the day, it must also be visible at one and the same time, from someplace dark, which should correspond to some ancient accounts.

And probably, the moon goes where it's light is needed most--perhaps having to do with the sunlight being more obscured or less. I would further guess that the position and corresponding fullness of the moon would be placed in a way optimizing the light for those regions of the earth during their night times.

 

How did we transition from faith the God exists should count as evidence to demanding evidence that she doesn't exist? Can God make goalposts so big that she can't move them?

As follows [in quotes]:

Because it's stacked against things for which there is no objective evidence. Belief is subjective evidence. Faith as evidence is like trying to argue that personal preference or opinion is fact.

There's no such thing as subjective evidence. Subjection is by the will of the one subjecting. All evidence is objective. There's nothing subjective in the evidence itself, ever. As one who is certain about truth, I subject the evidence you offer as scientists to truth, and to Scripture. I render some evidence as faulty, not on the basis that any certain section of Scripture seems to refute it, but only ever on the basis of a latter discovery of error in the interpretation of the evidence.

The only fair and honest way for a scientist to treat the Scripture is to subject the Scripture to science, rendering Scripture as faulty, not ever on the basis that any certain scientific principle or observation seems to refute it, but only ever on the basis of a latter discovery of error in the Scripture itself, if ever possible.

In either case, the only fair rebuttal must address the charge against the standard used by those rebutting (If science validates what a "Creationist" charges as error in science, opponents should answer, in terms of Scripture, nature and/or science . If Scripture validates what opponents charge as error in Scripture, opponents should answer, in terms of science, nature, and/or Scripture).

Instead, you assume error when it's apparent--then those still united in science move on, as science, or lock or trash the dialogue, not on principle, but because you can. Yet soon, science will turn very sour, short of repentance. Modern, wholesale convenience is short-lived. As with material kingdoms and economies, diminishing returns always apply, as natural law.

 

Show me one mark of evidence against the Biblical God and I promise you, I'll prove that your mark is sheer evidence at best. Show me 7, and I'll promise you more.

 

There was never a world wide flood, men cannot live in the stomach of a fish, the earth is not a flat disc covered by a crystal dome that the sun moon and stars are attached to. A man cannot fight with stars, the universe nor the earth were created in six days, putting a striped stick in front of a pregnant goat will not cause it have stripped young, the moon is not a light, there could not have been day or night before there was a sun and rotating earth. Should I go on?

Everything you've just stated hinges on one faulty assumption: that Almighty God does not precede every is and is not, can and cannot, will and will not, could and could not. The validity of every verse of Scripture hinges on exactly one truth in Scripture: Genesis 1:1--"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Accepting it or rejecting it determines the basis of your understanding or deception (respectively).

Not a poem. I admit, accidentally poetic. But I think much more congruent with the nature of things, than the literary examples named. And honestly, this is the nature of the Creator. His art is throughout the universe. Amusing? Hardly. The hecklers only have their pleasures for a season.

 

 

The Bible it's self shows the biblical god is either made up or a liar, are you afraid of dealing with me? Or do you already know the bible is wrong about everything it asserts about "the nature of" reality?

 

 

Edited for accuracy...

Afraid of who? A person? I honor you as a person, but I pay no special respect to any sheer person, let alone fear. Show me a single inconsistency between the Bible and nature. I will give strong evidence supportive that you are in error.

Ignoring the absurdity of pretending that the biggest Christian group in teh world isn't Christian...

 

When I said "As I have pointed out in another of your threads.

Society and science did start off with the notion that the scriptures were true.

And then we found that they were wrong."

I thought I made it quite clear who the "we" involved is.

It's "Society and science".

OK, lets make it slightly clearer Society started off by trying to include the scriptures- but they would not fit because they did not tally with the way in which the world works.

The old books did not agree with all the other (consistent) evidence.

Something had to "give".

Science decided that evidence should stay and scripture should go.

It has produced many marvellous things since doing so.

Religion decided that the scriptures should stay, and the evidence should go.

It has mainly produced arguments and wars.

What if science takes place in one moment of time, let's say, 3,000 years. What if 3,000 years is precisely a moment in time. What if, during that window of time, our view of nature is quite like viewing the vivid moon behind swiftly passing ghosts of cloud? What if all the consistent evidence, very real, is but a test? 3,000 years might go by in bliss, with many marvelous things, and yet the multitudes, would ultimately meet with destruction.

Religion decided that the scriptures should stay, and the evidence should go.

It has mainly produced arguments and wars.

The Scripture itself declares, "My words will never pass away." But you are right, religion, quite demonic, decide as they please, and have blood on their hands. But faith stands firm on God's Word.

 

 

Because it's stacked against things for which there is no objective evidence. Belief is subjective evidence. Faith as evidence is like trying to argue that personal preference or opinion is fact.

Show me one mark of evidence against the Biblical God and I promise you, I'll prove that your mark is sheer evidence at best. Show me 7, and I'll promise you more.

What if time is but the heart of the universe, and matter, the body? It's beats and rhythms keeping perfect time. It's limbs and sensing parts being subordinate, though more completely apparent, more accessible. More apparently useful.

What if that brief window of time we view the clouds swiftly passing by the vivid moon, pretending its swift motion, really portend the hidden frame of the universe?

What if the universe is but a moment in time?

 

Please provide some evidence to support this claim.

Very late. Almost 3 AM. Goodnight.

 

What does that mean? "Test statements on faith"?

 

 

Please provide some evidence to support this claim.

You wouldn't trust someone you don't know with your new Porsche would you (or something comparable if there is such a thing)? You might trust them with a new bike if you weren't stingy and the person isn't shady. Same thing. At first, maybe a simple reluctant, but respectful, prayer, "Okay, you say you're a good God. Prove it to me today." That's it. Or your own (respectful, but demanding) version.

 

So, rather like science, you test their statement against the evidence. You don't just accept it on faith.

Yes. And you don't just accept statements on science. You test statements on faith.

 

If you know that somebody has just lied, the sheer fact that they have lied is evidence that they are a liar. You have to evaluate what they said, as evidence, before you can judge their lie.

How do you do this? By divine inspiration or by objectively evaluating their statement by comparing it to known facts?

 

@ swanson: Are you trying to force me further past my bedtime (kidding)?

Seriously, it depends. If the person died in antiquity, you have to determine the facts. If the facts themselves are inconclusive (usually due to sheer volume, in increasing measure), you have to depend on the facts, and you have to trust something in order to state anything concerning what they said, or anything about what they said, and/or about what people say, who are his or her adherents. Anything beyond "I don't care."

 

Science isn't elevated above nature. It is ruled by, limited by, and tested against nature. Science is subservient to and dependent upon nature.

That's the way it should be. But it hasn't been. Not modern science.

Quite. I think it is important to stress that science doesn't dismiss those things because they are gods or whatever. But because there is not, and probably cannot be, objective evidence for them.

 

I'm not sure why this is a problem for people of faith. If you believe in God, why would you need science to validate that?

I said, "bedtime," but I must.

The notion, on my part, of needing science to validate Christ, in the deepest part of my being, truthfully, is absurd. My heart aches for humanity, who is dead, in large part due to the total secularization of science, and it's self-exultation above nature, which nonetheless (nature) prevails over science and over every human invention (except repentance).

 

 

What people believe is not evidence.

If you know that somebody has just lied, the sheer fact that they have lied is evidence that they are a liar. You have to evaluate what they said, as evidence, before you can judge their lie.

If someone states that Jesus is alive, you have to evaluate what they say, as evidence, if you have any right to preclude anything about Jesus, or about the Bible.

Typically, those who report seeing God see the God that is representative of their culture, e.g., St. Bernadette seeing the Virgin Mary, and not Allah.

Actually, where the Christian church is most richly multiplied by new believers, tends always to be where diversity is concentrated. For just the first of many examples to follow: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+2%3A5-13%2C+41&version=NLT [observe the second section, where 3,000 people from very diverse cultures, including Arabic, were added to the church, in one day, at it's birth].

I will try to continue here, et al, tomorrow. 'Tis late here in Hawaii (Aloha!)

By your own criterion in paragraph 2 (emphasis added) the question is not whether Biblical faith is ever seen to work, it's whether it ever fails. And it fails often and quite spectacularly (e.g. how many children have died because their parents relied on faith and prayer instead of antibiotics?). So by your own description, Biblical faith has to be discarded as a reliable source.

With all due respect, and all honor, not quite. The Bible says to use wisdom, not folly. It also says that faith without works is dead. Depending on the Bible, and discarding common sense, especially as a parent, is not Biblical faith. It is sheer folly, insanity or Satanic.

Once you have established that the method is not reliable, then you don't know whether a result you get is correct. You can't use any of the results.

A few edits and your statement would be much closer to perfect: "When a method is correctly, and certainly, established as unreliable, then you know that the method will not consistently produce a good result. In this case you can't depend on any of the results." Jesus said the same thing: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+7%3A17-19&version=NLT

Your post is so confused, it is hard to know how to reply...

 

I don't see any reason why anyone should discard their faith on the basis of science. However, when the faith contradicts reality, then they have a choice to make.

 

I have heard some people say that if reality contradicts their holy book, then it is reality that is wrong. Personally, I think that insane. But it is their choice.

And you're correct, assuming that you're understanding them correctly. As far as correct Biblical faith, it never contradicts reality. Show me one instance, if you have courage and the discipline.

I'm sure there are plenty of examples of people's faith being enriching and "working" for them. So what? That is evidence of nothing other than the fact that faith can be helpful to some people. But I think we know that already.

This was included preemptively, because I'm sure someone would have answered that people in science should never be moved by faith or trust, unless they have observed that trusting the source is "profitable." I say this because I keep hearing in these forums that "scientific people," rely exclusively on a scientific approach because--"it works."

In science, there isn't really any such thing as proof.

Maybe not technically, but certainly conceptually. There has to be for something to be designated "scientific fact." A preponderance of evidence in law, science or any discipline I would think effectually corroborates something as fact, by proving it (proof).

But if they believe, with all their heart, that the Earth is flat (and that enriches their lives) it doesn't change the fact that the Earth is an oblate spheroid.

Very locally (a radius of 300 yards around an observer, for instance [usually]) , the earth is relatively flat. And by your definition of the earth, it is relatively flat. It is basically spherical only from a very distant, or photographic view. Even the Bible, as dated as Isaiah, describes the earth as circular ("circle o the earth").

As I have pointed out in another of your threads.

Society and science did start off with the notion that the scriptures were true.

And then we found that they were wrong.

 

Who is "we?" All "concerned," excluding Jews and Christians?

Rome is shrewd and defiant. They feigned to destroy the church. Failing that, they counterfeited it. I am certain that nearly 99% of all scientists who were "Christian," and conceded that the Bible is false were of the Roman religion, and not of Christian faith.

Why are you wanting to have the text of one specific religion be allowable as "evidence" but not the texts of every other religion? That's bias at best, hypocrisy at worst.

Absolutely not. Admit every text! As evidence. When and where did "science" confuse evidence as proof. I'm not saying believe the Bible, in science. I'm saying test the Bible. Consider it--as evidence.

What first question? Your presupposition that "creator God" is singular, is what I'm querying.

Not a presupposition. "A" Creator God is in English. The English term, "God," capital-G, is established on the Judeo-Christian notion of God. The Hebrew (Jewish) basis is "El," or "Elohim," being a term used interchangeably for the same God. "Elohim," is singular in meaning, plural in form. The Judeo-Christian (notion of) God is manifest in several forms--for example, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit; singular in meaning; one unity; one nature; one God. So, if we're going to have a discussion in English, there have to be some such assumptions.

 

This really isn't a fair category to start a thread about the plausibility in nature of a Creator God so I selected it somewhat randomly:

 

1) Does science permit that a Creator God is indeed:

 

1. conceivable (possible)?

2. plausible (reasonable or believable)?

 

2) If science does permit that a Creator God is indeed reasonable, how must science reason (determine God's substance) concerning a Creator God?

 

a. disregard due to uncertainty.

b. consider available evidence including:

• science (granted)
• nature (allow/reject)
• historical/archeological evidence (allow/reject)
• contemporary facts (allow/reject)
• contemporary information (allow/reject)
• human testimony (oral and written) (allow/reject)
• restricted human thought (analysis/logic) (allow/reject)
• comprehensive human thought (analysis/logic, judgment and intuition) (allow/reject)
• other forms of evidence (as discovered)

 

Why does that have any relevance?

I believe I've allowed you to take this off topic. Anyway, it's not relevant. In fact, it's the crux of the universe.

Is Mohamed yet living or dead? Aren't Vyasa an Krishna still dead? And what of Jesus of Nazareth? His adherents all agree, he is alive and well.

There seems to be an implication that a "creator God" is a single, individual entity and not, say, a team of Gods working together. Why is that?

You're jumping to another question without addressing the first question. Should I answer your question privately, or would you prefer to take the steps to your more important one?