The basis is that several elements of your book are unclear and ambiguous to say the least. That's not just my view, muslim scholars debate the meanings.t That should set alarm bells ringing for any thinking person when people it is claimed to be the word of the almighty creator.
No. This just isn't true. It's a rather transparent strawman, in fact. Even if it was correct, that doesn't get us any closer to any claims about god.
Problem with using the scientific approach is like the discussion with you. There is a false starting point Using false translations won't get us anywhere its a typical approach by anti islamists. So for example the word PLACE isn't in the verse
You've proved nothing but an inability to debate. The fact that scholars disagree on some passages, asks serious questions on it being the work of a god that created us. They should know how to present a clear message.
Well this thread turned out well eh? For what it's worth, I don't like religion in any guise really. That said I don't mind if people choose to be religious. Whilst finding it all somewhat backwards that people need to believe in an imaginary deity for fulfilment . I used to think that the world would be a better place if there was no religion at all. I've now come to the conclusion that bad people will do bad things regardless. It's just shameful that they hide behind religion for doing such atrocities.
It's the translation from islamic sites. You'd best have a word with them. You'd also be as well to make your argument to the muslim scholars, as they debate the meanings too. The anti-islam comment is just a lazy, inaccurate argument.
I disagree. It always falls to this and strawmen that. As I said if you put all the theories on the table and applied probability some of what I have been arguing against is ludicrous This is the crux and something, which I have claimed consistently, if you put an atheist under the spotlight as opposed to a creationist the answers would be just as funny
I dontvcare about scholars I asked YOU specifically about a point YOU raised and YOU didn't have a clue Take a break pal
That shows your ignorance. Science will state that their 'answer' is the one that fits the known evidence at that point in time, and offer it up to be disproven. When it is, the revised version goes through the same process. Religion tends to claim there's is the absolute answer, and is not open to change.
I answered YOU. I explained my point, and justified it. Your response was some garbled gibberish, that didn't address the topic.
How are you assessing the probability these things that you haven't actually named? What probability have you applied to the existence of god?
You posted a verse/point and I asked for clarification you failed to provide as you don't have a clue It was an easy question
This isnt about clarity but more common sense! Why do you take everything to be scientific? Some of it is about common sense.
That's not the only way at all. I've posted that passage, there are others. The passage is one of a number that muslims don't wholeheartedly agree on, and others find it as an error. The fact that those issues arise, show that it is not clearly written. It doesn't matter whose interpretation is correct, the fact it is not clear is evidence that it's unlikely to be the word of an omniscient creator, who would surely have the ability to create a book that wouldn't contain such ambiguity.
For example the probability of there being a creator vs the probability it was chance Mathematically, I forget the name for the moment, the probability of chance was ridiculously high
