(Original post by .eXe)
Well do you know what's outside the universe? Do you know where the end of the universe is? How do you know there is no water out there? You are asking me to prove something I cannot. But guess what, you cannot prove the opposite either. Just saying that it doesn't exist doesn't automatically make you correct.
To your second point, the widely held belief back then was that the earth was flat. Why didn't the authors of the Bible just put that down? Why even use the word round? That very word automatically went against the current dogma at the time. The very fact that the word circle is used means that it was knowledge acquired by means other than science/society because if those authors had written based on their own knowledge of things, they would've said that the earth is flat. (This is what you call an analysis of a text)
What foolish people like you do is pick a few words and start berating the bible based on it, instead of understanding the context behind them. The context I have just explained above would have never entered your feeble mind because you have completely closed yourself off to reason and instead are quite content just bashing whatever issue you can find in the Bible. At least when I speak against Islam I give reasons why. You are going against the Bible based on one quote, which I have just shown cannot possibly have been written based on scientific or societal knowledge. The only other possibility is something transcendental because the Bible does claim to be the book of God, rather than an encyclopedia.
Regarding what's outside the universe, that's actually an infinitely large collection of other universes (I **** you not) with the same laws of physics. This comes from the inflationary period immediately after the big bang, which causes space to expand so fast it left patches of it which could never communicate with each other, they were too far apart. This is the Level 1 Multiverse Hypothesis, and you should read up on it.
Actually, it was fairly common knowledge to people with half a brain that the earth was round. If the earth was flat, then as you watched a boat sail over the horizon you would see all of it all at once, rather than just the bow then the sails.
As for your last remark, I have critically considered the bible deeply and found its teachings to be largely immoral, outdated and useless. It's God is at best silly and naive and at worst callous and evil. I could talk for hours about this, but I suspect you have some answer to this so I shall answer your questions
Keeping it civil, no need for this to become anything more than a civil debate
(Original post by .eXe)
The very fact that the word circle is used means that it was knowledge acquired by means other than science/society because if those authors had written based on their own knowledge of things, they would've said that the earth is flat. (This is what you call an analysis of a text)
But it's not a circle, so the knowledge you claim came from some higher being was wrong.
What foolish people like you do is pick a few words and start berating the bible based on it, instead of understanding the context behind them.
As do creationists who insist on saying the big bang and evolution are theories. They take one word but don't understand the context in which it's used. The difference is when atheists look at the bible, they realise there's no supporting evidence for what it says, whereas scientific explanations for the universe have data to back it up from multiple sources.