Clivedurdle

Why is God going to such trouble to hide evidence that the sun stood still? Why has he left evidence that flatly contradicts the possibility that happened? There are such things of sins of ommission and commission. Misleading, hiding things are very serious, evil matters.

Your line of argument correctly leads to assertions that the earth was made in 4004 bce, that Noah's flood happened, that languages developed after Babel.....

Do you not realise that for the earth to stand still - note - NOT - the sun - has repercussions for the whole solar system? There would be evidence of things being put right, putting humpty dumpty together. The cracks in the shell may be hard to find, but they would be there - saying God has got rid of every piece of evidence - we now have movies of molecules moving you know - and also leaving completely misleading evidence like the fossil record - is very strange behaviour.

Maybe it is better to conclude the sun did not stand still and Jesus did not rise from the dead to release us from our sins. Oh and if God can stop the sun, was he asleep from 1933 - 45?

aChristian

Yes. If you want to talk about the motion from a different frame of reference you can say the earth stopped rotating. The equations of motion are can be written relative to the earth being the center of the universe or the sun, or any point in space you want to use. The point is, both you and everyone reading this know what a sunset is. By the way, I have heard that the American indians have a story of a long night. I haven't checked it out, but it wouldn't surprise me to find that they do.

aChristian

I didn't put words in Paul's mouth. If I put quotes around my phrase that would be something different. However, I don't think that you can honestly take it any other way than the plain meaning I understand it to convey. I think you are just playing silly word games to take it to mean anything else.

I am afraid that you don't state it as fact because by doing so you can avoid the obvious truths in life and say you don't want to jump to hasty conclusions about anything. I have seen people do this.
It is still a lie if it is not true and told as if it were. The only way if wouldn't be a lie is if the person was deluded and believed it.

They were lied to by whoever first presented to them as truth.
However, there is no evidence of anything of the sort happening with the NT. They were always considered to be factual history by the church. You can see than from the NT and from the writings of the early church.

aChristian

I haven't gone through that arguement during this discussion - just touched on points here and there. I was just pointing out the logical fallacy of the comment the person made.
As I have stated before, God has given us plenty of evidence of the truth of the resurrection and if you are interested in knowing the truth you can find it easy enough.

Sauron

I don't think it was a logical fallacy. Your response was a logical fallacy, however, because you were assuming your conclusion.

If it's that easy to find, why can't you list it out for me?

Edited to add:

In response to someone else asking you the same question, you said earlier:

I've presented a few in the course of this discussion.

If you just want to point me to the posts where you think you outlined such evidences, that will be fine.

aChristian

Let me quote the apostle Paul. "Why should it be thought incredible by you that God raises the dead?"
God hasn't left any evidence that flatly contradicts what he did. On the contrary, an honest inquiry in any field of science or history will confirm what God has said in his word.
The earth probably was made around 4004 BC, bishop Ussher was a pretty sharp guy. There is unmistakable evidence for the flood. The fossil record is a dramatic testimony to God's judgement on man in the time of Noah. I won't go off topic any further, but you can find plenty of reasons by highly qualified scientists in many scientific disciplines that agree with this - start out with ICR's website.
As far as the problem of evil, no man has ever explained it, although Christianity answers it realistically with the idea of free will. This has a logic problem (how can God possibly create a free will?) so it doesn't answer the problem of evil with a logical arguement deduced from point A to point B, but it does appear true to life. If God somehow pulled off a free will (I think he did) then it answers the problem. Man is responsible for the evil you mention and the rest of the evil in this world (with some help from Satan).
However, I really think very few people have an intellectual problem with God. God has made his existence and the evidence for Christianity very plain so that anyone who wants to know the truth will easily find it. God has not hidden anything from an honest seeker.
God gave the reason why men do not believe in him in John 3:19-20, "And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed."

Sauron

But you haven't proven that God "did anything" in the first place.

In point of fact, biology, geology, astronomy, etc. all contradict the literal reading of Genesis.

Actually, Ussher was wrong. The earth is far older.

1. There is no evidence for a world-wide flood.
2. Nor for a boat that carried animals all over the world.

Wander over to the Evolution/Creation forum -- you'll see real scientists discuss the simplistic mistakes in the ICR website.

Christianity assumes the problem of evil, then offers its own solution. But it never proves the initial premise.

aChristian

If he was just bringing in another reason not to believe the Bible, that may not be a logical fallacy. It seemed like he was implying in some way that because the Bible says a miracle took place, therefore the resurrection cannot be true. The point I am making is that once the resurrection is established, that logically leads to all of Christianity being true and after that has been established, it is illogical to pretend that God cannot do a miracle.

I don't have the time. I've suggested several organizations to look at if you are really interested. You can start by just looking at God's creation. He says he has made himself so obvious through his creation that men are without excuse.
You really should take the time. There is nothing else in life more important.
Edited to add:

In response to someone else asking you the same question, you said earlier:

I've mentioned eyewitness testimony and church fathers from whom we get history of the time. I've also directed you to ICR's website if you have any honest questions about creation and the age of the earth. I've gave one quote to help determine the date of Christ's birth along with a website for more info. But as I said above, the evidence is there if you want to find it. I think you have to try real hard not to find God. He loves you and has made it easy for you to find him.

aChristian

I've studied some in these fields and found that they don't contradict Genesis.

From what I have studied, Ussher has more evidence to back him than those who claim billions of years. I think there is tons of evidence for a worldwide flood and I have read real scientists (many at ICR) who agree with me. I've read rebuttals to ICR's position and they are weak in my opinion. In addition, after the resurrection is established, the Biblical account trumps all scientific guesses to the contrary.

Any world view that says there is no evil is nonsense.

Sauron

Then you haven't studied it very hard. They all contradict a literal reading of genesis.


No. He did the best job he could, given his biases and the state of science at the time. But he was about as wrong as he could be.

There are not "many scientists" who agree with you. And the ICR has almost no scientists in the relevant fields of study; structural engineering is not geology.

Then you haven't read the correct rebuttals. Wander over to the Evo/Cre forum.

1. You haven't established it, though.
2. A resurrection would not prove a literal genesis anyhow.


Interesting opinion. But the other worldviews say the same about christianity. So unless you have some way to break the stalemate, your assertion is dead on arrival