How does this prove your point? I didn't say that you can't prove a negative, either. You can, depending on the circumstances. My position doesn't require me to do that though, as I'm not claiming a negative.
Not even close. I need to.know what the person I am discussing with knows. If for example I went into the explanation/discussion between Kaab and another companion on this same verse where they had a similar discussion I would need to know if you knew the basic principle in Islam of what to do when there is a dispute You see I said let's have a proper discussion rather than a tit for tat. To do that I need to know if you are just quoting answering Islam or have a genuine doubt/claim/issue
You're just making my point with each of your replies. An omniscient creator, would be able to produce a better instruction book. Actually, an omniscient creator shouldn't need to make one.
It proves many of my points from changing boundaries and definitions to mocking one but accepting the other, albeit I think you were just being playful rather than mocking The points I refer to are the ones I have been making throughout the complete discussion not just with you
It shouldn't matter. It's either the literal truth, in which case it's wrong, or it's allegory, in which case, it needs to be clear which bits of the book fall under which designation or the whole things is ambiguous. The fact it doesn't points to it being unlikely that it was created by an almighty.
I was pointing out the absurdity in attempting to apply statistical analysis to the beginning of existence or the existence of god. In order to make an accurate attempt, you'd have to know things that we simply don't know. Even then, it would just make something unlikely, which doesn't mean a lot. What was the likelyhood of the events of WWII happening exactly as they did, for example? Enormously, fantastically unlikely. Some ridiculously high number that couldn't be written down. Does that mean that they didn't happen?
Actually a creator would need to communicate and in terms of the book part of the problem for those.looking to point score (in your case without foundation) is what has been explained from day one When the book says something is as small as an ant people jump.on it and say smallest thing is an atom and begin to break that down. Yet the book isn't the reserve of the.educated its there for all. Give it to a villager in Pakistan and he has to be able to understand it This has highlighted why the interpretations cause a problem, usually written by those looking for a fancy word where a simple.one.will.do It happens with translations at hospitals etc for BME community. Those doing the translating do.so at their own level than the audience
Now that is a strawman However I think you will agree there was a build up to WW2 it didn't appear out of nowhere. Everything had to be in place and an instigator Then over the years everyone has a version that they try and push and conveniently forget roles of individuals and story of Edward becomes a love story rather than Nazi sympathising and ghandi never said forever your friend in a letter to Hitler Let's just call.anyone saying that a conspiracy theorist and voila jobs a good in, Sound familiar?
Your first paragraph is just another example of your dishonesty. I reckon your book would have something to say about that trait of yours. Maybe it's just not clear enough. You still keep making my point, as your words suggest that there are bits that are not strictly accurate and need clarification so that the people the almighty created, could understand it. I just don't see an almighty struggling to write such things clearly, when plenty of authors manage it.
Yes Qur'an says somethings are ambiguous and to go to men of understanding and knowledge, that does not mean you cant learn it for yourself though. So i am not sure what your problem is really and why alarm bells should ring!
I'd you were a student of the Quran or Islam you would see that the verses in the Quran are set in a certain order for a purpose. Some sound differ by one word. So the verses about not killing kids due to fear of poverty (something that used to happen and still does in India and other parts of the world) appear twice in different places. With subtle differences These verses are used by some to ask questions about the need to repeat but differently. Yet it's actually simple one is speaking of provision for the kids and the other for the parents
How is it a strawman? You appear to have entirely avoided the point to moan about royalty, for some reason. Apply it to anything. A football match. The exact sequence of events in a game are massively unlikely. A poker hand. A royal flush has a 649,739 : 1 chance of happening. Does that mean that it shouldn't happen? How would you even go about finding the numbers for statistically estimating the existence of god? Where would you start? The concept's ridiculous.
Dishonesty? The Qur'an says as much read the verse "we have sent this book down yo you..." Obviously as you don't know what you are arguing you wouldn't know this. As with all things learn about whatbyou are arguing against
That seems rather elitist, particularly as it was written in a version of Arabic that not many can read.
Wasn't a moan at royalty it was yo emphasise people overlook what they are uncomfortable with to suit Your examples are getting ridiculous now. Football matches and card games are not something appearing from nothing. The probability of getting a royal flush maybe what you say but getting it without having a deck of cards is going to be what?
Do you know what Qur'anic Arabic is called? And why it's important and good that quran uses that? Google it
Why would an almighty's instruction manual require the very people it was aimed at, and that the almighty created, to need to study it before it could be understood? I don't get the need for an almighty to create an instruction book at all, never mind several revisions of one, but given the omniscient realised they'd not got things right, I'd expect the definitive version to be far better than it is, especially given the claim it's infallible and unchangeable. If he didn't want the rest of us to be included, surely an omnipotent could find an easier way to prune us of the planet, so his chosen ones could live his way?
Nobody has made any claims about something appearing from nothing. That's not what Big Bang theory proposes. Indeed.
Who said it did? And really you don't understand why something which says it will stay unchanged for ever was written in the way it was? Think.you said earlier about why go through different Prophets etc you just showed why
