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 #106]

RBD, I will respond point-by-point. I will not mirror accusations. I will address the arguments.

1. “You Do Not Believe Supernatural Things Exist”

You state:

1. You do not believe supernatural things exist.
2. You have called the recorded supernatural event a foolish myth.
3. Your rejection by natural means is subjective accusation, not critical review.

This again misrepresents the position.

The position is not:

• “Only natural things exist.”

The position is:

• Claims require proportionate evidence.

If compelling evidence for a supernatural event were presented, it would be evaluated on evidential grounds.

Suspending belief due to insufficient evidence is not the same as asserting impossibility.

That distinction matters.

2. “Much of the Bible Is Already Proven True”

You claim:

Much of the Bible is already proven true by more outside evidence.

Two important clarifications:

• Archaeological confirmation of places or rulers does not validate miracle claims.
• Historical background accuracy does not establish divine inspiration.

For example:
If a text accurately names a city, that confirms geography.
It does not confirm resurrection.

This is basic historical method.

The issue under discussion is extraordinary claims e.g. the Sun and the Moon standing still so God's followers could murder more people — not whether ancient cities existed.

3. Accusations of Fraud Are Not Argument

You state:

By several such occasions, you've now proven yourself a fraud.

Calling someone a fraud is not evidence.
It is rhetoric.

If there is a specific logical error, identify it.
Demonstrate it.
Show the step where reasoning fails.

Personal accusation does not substitute for analysis.

4. “Independent Witnesses” vs. Shared Tradition

You say:

I never speak of the Bible writers as sincere, but as independent witnesses.

Independence requires:

• No literary dependence.
• No shared theological framework.
• No shared oral tradition.
• No copying or redaction.

The Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) demonstrate clear literary interdependence.
That is widely recognized in biblical scholarship — including by conservative scholars.

Shared source material reduces independence.

This is a methodological point, not a moral accusation.

5. “Calling the Bible Wrong Equals Calling It Lying”

You argue:

To say the Bible is wrong about the sun standing still is to say the Bible has no author when lying.

This is a category error.

A text can contain:

• Mythic cosmology
• Ancient phenomenological language
• Theological storytelling
• Legendary development

Without the authors intending deception.

Ancient authors operated within ancient cosmology.

Calling a cosmological claim mistaken is not accusing the author of deliberate deceit.

Mistake ≠ malicious lying.

6. The Qur’an Comparison

You assert:

You ignore the proof of the Koran author lying about himself in order to equalize Bible and Koran integrity.

Two issues here:

1. The same standard must apply to all sacred texts.
2. Internal consistency does not establish divine origin.

Many religious texts are internally coherent.
That alone does not prove supernatural authorship.

If one argues:
“The Bible is true because it is internally consistent,”

then the same argument could be made for other religious texts.

7. The Structural Question Still Stands

The core issue remains unchanged:

How do we objectively distinguish:

• Genuine divine revelation
from
• Human religious development

without presupposing the answer?

Appealing to the text itself assumes what is under debate.
Appealing to the believer's acceptance assumes the conclusion.

8. Critical Review vs. Presupposition

Critical review asks:

• What is the evidence?
• What alternative explanations exist?
• What is the prior probability?
• What independent corroboration exists?

If supernatural explanations are introduced, the evidential burden increases — not because of bias, but because extraordinary causal claims require strong justification.

That is standard reasoning applied in every other domain.

Conclusion

This discussion is not about hostility toward God.
It is about epistemic method.

The disagreement is not:

• “You hate God.”
vs.
• “I defend God.”

The disagreement is:

• What counts as evidence?
• What counts as independence?
• What distinguishes faith assertion from publicly verifiable knowledge?

Those questions remain unanswered.

When accusations are removed, the methodological challenge still stands.

[RBD]

[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.

Thanks for your impute, and this is where the whole natural argument fails: Other than reasoning, there is no evidence of the nonphysical things. Because such reasoning itself is proof of nonphysical things: The Invisible thoughts and intents of men and women.

Reasoning, thinking, imagination is spiritual, because it'snot natural substance. It does not take up space, nor be measured by natural means.

People can argue about the spiritual things, but they cannot argue against them, unless they deny their own intelligence. The natural man by natural reasoning alone, proves the spiritual non-physical nature of reasoned thoughts. To deny that, is to deny one's own reason.

The natural man in self-denial says he has nothing, if it cannot be naturally weighed:

Ecc 10:3
Yea also, when he that is a fool walketh by the way, his wisdom faileth him, and he saith to every one that he is a fool.

Pro 13:16
Every prudent man dealeth with knowledge: but a fool layeth open his folly.

There is no reasoning with a person, who reasons that his own thoughts do not exist, because they are non-physical. Or, that he has seen his own thoughts in physical space. Or, of course, denies his own thoughts are not physical things, because he does not want to understand, that there are daily proofs of spiritual things, that cannot take up space and be weighed by natural means.

Jhn 1:2
And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

The natural air we breathe is physical matter, that can be physically measured, but not the thoughts and intents and imaginations of men and women on earth. None have seen nor discovered nor found our own ideas and understanding by natural means:

Job 28:12
But where shall wisdom be found? and where is the place of understanding? Man knoweth not the price thereof; neither is it found in the land of the living. The depth saith, It is not in me: and the sea saith, It is not with me. It cannot be gotten for gold, neither shall silver be weighed for the price thereof.


Pro 17:16
Wherefore is there a price in the hand of a fool to get wisdom, seeing he hath no heart to it?

Pro 17:24
Wisdom is before him that hath understanding; but the eyes of a fool are in the ends of the earth.

The proverbs are simply stating the obvious: That thoughts and intents of the hearts of men and women, cannot be physically calculated nor found out. And yet the foolish person denies his own reason, because he has no heart to understand his own spiritual power, that the beasts of the field do not. He thinks himself a brute beast of the field, which thinking itself separates him from the all animals on earth.

Gen 1:26
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:

The daily and most widespread evidence of the spiritual things on earth, alongside the natural things of gravity and the air we breathe, is men and women beings created in the image of the unseen intelligent Spirit of God: The invisible imaginings and reasonings of men and women on earth.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to RBD in post #107]

RBD, I will again respond directly and structurally. The recurring issue is not rhetoric. It is a repeated category confusion.

1. Objective Skepticism Does Not Mean “Never Judge False”

You write:

Since present objective skepticism means not judging true or false, then claiming objective skepticism while judging false, is false.

That definition is incorrect.

Objective skepticism means:

• Claims are evaluated using consistent standards.
• Conclusions are proportionate to evidence.
• Judgments remain revisable if better evidence appears.

It does not mean permanent suspension of judgment.

If evidence is weak, contradictory, or insufficient, a claim may rationally be judged false or unproven.

That is not abandoning skepticism.
That is applying it.

If skepticism required never concluding anything false, then no claim could ever be rejected.

2. Calling a Claim False Is Not Calling an Author a Liar

You argue:

By saying the Bible is lying, but the author is not, is separating authorship from the record.

There is a critical distinction:

• A lie requires intent to deceive.
• A mistaken claim does not require intent to deceive.

Ancient authors often reported:

• What they believed.
• What tradition transmitted.
• What their cosmology assumed.

If a cosmological claim (e.g., the sun standing still) conflicts with established astronomy, saying it is false does not imply the author consciously fabricated it. It could be due to the author being mistaken.

It may reflect:

• Pre-scientific cosmology.
• Theological storytelling.
• Phenomenological language.
• Legendary development.

Error ≠ deliberate deceit.

That distinction is not sophistry.
It is basic conceptual clarity.

3. “Natural Faith” Is a Mislabeling

You say:

Natural faith is only believing in natural things and trusting in natural evidence.

That conflates two different ideas.

Faith typically implies:

• Belief without sufficient evidence.
or
• Trust beyond what evidence strictly compels.

Methodological naturalism is not “faith in nature.”

It is simply:

• Restricting explanations to publicly testable causes.
• Preferring explanations that have independent verification.
• Avoiding introducing additional ontological entities without necessity.

This is not a metaphysical declaration that “only natural things exist.”

It is a methodological rule:
Use explanations that can be checked.

Calling that “faith” redefines the term so broadly that it loses meaning.

4. “All Natural Thinking Ends in the Grave” Is Irrelevant to Truth-Value

You argue:

Since all natural thinking ends in the grave, it takes natural faith to only accept natural things.

Whether thinking ends at death is itself the disputed issue. Do souls exist? How do we know? If the mind is what the brain does, then the mind ceases to be when the brain dies. I am committed to truth and ethics. I have been researching truth and ethics for 44 years. I am an Agnostic Atheist Compassionist (i.e. I treat all sentient beings with compassion) Vegan Egalitarian because I am committed to truth and ethics.

More importantly:

The emotional or existential consequences of a belief do not determine its truth.

If a belief is comforting, it is not thereby true.
If a belief is bleak, it is not thereby false.

Truth claims are evaluated by evidence and coherence — not by existential appeal.

5. The Core Distinction You Continue to Collapse

The persistent conflation is this:

• Disagreement = accusation.
• Mistaken claim = lying author.
• Methodological naturalism = metaphysical dogma.
• Skepticism = hostility.

These are not equivalent.

Rejecting a claim is not declaring war.
Judging a claim false is not calling its author immoral.
Using consistent evidential standards is not bias.

6. The Epistemic Issue Remains

The structural question has not changed:

How do we distinguish genuine divine revelation from:

• Human religious development,
• Cultural mythmaking,
• Legendary expansion,
• Theological interpretation?

Without presupposing the answer?

Labeling skepticism as “natural faith” does not answer that.
Equating falsity with intentional lying does not answer that.
Appealing to existential stakes does not answer that.

Conclusion

The disagreement is not moral.
It is methodological.

If evidence sufficient to justify supernatural claims were presented, it would be evaluated.

Until then, withholding belief — or judging a claim unsupported — is not hostility, not fraud, and not “faith in nature.”

It is simply applying consistent epistemic standards.

[RBD]

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

This claim is factually incorrect. We do not have “exact copies.”

False accusation against a thousand generation of scribes making exact copies.

And since the copies are internally and externally unerring, then so much be the originals exactly copied.

If the Bible Author is who He says He is, then preserving His written Scriptures is assured.

This is circular reasoning.

Sure it is. Based upon the evidence of unerring exact copies, of a unerring Book written by the Divine perfect Author, it's no surprise that He kept His original words perfectly preserved.

I have noticed that you apply circular reasoning only in support of the Bible, but not of other religious books.

I have noticed that you don't pay any attention to self-proving arguments showing why.

[RBD]

Multiple independent eyewitnesses of the same event, without contradiction, is verified proof.

Only under specific conditions:

1. The witnesses are identifiable.
2. Their independence is demonstrable.
3. Their statements are contemporaneous.
4. They are subject to cross-examination.
5. The event falls within ordinary human experience.

1. When the witnesses identify themselves, they are identifiable.
2. When the testimonies are independent given, they are independent.
3. False.
4. True. Inerrancy proves factual statements.
5. False.

None of these conditions are fully satisfied for the resurrection accounts.

All of the correct conditions qualify when the same event is testified and agreed in the different books and letters in the Bible.

Multiple agreement does not automatically equal proof.

Multiple independent eyewitness agreement is verified proof for historical and legal evidence. The principle of two or three witnesses applies to both.

The Bible evidence of eyewitness testimony is not only possible in cases of single testimony, but is verified proof with multiple testimonies.

So long as the Bible remains unerring in agreement, the Bible contains the verifiable evidence of independent and multiple records of many books and letters.

All the rest of the books of religions do not equal the Bible number, nor in consistency.

The authors of the Koran and Book of Mormon contradict their own purposes. The 3 books of Hinduism do not always agree in purpose and content. Accepted Buddhist authors never claim complete agreement in the Buddha's word.

Longevity and widespread knowledge increases validity.

Longevity increases influence, not truth.

The distinction separates meaningless efforts to destabilize the Bible, as being analogous to modernish imaginary writings.

Accepting one supernatural book does not demand accepting all.

Correct.

But then the criteria must be consistently applied.

If your standard is:

• Multiple writers
• Internal agreement
• Longevity

Then other traditions qualify in varying degrees.

Varying degree is not unerring agreement.

Name any other Book of multiple independent books and letters, that all agree without fault.

Rejecting supernatural events due to natural law is faith in nature alone.

No.

Yes.

It is inference from uniform experience.

Widespread experience increases influence, not truth.

Takes faith to accept it as unquestionable truth.

Every verified case of death in medical history has remained permanent.

That is not “faith in nature.”

False. No medical record verifies Jesus' death, and His bodily decomposition.

It is inductive reasoning.

It is inductive natural reasoning taken on natural faith.

Are you saying you believe in the supernatural?

Possibility is not the same as probability.

If you believe the supernatural is possible, you would not subject all supernatural claims to natural proof.

And so, do you believe anything can be possible, that is not verified by natural means?

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

The burden is misplaced.

I am not asserting post-mortem knowledge.

You are when you demand natural proof for supernatural events.

You're only two efforts to deny supernatural things, have been based on natural means, and your own personal morality.

Core Issue

Your argument ultimately reduces to:

• The Bible is internally consistent.
• It is ancient and widely preserved.
• Therefore it is proven true.
• Therefore miracles recorded in it are verified.

That does not follow.

Another fraud.
With single testimonial evidence, it's certainly possible. With verified independent multiple testimonies, it's verified evidence.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to RBD in post #114]

False accusation against a thousand generation of scribes making exact copies.

This is not an accusation. It is a documented historical fact.

We possess thousands of manuscripts of the Biblical texts — and they contain textual variants. That is not controversial; it is the foundation of the entire discipline of textual criticism.

Examples include:

• The longer ending of Mark (Mark 16:9–20) — absent in Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus
• The Pericope Adulterae (John 7:53–8:11) — missing in early manuscripts
• 1 John 5:7 (the Comma Johanneum) — absent from early Greek manuscripts

If we had “exact copies,” these variants would not exist.

The existence of variants does not mean scribes were malicious. It means transmission occurred through human copying processes — which inevitably introduce differences over centuries.

That is simply how manuscript history works.

And since the copies are internally and externally unerring, then so much be the originals exactly copied.

This is an assertion, not an argument.

First, the copies are demonstrably not identical.
Second, “internally and externally unerring” is a theological claim, not a historical conclusion.

Historians assess manuscripts by:

• Date of composition
• Earliest surviving copies
• Textual stability across transmission
• Independent corroboration

The Bible does not uniquely satisfy a supernatural standard of preservation compared to other ancient works. It has a rich manuscript tradition — but so do other classical texts.

Claiming perfection requires proof, not repetition.

Based upon the evidence of unerring exact copies, of a unerring Book written by the Divine perfect Author, it's no surprise that He kept His original words perfectly preserved.

This is textbook circular reasoning.

The structure is:

1. The Bible is perfect because God wrote it.
2. We know God wrote it because the Bible says so.
3. Therefore the Bible is perfectly preserved.

The conclusion is embedded in the premise.

A non-circular argument would require independent evidence that:

• A divine author exists
• That author dictated or inspired specific texts
• That the author guaranteed preservation
• That preservation demonstrably occurred

Without independent verification, this remains a faith-based claim.

I have noticed that you don't pay any attention to self-proving arguments showing why.

“Self-proving” arguments are precisely the issue.

Every religion claims its text is self-authenticating.

• The Qur’an claims divine preservation.
• The Book of Mormon claims divine origin.
• Hindu scriptures claim eternal revelation.

If self-assertion is sufficient evidence, then all mutually contradictory scriptures must be true simultaneously — which is logically impossible.

An epistemic standard must be:

• Consistent
• Non-circular
• Applicable across religions

If circular reasoning is valid for one text, it must be valid for all texts. If it is invalid for others, it is invalid here as well.

The core issue is methodological consistency.

Historical claims require historical evidence.
Theological convictions require faith.

Blurring the two does not strengthen the argument — it weakens it.

If preservation were perfect, textual criticism would not exist.

If the argument is faith-based, then it should be presented as such.

Those are two different categories of claim.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to RBD in post #115]

Multiple independent eyewitnesses of the same event, without contradiction, is verified proof.

Only if independence and eyewitness status are demonstrated — not merely asserted.

You are assuming what must first be proven.

Agreement between texts does not automatically establish:

• That the authors were eyewitnesses
• That they wrote independently
• That their accounts were not shaped by shared tradition

The resurrection narratives do not name themselves within the texts as firsthand signed affidavits. The Gospel titles were attached later. That immediately weakens the “identifiable eyewitness” claim.

When the witnesses identify themselves, they are identifiable.

None of the resurrection narratives contain signed, self-authenticating legal testimony.

The Gospels are anonymous narratives written in third person.

Paul claims visionary experience — but that is not the same category as physical forensic documentation.

Identifiable means historically traceable with external corroboration — not merely traditionally attributed.

When the testimonies are independent given, they are independent.

Independence must be demonstrated, not declared.

The majority scholarly view holds:

• Matthew and Luke use Mark as a source.
• John was written decades later in a developed theological context.
• Paul’s letters predate the Gospels but do not describe the empty tomb narrative in detail.

If sources share literary dependence, they are not independent witnesses in a legal sense.

All of the correct conditions qualify when the same event is testified and agreed in the different books and letters in the Bible.

But they do not fully agree.

Examples:

• Who arrived at the tomb?
• How many angels were present?
• When exactly did appearances occur?
• Where did the disciples first see Jesus — Galilee or Jerusalem?

These are not trivial details in a legal standard of cross-examination.

Agreement in broad claim is not identical to agreement in detail.

Multiple independent eyewitness agreement is verified proof for historical and legal evidence.

Not automatically.

In legal settings:

• Witnesses are cross-examined.
• Their psychological reliability is assessed.
• Their accounts are compared under adversarial scrutiny.

We cannot cross-examine ancient authors.

Historical methodology operates probabilistically — not with courtroom “verified proof.”

The principle of two or three witnesses applies.

That principle is a theological standard from Deuteronomy.

It is not a universally binding epistemological rule for all extraordinary claims.

If two or three testimonies automatically verified miracles, then:

• Marian apparitions
• Islamic miracle claims
• Hindu miracle claims

would also be “verified proof.”

Consistency requires applying the same standard everywhere.

Name any other Book of multiple independent books and letters, that all agree without fault.

Internal agreement does not establish supernatural truth.

A perfectly consistent fictional narrative is still fiction.

The question is not literary coherence.
The question is empirical plausibility.

Rejecting supernatural events due to natural law is faith in nature alone.

No.

It is inference from uniform experience.

Every verified death in medical history has resulted in permanent biological cessation.

That is not metaphysical dogma — it is induction from repeated observation.

If someone claims a resurrection, the evidential bar rises precisely because it contradicts uniform experience.

That is not “faith in nature.”
It is proportioning belief to evidence.

False. No medical record verifies Jesus' death.

We do not possess Roman medical certificates for crucifixion victims in general.

Yet crucifixion is well-attested as a lethal method of execution.

To argue that because we lack a death certificate therefore resurrection is plausible shifts the burden of proof.

The claim is not “Jesus died like everyone else.”
The claim is “Jesus uniquely reversed death.”

The burden rests on the extraordinary claim being proven with proportionate evidence.

If you believe the supernatural is possible, you would not subject all supernatural claims to natural proof.

Possibility ≠ probability.

It is logically possible that:

• Alien beings exist.
• Psychic powers exist.
• Miracles occur.

But possibility alone does not compel belief.

Evidence must distinguish one supernatural claim from thousands of competing ones.

You are when you demand natural proof for supernatural events.

No.

I am not asserting knowledge beyond the grave.

You are asserting a specific historical miracle occurred.

The burden of proof rests on the positive claimant.

Requesting evidence is not making a counter-assertion.

With verified independent multiple testimonies, it's verified evidence.

That is precisely the issue: verification.

Verification requires:

• Demonstrated independence
• Demonstrated eyewitness access
• Demonstrated contemporaneity
• Demonstrated absence of legendary development

Those are debated — not settled — in scholarship.

The argument ultimately rests on this leap:

Agreement → Inerrancy → Divine authorship → Miracle verified.

Each arrow requires independent justification.

Without that, the reasoning remains circular.

The core issue is methodological consistency.

If two or three agreeing ancient texts automatically verify miracles, then we must accept miracle claims across religions.

If we do not accept those, then the standard is not agreement alone.

Historical reasoning is probabilistic, not absolute.

Extraordinary claims require proportionally strong evidence.

That principle applies everywhere — including here.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #100]

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.

This is an assertion, not a demonstration.

No one denies that intelligence is real. The question is what kind of thing intelligence is.

Modern neuroscience shows strong correlations between:

• Brain states and thoughts
• Brain injury and loss of cognitive function
• Electrical stimulation and altered perception
• Neurochemistry and mood

Correlations are positive connections.

Brain is physical matter. Electricity is physically measurable. No single thought has ever been physically measured nor established.

You are now reduced to changing the scientific definition of natural things: That which has mass, takes up space, and is physically measured. You are trying to make something without mass and unmeasurable into physical matter.

I.e. pagan spiritism, where intelligent thought and physical matter are the same thing. The uncreated living and thinking natural universe.

If intelligence were non-physical in the sense you suggest, then:

Intelligence would not have physical mass, take up space, nor be physically measured.

Calling intelligence “spiritual” does not explain it. It merely re-labels it.

Calling something unphysical without mass, nor physically measurable, can be anything, spiritual, supernatural, etc...But you can't call it natural matter.

Explaining the source of nonphysical intelligence can only be by intelligence, not by natural things. Hence, calling it spiritual, supernatural, etc...

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

Reasoning proves that reasoning exists.

It does not prove that reasoning is immaterial.

More fraud. Intelligent reasoning and thought is not physical nor natural matter. Immaterial implies no effect on natural things. It has affect when put into practice.

That is a non sequitur.

Electricity exists.
Magnetism exists.
Gravity exists.

None are visible as “mass,” but all are physical phenomena.

Something being invisible does not make it non-physical.

More fraud redefining natural matter: Has mass, takes up space, and is physically measurable.

Understanding is spiritual, not natural matter.

This confuses category levels.

Thoughts are not lumps of matter — but they are instantiated in physical neurochemical activities.

A computer running code does not contain “the idea” as a lump of silicon — yet the idea depends entirely on physical processes.

Emergent properties are not identical to their base components — but they are dependent on them.

That is not materialist dogma.
That is explanatory coherence.

Explains coherence of all things natural, by being physically measurable and naturally dependent on one another.

That which is independent of natural things, is not a natural thing.

If the natural universe were only uncreated natural matter... there would be no intelligence.

That is an argument from incredulity.

The fact that you cannot imagine how matter gives rise to mind does not entail that it cannot.

This is an argument of faith:

The fact that you can imagine something naturally unprovable, proves faith. The fact that you can believe in natural things becoming something not natural, is self-denying faith in natural things alone.

Instead of disproving intelligence is nonphysical and not natural matter, you are only proving that imaginative faith can become self-contradictory ignorant. There is no ignorance in natural things. Only that which is not natural matter, can be ignorant about itself, and yet prove itself by being ignorant.

Intelligence and ignorance both prove the spiritual things, that are not physically natural.

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.

Pro 17:16
No foolish man can get wisdom, seeing he hath no heart to it.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to RBD in post #118]

Correlations are positive connections.
Brain is physical matter. Electricity is physically measurable. No single thought has ever been physically measured nor established.

Correct: correlations are connections.

But when altering the brain reliably alters thought, memory, personality, perception, and reasoning — the burden shifts.

• Damage Broca’s area → speech production collapses.
• Damage the hippocampus → memory formation collapses.
• Administer anesthetics → consciousness disappears.
• Electrically stimulate cortex → specific perceptions arise.

If intelligence were independent of the brain, these manipulations should not so precisely modulate it.

We do not “measure” a thought the way we measure a rock’s mass — because a thought is not a lump of matter.

We measure neural activity patterns that correspond to specific thoughts.

You are demanding the wrong category of measurement.

That is a category mistake.

You are now reduced to changing the scientific definition of natural things: That which has mass, takes up space, and is physically measured.

That definition is incomplete.

In modern physics:

• Electromagnetic fields have no rest mass.
• Gravity (in general relativity) is the curvature of spacetime.
• Quantum fields are not little lumps of stuff.

Yet they are physical.

“Physical” does not mean “solid chunk with weight.”

It means part of the causally closed system described by physics.

Thoughts have causal impact because neural processes have causal impact.

No redefinition is required.

Explaining the source of nonphysical intelligence can only be by intelligence, not by natural things.

This is question-begging.

You are assuming the conclusion (intelligence is nonphysical) and then arguing from it.

The alternative explanation is:

Intelligence is an emergent property of complex information-processing systems.

Just as:

• Wetness emerges from H₂O molecules.
• Life emerges from chemistry.
• Computation emerges from electronic circuits.

Emergence does not mean “magic.”
It means higher-level organization arising from lower-level interaction.

Immaterial implies no effect on natural things.

No, it does not.

Immaterial means “not material.”

Something can be immaterial and still causally active — if one posits that.

But then you face a serious problem:

How does something nonphysical interact with physical neurons without violating conservation laws?

Every time neurons fire, measurable energy exchanges occur.

If a nonphysical soul alters them, where does the additional energy come from?

This is not rhetoric — it is a real interaction problem that dualism has struggled with for centuries.

That which is independent of natural things, is not a natural thing.

Agreed.

But intelligence is not independent of natural things.

It systematically varies with:

• Brain development
• Brain injury
• Neurochemistry
• Sleep deprivation
• Dementia
• Stroke
• Tumors

If something disappears when the brain ceases functioning, the simplest explanation is dependence.

Not independence.

The fact that you can believe in natural things becoming something not natural, is self-denying faith in natural things alone.

No one is claiming matter “becomes something not natural.”

Intelligence is natural — but not reducible to “mass.”

You are conflating:
“Not identical to a lump of matter”
with
“Not natural.”

A whirlpool is not identical to a water molecule.
Yet it is entirely physical.

A thought is not identical to a neuron.
Yet it is instantiated in neural dynamics.

That is not faith.
It is explanatory continuity.

Intelligence and ignorance both prove the spiritual things.

No.

They prove cognitive processes exist.

Calling them “spiritual” is a label.

The question is explanatory power.

Material neuroscience predicts:

• Damage → impairment
• Chemicals → mood alteration
• Electrical input → perceptual change

Spiritual explanations predict none of these in a measurable, testable way.

One framework generates testable predictions.
The other re-labels phenomena.

That is the epistemic difference.

Quoting scripture does not resolve the empirical question.

The debate is not whether intelligence exists.
It does.

The debate is whether the best explanation is:

A) Brain-dependent emergent process
or
B) Independent nonphysical substance

The overwhelming weight of converging evidence supports A.

If you wish to defend B, you must solve:

1. The interaction problem
2. The dependence problem
3. The predictive asymmetry problem

Simply asserting “it is spiritual” does not meet that burden.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #100]

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.

This is an assertion, not a demonstration.

by

This is a demonstration of ad absurdum. When you begin seeing your thoughts, or other people's thoughts, and can tell them by natural means, let us all know.

It would be a huge scientific break through. Since it's naturally impossible.

Understanding is spiritual, not natural matter.

This confuses category levels.

This only confuses intellectual folly with intelligent argument.

Ecc 10:3
Yea also, when he that is a fool walketh by the way, his wisdom faileth him, and he saith to every one that he is a fool.

If the natural universe were only uncreated natural matter... there would be no intelligence.

That is an argument from incredulity.

This is an incredible continuation of foolish thinking.

The fact that you cannot imagine how matter gives rise to mind does not entail that it cannot.

The fact that you cannot acknowledge that the thoughts of the mind and heart cannot be measured or proven by natural means, does not entail that they can.

Thinking about it, proves itself.

Thinking proves thinking exists.

Which cannot be seen, proven, nor measured by natural means.

At this point, you can either redefine the spiritual and supernatural, as now being natural substance, and proven by natural means.

Or, you can continue the foolishness of trying to make thoughts into natural things, through foolish thinking.

Or, you can acknowledge what everyone knows: Thoughts are not natural substance, and cannot be measured and proven by natural means.

But, if you ever do see thoughts as natural objects, then let all the world know. You should make quite a huge profit on being able to read minds thought for thought.