He hasn't sent it to me at all. If he had, he'd know that like the bulk of his creations, I can't read archaic Arabic. I guess he was making a point by passing his revelations to an illiterate, but why didn't he encourage a braille version at the time? It all seems vague and exclusive for the infallible word of the almighty.
I wasn't speaking about just big bang As with most theories big bang has to have something there to work, in its simplest form
That isn't even a reply, never mind an argument. They say the lord works in mysterious ways, and your version of a lord certainly does.
Leaving aside quantum physics, as nobody really understands it, there aren't any theories about things appearing from nothing. Nothing can't affect anything, as it's not a thing.
I do know Jack, me and her get on great. **** knows what that has to do with price of cheese. Oh and your claim "the man who claims dishonesty by all" is another of your lies. Looks like we're spending eternity in the same hell. I'll have the kettle on ready. If you're claiming I don't know much about the Koran, I guess it's relative, but I do know a few things. One is the likelihood of it being the work of some almighty being are extremely remote, to say the least, and your replies on here have confirmed that. I'd need to check, but I thought someone feeling they know better than Allah was blasphemous? That being the case, why does it need a scholar to explain what allah really meant in his great instruction manual? Aren't they claiming to be better by not simply pointing someone at his words and instead, writing their own books interpreting it? If you are an example of what studying it does, my suggestion would be for people to disregard it, and set their morals some other way.
You posted a load of garbled gibberish that still didn't address the point I've been making all night, and you've barely answered any of the questions I've asked. It looks like wasting your time reading that book, has left you no time for education.
There is 'sort of' one theory I can think of, but I doubt it's generally accepted yet. It relates to matter and anti-matter being in equilibrium, and effectively cancelling each other out as energy. The argument is something about one photon(?) of light altered in some way, and set off a kind of chain reaction. As you can tell, I only read it briefly, and couldn't really grasp it, and I'm not even sure why I'm mentioning it now...
Really, so when you buy a software for instance you know automatically what do with it and how it's used? God has given free choice to believe or not, spread good or bad...man follows his whim and desires regardless whether it's good for him or not, that's not goes fault, you have a choice. which scholars are arguing over what it means? should you truly believe you are here by just chance and survival of the fittest then all this emotions, feelings, morals and so forth dont really matter as it's all just chemicals right, you should bonking left, right and centre and not care about all this justice and what not because thats not the base instinct of survival of the fittest right.
That's a very good 1st point raised more articulate than I did earlier. I don't think many understand big bang either I have to go now, spent too long on here, its jummah tomorrow and ramadhan on Saturday and don't want to be on any forae All I know and alluded to earlier is the same old same old I have hears religious people say of I put a needle thread and material in a room it doesn't become a shirt. Mon religious say if input a piece of cheese in a room over time bacteria etc equals life. Both finish with a sort is aha got you They dont realise the absurdity and similarity of their analogies. All I know is in both examples somebody put all the stuff there and that is sufficient for me Similarly we have the monkeys typewriters and works of Shakespeare. For me ain't going to happen period I looked into religions and can discuss the finer points of Islam and offer an explanation that I have come to accept. I Also accept that manybwill pull the same old stuff from certain websites and try and argue them getting into the realms of ridiculous and eventually mockery My own kids are budding scientists and tbh its something I encouraged and as yet there hasn't been a clash. I believe there isn't with true science Anything else is not really worth losing sleep over
nope nothing about choosen one only can read, there is no issues in the Arabic text only interpretation of it in other languages and when it's clarified people don't like it because it doesn't suit their agenda. Islam actually tells it's followers to seek knowledge from cradle to grave...
Did the almighty make computers? When did you last read a computer manual? Did it have an explanation of the moral code, and a threat of hell if you disobeyed? Bill Gates has his critics, but few would claim he rules by fear and bribery. If god has given us free choice, why has he been wasting his time trying to produce instruction manuals. He could have wired it all in at the start for a kick off. Are we all just a part of his game? I have a choice, followers of that book have far less, and sign up to evil punishments, and fear of not getting their 'reward' in a heaven that the description in the book means can't exist. I am here by chance, and survival of the fittest and natural selection are key components of that. That doesn't mean that morals and emotions don't matter, if anything, it means they matter more. I don't have the carrot of eternity dangled before me, I have the realisation that what I've got is delicate and precious and I strive to enjoy every moment, and try to help others do the same. I don't need to be threatened to behave in a moral and just way, I do it freely, because it's the right thing to do. If it turns out there is a god, and he decides that even though I've lived a moral and just life, I didn't tug my forelock to him so I can't get into his paradise and must spend eternity in suffering, then good, **** him. I wouldn't want to spend eternity with an immoral, narcissistic fraud like that. I'll rot knowing I'm morally superior to him. Religion isn't moral anyway, especially if it's done by force, or obligation rather than natural goodness. That implies it's insincere. Would the almighty spot that? If he did, and realised that you behaved as you did, only under threat of hell, isn't that a falsehood? Wouldn't that person be trying to con the almighty, irrespective of their actions being good? What if there is a god, and it's one of the ones you've dismissed and don't follow? Would the Pope, Ghandi, the Dalai lama or Mother Teresa get in your heaven? If a religious person rapes and murders someone, and then repents, what's the punishment?
Those analogies are logical fallacies. They're just another variation of the watchmaker argument. The argument that it wouldn't make a shirt implies an argument from design. It's back to front as the reality is it's liable to produce oxidised metal and a decayed cloth, which over time will change further depending on external factors. Likewise the monkeys, the chances of them producing the works of Shakespeare or too large to consider true, but there's every chance something will change. The cheese one makes more sense as it will naturally change. The argument that we're somehow 'designed' falls apart when you look at the many design flaws and surplus bits and vulnerability to predators and disease. If the argument is that someone put them there, that requires more information, particularly if the leap is then made to claim, "it must have been god".
you do come out with bizarre and stupid analogies have to say....i will actually come back to you on this as I am on phone right now and show how stupid your argument actually is to be honest. Explain to me what is chance?
From someone that believes we exist because something blew on some clay and a clot, and then prattled on about computer manuals, you saying those analogies are stupid and bizarre is funny. What is chance? A possibility? Try pulling my argument apart by all means, it's there for it to be done to, but please don't come back just burbling that we can't exist through chance so their must be a god, it'd be embarrassing for you.
No change there then You keep banging on about science as if that disproves anything, you stand on the back of theist who came up with the method and weren't afraid of it as it wouldn't break their belief, yet you are jumping up and down as if it's an atheist thing to beat those with belief, laughable really..
I'm guessing that's an example of the archaic language of your instruction manual, because it makes precious little sense if it's supposed to be English.
Are you seriously that thick? we been through it where you tried to prpve the contradictions last year about it and went from one to another it was there for all to see.... Still didn't explain what a chance is really!
