Why isn't the standing still of the sun and the moon not recorded by other cultures?

[Compassionist]

I am quoting from Joshua 10: 12 - 14, the Bible (English Standard Version)

"At that time Joshua spoke to the Lord in the day when the Lord gave the Amorites over to the sons of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel,

Sun, stand still at Gibeon,
and moon, in the Valley of Aijalon.”
And the sun stood still, and the moon stopped,
until the nation took vengeance on their enemies.

Is this not written in the Book of Jashar? The sun stopped in the midst of heaven and did not hurry to set for about a whole day. There has been no day like it before or since, when the Lord heeded the voice of a man, for the Lord fought for Israel."

Why isn't the standing still of the sun and the moon not recorded by other cultures that had invented writing?

The event described in Joshua 10:12–14, where the sun and moon are said to have stood still to allow the Israelites more time to defeat their enemies, would - if taken literally - constitute a global astronomical phenomenon. If the Earth’s rotation truly stopped or slowed (which is what "the sun stood still" would physically mean), it would have had catastrophic global consequences, including massive earthquakes, tsunamis, and changes in atmospheric motion due to sudden deceleration.

Such an event could not have gone unnoticed by other civilisations and would have been recorded by other literate cultures that kept astronomical or historical records.

At the time (around 13th to 15th century BCE, depending on the dating of the conquest narratives), several advanced civilisations with writing and astronomical records existed, including:

Egyptians
Babylonians
Chinese (Shang Dynasty)
Minoans/Mycenaeans
Sumerians
Indus Valley remnants

Yet none of these cultures, despite their meticulous sky observations, record a day when the sun and moon stood still or behaved abnormally. I conclude that this is because the Bible is lying about the Biblical God making the sun and the moon stand still.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to RBD in post #83]

Why Your “Objective Review” Still Collapses into Circular Validation

RBD, your reply is useful because it finally makes explicit where the real disagreement lies. Unfortunately, it also confirms the core critique rather than answering it.

I’ll respond concisely and structurally.

1. Your “Natural Man” Syllogism Is a Strawman

You repeatedly attribute to me (and to skeptics generally) this chain:

1. Only natural things exist.
2. There are no supernatural things.
3. Any recorded testimony of a supernatural event is a foolish lie.
4. Such records cannot be critically reviewed.

That is not my position, and I have not argued anything like it.

The actual position is simpler:

• Claims about reality require justification proportional to what they assert.
• Supernatural claims lack independent constraints that would allow reliable adjudication.
• Therefore, competing supernatural claims cannot be sorted without circular standards.

Rejecting an evidential method is not the same as declaring all claims “foolish lies.”

2. You Have Still Not Defined a Non-Circular Criterion

You say:

The Bible is proving itself inerrant, by critical analysis of the Book.

This is the crux — and it remains undefended.

What you call “critical analysis” consists of:

• Internal coherence.
• Self-claims of authority.
• Grammatical consistency.
• Theological continuity.

Every major religious text has these features. None of them can establish inerrancy without presupposing the truth of the system they belong to.

Internal analysis can test consistency.
It cannot establish correspondence with reality.

3. Grammar Cannot Decide Metaphysical Truth

Your examples involving Islam and Mormonism reduce to this:

One text says X about God.
Another text says not-X.
Therefore one must be false.

That conclusion does not tell us which is false — only that they cannot both be true.

Grammar can expose contradictions.
It cannot adjudicate truth between rival metaphysical claims.

You have smuggled in an extra step:

• “The Bible is already known to be true.”

— which is precisely the circular move under dispute.

4. Literary Analysis Is Not What You Are Doing

You accuse historical scholarship of “revisionism” when it identifies:

• Shared source material.
• Redactional layering.
• Theological development.
• Dependence relationships.

But this is not prejudice against the supernatural. It is standard literary criticism applied to all ancient texts — sacred and secular alike.

Dismissing source criticism as “natural faith alone” does not refute it; it merely rejects the discipline.

5. Independence Is About Sources, Not Sincerity

You keep treating the claim “these authors were sincere” as equivalent to “these authors are independent witnesses.”

They are not the same.

Multiple texts drawing from a shared tradition, oral or written, do not constitute independent attestation — even if every author is honest.

This is not an accusation of lying.
It is an observation about information flow.

6. First-Person Claims Still Do Not Self-Authenticate

You write:

The problem is when an author writes an independent document… How then can he possibly be copying from others?

Because independence of authorship ≠ independence of source material.

A person can sincerely record a vision, belief, or tradition they received without inventing it — and still not be providing independent corroboration of the underlying event.

That is precisely why historians distinguish:

• Eyewitness to an event.
• Reporter of a tradition.
• Author of a theological narrative.

7. Disagreement Is Not “Accusing Authors of Lying”

You repeatedly frame historical analysis as accusing authors of lying “about themselves.”

That is a false dilemma.

Texts can be:

• sincere
• internally coherent
• culturally meaningful
• theologically motivated
• historically mistaken

without moral fault on the part of their authors.

Once again, rejecting a claim is not the same as alleging deceit.

8. The Core Problem Remains Unanswered

Despite the length of your reply, one question is still unanswered:

What publicly accessible, non-circular standard allows two sincere readers — one Christian, one Muslim — to determine which text corresponds to reality without presupposing their own scripture’s truth?

Until that standard is specified, appeals to “objective review” remain rhetorical, not methodological.

Final Clarification

At this stage, the disagreement is fully transparent:

• You treat Scripture as epistemically privileged prior to analysis.
• I treat Scripture as a historical object subject to analysis.
• You call that “natural faith”; I call it methodological discipline.

Those are incompatible starting points.

Once Scripture is the yardstick by which all evidence is measured, the conclusion is already decided — and no amount of invoking “critical analysis” can change that.

That is not skepticism.
It is definitional closure.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to RBD in post #84]

Why Calling Disagreement “Accusation” Still Evades the Epistemic Issue

RBD, your reply is rhetorically forceful, but it rests on a persistent conflation that continues to derail the discussion. I’ll address that directly.

1. Objective Skepticism Is Not “Declaring War”

You write:

Once again, when someone declares themselves an accuser of fraudulent documents… Why try to play the role of objective skeptic?

This framing is mistaken.

Objective skepticism does not require neutrality between “true” and “false” indefinitely. It requires that conclusions be reached by publicly accessible reasons, not by prior allegiance.

Saying “this claim is false” after analysis is not “declaring war”; it is the normal outcome of inquiry. Scientists, historians, and courts do this constantly without abandoning objectivity.

If objective skepticism meant never judging claims false, it would be epistemically useless.

2. You Keep Erasing the Crucial Distinction

You insist that:

To say “the Bible is lying” dissociates authorship from the record.

That is not what is being done.

There is a critical distinction between:

• A text containing false claims.
• An author intentionally deceiving.

Texts can be factually false without anyone “lying.” Pre-scientific cosmology, legendary amplification, symbolic narrative, and sincere error are well-documented historical phenomena.

Insisting that “false” must mean “fraudulent” is a false dilemma — and one that conveniently shields the text from critique.

3. “Natural Faith” Is a Rhetorical Reversal, Not an Argument

You repeatedly accuse critics of having “faith in natural things alone.”

But methodological naturalism is not faith — it is a constraint:

• Do not assert what cannot be independently checked.
• Do not multiply entities without explanatory gain.
• Do not treat unfalsifiable claims as knowledge.

This does not deny the supernatural by decree. It simply refuses to assert it without evidence.

Calling restraint “faith” does not convert it into bias.

4. Possibility Is Still Not Justification

Much of your reply amounts to this move:

• supernatural explanations are possible,
• therefore rejecting them is bias.

But possibility alone justifies nothing.

An explanation earns acceptance by doing explanatory work: predicting, constraining, distinguishing outcomes. Appeals to “spiritual intelligence” do none of this. They explain agreement and disagreement equally well — which means they explain nothing.

5. Scripture Quoting Cannot Settle the Dispute

Throughout your reply, Biblical passages are cited to resolve philosophical objections.

But this simply presupposes the authority under debate.

Using Revelation to answer the problem of divine hiddenness, or Luke to reject empirical expectation, is circular. A Muslim can quote the Qur’an in exactly the same way. Internal consistency is not external validation.

6. Future Vindication Does Not Justify Present Belief

You repeatedly appeal to a promised future revelation (“every eye shall see”).

That is not evidence; it is a deferred claim.

Every religion promises eventual vindication. Until such an event occurs, it cannot be used to justify present certainty — especially when eternal consequences are asserted now.

7. The Central Question Remains Unanswered

Despite the length of this exchange, one question is still avoided:

What non-circular, publicly accessible standard allows competing religious claims to be adjudicated without presupposing the truth of one scripture?

Not grammar.
Not internal coherence.
Not spiritual discernment defined as “those who agree see; those who disagree rebel.”

Until such a standard is articulated, calling one’s position “objective” does not make it so.

Final Clarification

At this point, the disagreement is not really about evidence.

It is about epistemic categories.

• You treat the Bible as epistemically privileged prior to analysis.
• I treat the Bible (and all other books) as human artifacts subject to analysis and evaluation.
• You interpret dissent as moral or spiritual failure.
• I interpret it as unresolved evidential insufficiency.

Those starting points cannot converge.

That does not make either side dishonest — but it does mean that what you are defending is faith-based certainty, not objective justification.

And once that is acknowledged plainly, the debate becomes much clearer — and much more honest.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #1]

Because it is a story. But suppose it is a historical event, then obviously it is speaking from the point of view of man. The earth would have had to stop, and not the sun. If we are talking about a miracle, then God could easily make it so that only the people in the event see the event. God could easily make it look like the sun was still moving in the sky to the rest of the world, but as if it stopped to those at Jericho.

The objection assumes that a miracle must obey global physical consistency, which defeats the whole point of calling it a miracle.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to AquinasForGod in post #93]

Because it is a story.

If it is a fictitious story, then the absence of cross-cultural records is already explained — and the historical claim is surrendered.

At that point, the event no longer functions as evidence of divine intervention in history. It becomes didactic or symbolic. That is a legitimate category, but it cannot be smuggled back in later as factual support for theology.

But suppose it is a historical event… God could easily make it so that only the people in the event see the event.

This move destroys the evidential value of the miracle.

If God can:
• localize the appearance of a cosmic event,
• alter perception selectively, and
• ensure no external traces remain,

then the event becomes epistemically indistinguishable from:
• illusion,
• hallucination, or
• narrative construction.

At that point, there is no possible observation that could confirm the miracle — or disconfirm it.

God could easily make it look like the sun was still moving in the sky to the rest of the world.

Then the miracle no longer concerns the sun at all — it concerns belief manipulation.

What is being proposed is not a suspension of celestial mechanics, but a targeted alteration of human experience.

That reframes the claim from:
• “God intervened in the physical world”

to:
• “God altered what some people perceived.”

Those are radically different claims, with radically different implications.

The objection assumes that a miracle must obey global physical consistency.

No — the objection concerns epistemic consistency, not physical consistency.

A miracle need not obey physics.
But if it leaves no public trace, no independent record, and no global effect, then:

• it cannot function as historical evidence,
• it cannot ground belief for non-witnesses, and
• it cannot be distinguished from fiction.

A miracle that explains away all absence of evidence also explains away its own credibility.

The deeper problem

Once you allow:
• localized reality alteration, and
• selective perception engineering,

then any story can be insulated from scrutiny by the same move.

Why no Egyptian records of the plagues?
Why no global flood memory?
Why no astronomical anomaly?

Answer: God hid it.

That is not an explanation — it is an epistemic escape hatch.

You can save the miracle by making it private, localized, and perception-dependent.

But the cost is this:

It ceases to be a public historical claim and becomes unfalsifiable by design.

At that point, the question is no longer “Why don’t other cultures record it?”
The question becomes:

Why should anyone outside the story be convinced that it happened at all?

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #94]

Yes, that is what an actual miracle is. It is not falsifiable by any empirical method. Nothing metaphysical is falsifiable by empirical methods, and it never can be.

We can still find evidence through reasoning, but empiricism cannot determine whether nonphysical things are real or unreal. In principle, empiricism alone can never tell us whether anything nonphysical exists. If we trust only empiricism and nonphysical realities do exist, we will never discover them through empirical methods.

It is like a man saying he does not believe plastic is hidden under the sand because his method of searching is a metal detector.


If you limit your epistemology to accepting as real only those things that can be empirically verified, then you should not believe in nonphysical realities.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to AquinasForGod in post #95]

AquinasForGod, thank you for the clarification. But your argument contains several important problems.

1. “Miracles are not falsifiable” is not a neutral claim

You say:

It is not falsifiable by any empirical method.

If a claim is defined in such a way that no possible observation could count against it, then we have stepped outside historical reasoning altogether.

History is an evidential discipline. It works by:
• comparing competing explanations
• weighing probabilities
• preferring explanations that are constrained by evidence

If a miracle claim is insulated from falsification by definition, then it cannot compete in historical reasoning. It becomes immune — and immunity is not strength; it is methodological withdrawal.

2. Empiricism is not the same as metaphysical naturalism

You frame the issue as:

If you limit your epistemology to accepting as real only those things that can be empirically verified…

But historians do not operate with “empiricism alone” in the narrow sense you describe. They use:

• inference to the best explanation
• background knowledge
• probability assessment
• coherence with established models

The issue is not whether nonphysical realities could exist.

The issue is whether a specific historical claim is sufficiently supported to justify concluding that one occurred.

That is a much narrower and more disciplined question.

3. The metal detector analogy fails

You compare empiricism to searching for plastic with a metal detector.

But that analogy assumes:

• We already know plastic exists.
• We know what its properties are.
• We know it is the kind of thing we are looking for.

In miracle cases, that is precisely what is disputed.

A better analogy would be:

A person claims invisible, undetectable entities rearranged the sand — entities that cannot in principle be measured, tested, or independently confirmed.

At that point, the question is not “Are we using the wrong detector?”

The question is:
What principled method distinguishes that claim from any other unfalsifiable claim?

4. If unfalsifiable explanations are allowed, explanatory standards collapse

If “nonphysical cause” is always available as an explanation and cannot be tested against alternatives, then:

• Any anomaly can be attributed to miracle.
• Competing religions gain equal explanatory footing.
• There is no way to adjudicate between mutually exclusive miracle claims.

Once falsifiability and empirical constraint are removed, epistemic arbitration disappears.

5. You are shifting the burden

Notice the structure of your position:

You are not offering independent, constrained evidence for a miracle.
You are arguing that empirical methods are insufficient to rule one out.

But inability to rule something out does not justify affirming it.

There are infinitely many unfalsifiable explanations for any historical event.

The question is not:
“Can empiricism disprove the miracle?”

The question is:
“Is the miracle the best explanation given the available evidence?”

Those are not the same question.

6. Limiting historical method is not arbitrary — it is necessary

Historical method is limited to publicly accessible evidence because:

• It must be intersubjectively evaluable.
• It must allow critical scrutiny.
• It must prevent explanatory inflation.

If you introduce causes that cannot, even in principle, be publicly examined, you move from history to theology.

That is not illegitimate — but it is a different category of reasoning.

Conclusion

The issue is not whether nonphysical realities might exist.

The issue is whether:

• An unfalsifiable explanation
• Invoking a metaphysical agent
• Insulated from empirical constraint

can function as a historical conclusion.

If miracles are defined as beyond empirical evaluation, then they cannot be established by historical method.

And if they cannot be established by historical method, then invoking them in historical explanation requires additional philosophical commitments — commitments that themselves require justification.

That is where the real debate lies.

[Difflugia]

It is like a man saying he does not believe plastic is hidden under the sand because his method of searching is a metal detector.

It's more like a man saying he doesn't believe that leprechauns are hidden under the sand because his method of searching is a shovel. His friend insists that the leprechauns are there in the sand, but you can't see them, hear them, smell them, or feel them, no matter how much sand you dig up and sift through. No nuimber of men with shovels can disprove the leprechauns, so it's not unreasonable to insist that they're down there somewhere.

The question is how long the guy with the shovel humors his friend before he rolls his eyes and goes home.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #82]

You say: "The resurrection of Jesus Christ has the recorded firsthand direct testimony of several writers."

Kindly cite the "firsthand direct testimony of several writers" and tell where they can be found.

He appeared to all His apostles several times, excluding Judas.
At least 3 of His apostles record the events in their gospels.

Mark may or may not have written for Peter.

The 'gospels' that tell the tale of 'resurrection' were written half a century (40 to 60 or more years) after Jesus is said to have died -

Ok. They eyewitness apostles wrote the gospels years later. One of them publicly preached His resurrection 40 days later.

- written by people whose true identity is unknown to theologians and scholars

Written by apostles that are not believed by 'theologians and scholars'. The same kind of theologians and scholars that had Jesus crucified as a blasphemer.

Why do unbelievers resort to unbelieving theologians and scholars. Just read the Book yourself and make your own conclusions. I don't trust the conclusions of believers and unbelievers alike, who resort to 'theologians and scholars' for their arguments.

Act 17:11
These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

NO original documents exist for any of this,

Then thank God we have exact copies, that are just as unerring as the originals must have been.

If the Bible Author is who He says He is, then preserving His written Scriptures is assured. He also prophesied that His gospel would be heard in all nations on earth, which is come to pass today. AND translated into their languages.

and the earliest bible available telling the tale dates from the fourth century.

The last writer of Bible Scripture was John in 90's AD.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #76]

Clarifying the Epistemic Error — Acceptance ≠ Justification

RBD, thank you for the careful engagement. The disagreement here is not over whether eyewitness testimony can ever be considered evidence. It is over what epistemic work testimony can do on its own, especially when the claim is extraordinary.

You keep collapsing three distinct notions into one:

• Admissibility.
• Acceptance for consideration.
• Justified belief.

They are not the same.

They are in history and law.

At this time, we can add an even stronger case of firsthand evidence, and that is mulitple independent eyewitnesses of the same event, without contradiction. IN history and law that is taken as verified proof.

Which is the argument of Bible inerrancy: Not only is the first hand evidence of one witness being considered, but the same evidence given by many firsthand witnesses independently of each other.

That is why inerrancy is all important, and so debated: So long as those eyewitnesses continue to agree without contradiction, then the Bible evidence can not only be intelligently believed, but can be declared verifiably proven.

1. Absence of Disproof Is Not Justification

It is in history and law for multiple agreeing firsthand witnesses of the same event(s).

If your rule were correct, then any ancient text asserting miracles would be epistemically on par with mundane reporting simply because we lack contradictory evidence.

Here is where another rule of evidence comes into play: Longevity and widespread knowledge. Neither the Bible nor the Gilgamesh Epic can be dismissed, the same as some new present book. By vuirture of preservation over much time and people, the validity of the evidence increases.

This would be the same for longtime ET sightings and inscriptions. However, the Bible is not only the longterm most widely acknowledged Book on earth, but it's not by a single writer, as Muhammed. It's written by many firsthand eyewitness accounts, that have never been proven contradictory in cross-examination.

With this in mind, I reaffirm my original statement about Bible inerrancy proving the Bible is true, not just intelligently believable.

If the Bible records and accounts were put on trial, or before a historical review board, the verdict must verify proven true.

That is not how rational inquiry works.

Not with irrational laymen, that have a personal axe to grind.

Do you accept the claims in all religious books to be factual just because they have not been disproven?

Non sequitur.

1. Accepting the a book with one writer, does not compare to that of many consistent writers.
2. Accepting supernatural claims of one Book, does not demand accepting all supernatural claims. IN fact, if they contradict, then accepting one demands rejecting the other.

All other supernatural books by one writer, disagreeing with the many consistent writers of one Book, can easily be rejected.

There are more writers of the Bible in perfect agreement, than there are all the other single writers, who also disagree with themselves.

The Bible as a record of many consistent writers is the only Book on earth, than can be Authored by the true and living God of heaven and earth.

I bet you reject the claims of all religious books (e.g. the Quran, the Vedas, etc.) except for the Bible.

Only the parts that disagree with all the writers verifying their testimo0nies by unerring consistency.

And Muhammed just rewrites much of the Bible to suit his own religion. And even lies about writer for the Bible God of Abraham and Israel.

When a text claims that the sun and the moon stood still, then testimonial standards rise accordingly. This is not “naturalism” or “faith in nature”; it is proportional reasoning.

Rejecting supernatural events due to natural law and investigation, is by faith in nature's law alone.

Wait a minute. Are you saying that you do believe in the supernatural? That observed nature and natural law is not the final analysis? That the natural universe is not all that matters?

Eyewitness testimony that conflicts with everything else we know about reality does not get a free epistemic pass simply because it is old or sincere.

So says faith in the natural universe and natural law alone.

If you say it's not by faith, then prove your personal knowledge beyond the grave.

[RBD]

All people are born with spiritual intelligence, and therefore spiritual truth is accessible to all people.

This is a metaphysical assertion, not an epistemic method.

And so your intelligence is not real, but only hypothetical.

Spiritual intelligence simply means that all intelligence, thinking, knowledge, imagination is spiritual in nature, not natural physical matter.

Intelligence and reasoning is proof of itself: Spiritual nor physical.

Rom 1:20
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead;

The unseen things of the Spirit, that are not natural matter, is proven by being understood: Understanding is spiritual, not natural matter.

If the natural universe were only uncreated natural matter, and without spiritual things apart from mass taking up space, then there would be no intelligence, understanding, and imagination. Including any thoroughly unintelligent argument against one's own spiritual intelligence.

Men and women on earth having intelligent reasoning and imagination, is proof of the spiritual things, that are not natural matter. The thoughts and intents of man and woman are not the physical brain, otherwise, they would be written thereon and not spiritually discerned.

1Co 2:14
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

The natural man is not without spiritual intelligence, but only denies the things of the spirit, that are not natural matter. I.e. he does not consider that his very thoughts are spiritual in nature, and not physical mass. He denies his own intelligence, is not as dumb as a rock.

There is no credible evidence that souls or spirits exist, let alone people having spiritual intelligence.

With the clarification, you can now understand the difference between the invisible things of the spirit, and the physical things of the universe.

Jhn 3:8
The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

Jesus is not saying that some people are never born of the Spirit, but that all men and women are born of the Spirit by creation in the image of God.

Intelligent thought and understanding imagination is only as the wind, but is not the physical air breathed by the natural body. They are the unseen spiritual things like air, but unlike the natural air, they have understanding, not mass.

You keep making assertions without proving them.

Thinking about it, proves itself.

You are free to deny your eternal soul, and judgment of works in this life. But you cannot deny your own intelligent spirit, that understands your thoughts are not dumb as rocks.

Or, are they?

3. “Natural vs. Spiritual” Is a Category Shield, Not an Argument

You say:

The natural man only has faith in natural things.

But this reframes epistemic critique as spiritual deficiency,

This reframing shows intellectual deficiency, though not spiritual deficiency, since even faulty intelligence is still spiritual in nature.

Investigating natural things through natural means, is not spiritual deficiency, but confirms spiritual efficacy. Scientific research of the natural world is not anathema to spiritual intelligence, but is the result of it.

Your thinly veiled effort to make spiritual believers into unscientific rubes, is as ignorant as saying the Bible can't be intelligently accepted, though intelligently consistent by proven evidence of wholly consistent independent eyewitnesses.

The Bible is not one Book written and added to from time to time. The gospel accounts are not written by one writer, nor by several writers comparing notes. Most all the books of the Bible are written independently of one another by different writers from different times and places. They are independently written books compiled into one Book, where the independent eyewitnesses all agree.

All the other independent supernatural books are by one writer, and none of them agree enough to be compiled into one consistent Book of unerring testimony and revelation.

And, put all the other known ancient contradictory writers of the supernatural, and they are fewer than all the consistent writers of the Bible.

4. On Eyewitnesses and Historical Fact — Agreement, With a Crucial Difference

You state:

Only when there is sufficient corroborating evidence, can the recorded eyewitness be called historical fact.

On this point, we actually agree.

This is only the case for verifiable events. This is not the case for consistent independent testimonies of the same thing, by which it is accepted as proven evidence.

• I treat it as epistemically insufficient until corroboration exists.

I.e. by natural means, which you only believe in.

However, the consistent independent corroboration of testimony is accepted verifiable evidence.

6. Spiritual Discernment Cannot Authenticate Itself

You argue:

It takes spiritual intelligence to argue in the first place.

This equivocates between:

• Basic cognitive capacity (reason, language, abstraction).
• Theological discernment (correctly identifying divine truth).

False. You avoid self-explanatory spiritual intelligence, by diverting to a use of spiritual intelligence.

If you have no spirit, you have no intelligence. Unless you use your unseen intelligence, to say your thoughts are physical matter. Then, show your thoughts are only more masses of dumb rocks.