The original comes from Debunking Atheists. I am reposting here in case the administrator of the blog decides it was a Ctrl-Ins/Shift-Ins job.
If I showed you evidence that would that prove God to you would your presuppositions prevent a belief again?
There is plenty of evidence for knowing God. Evidence of impossible things that are in the Bible, such as, eye witnesses with dedication to truth, 40 people penned a cohesive message of salvation over 1600 year period, etc.
The Bible is not a science book, yet it is scientifically accurate. There is even scientific truths in the Bible that would be impossible to know back when it was written a brief list of Atoms (Hebrews 11:3, written 2000 years ago), Blood is the source of life and health (Leviticus 17:11), Ocean floor contains deep valleys and mountains (2 Samuel 22:16; Jonah 2:6), round earth (Isaiah 40:22) , Second Law of Thermodynamics the Law of Increasing Entropy (Isaiah 51:6; Psalm 102:25,26; and Hebrews 1:11), Each star is different (1 Corinthians 15:41), Light moves (Job 38:19,20),Winds blow in cyclones (Ecclesiastes 1:6), Ocean contains springs (Job 38:16).
Job 38:35 written 3,500 years ago said that light can be sent, and then manifest itself in speech but did you know that radio waves move at the speed of light? This is why you can have instantaneous wireless communication with someone on the other side of the earth. Science didn't discover this until 1864 when "the British scientist James Clerk Maxwell suggested that electricity and light waves were two forms of the same thing" (Modern Century Illustrated Encyclopedia, Vol. 12), Dinosaurs (Job 40:15-24), Why was circumcision to be carried out on the eighth day? (Genesis 17:12) Medical science has discovered that the eighth day is the only day in the entire life of the newborn that the blood clotting element prothrombin is at the highest levels.(source)
On and on, a handful more things that can be pointed out but you get the point.
My point is that man doesn't/hasn't always known the truth that's in the Bible. Look Doctors/scientists used to bleed people (bloodletting) just 140 years ago, some even think that is how George Washington died. Over 3000 years ago in Leviticus 17:14 it has always said that blood is life.
Are all of these points made acceptable to you, is another question. Obviously, the evidence presented so far doesn't allow atheists to believe so why should this be any different. I am sure your presuppositions are still in place.
Hebrews is talking about an unseen spiritual realm. Indeed, atoms are not invisible.
Blood, while needed to keep us alive, is not the source of life. If it were, tranfusions should be able to raise the dead. Blood only helps to keep life from slipping away. Similarly with air.
Jonah 2:6-7 seems to be talking about the abyss as the end of life or the afterlife. The phrase "the roots of mountains" (New American Bible) seems to suggest that the people thought mountains were distinct forms that had roots under the earth. My reading of 2 Samuel speaks of "wellsprings of the sea" and "foundations of the earth" (both fictitious) but no valleys or mountains.
My translation doesn't even render it "circle" of the earth. I presume yours does. In any event, it would still be referring to a flat disk.
Your references to things wearing down was not unknown at the time. People observes that things wore down.
"One differs from another in brightness" (New American Bible) The people could see that. (Now if it had said that they were really balls of gas -- but I digress.)
Job 38:19, 20 is claiming that light and darkness are beings with dwelling places. That would be a scientific falsehood.
Winds blowing in cyclones were not unknown at the time. (I'm not even going to look up that biblical text. It was something known to the people the way you stated it.)
My copy only talks about "sources" of the sea. People could guess that there would be some source.
Job38:35 talks about lightning (not light) and how only the biblical god can control it.
Job 40:15-24 talks about a "behemoth." It has only recently been re-interpreted to be talking of a dinosaur. Further, the wording suggests that it should be an animal with which the people were familiar, which rules out dinosaurs.
The choice of the eighth day was likely based on trial and error and then codified in their sacred book.
Yes, I'm sure you could on with things equally impressive. Your "evidence" is mostly a re-interpretation of ancient texts to fit modern knowledge. If someone did that with any other religious book, I'm sure you would cry foul.