Science by definition increasingly makes God less probable, not more. Because as more things that were once deemed to be the "works" of gods are explained according to the scientific method, there become less things that can attributed to the acts of gods.
Which bits of science support the god of your book? The science in the book was mainly taken from the Greeks, including the errors, such as Galen's theories on embryonic stages and all things coming in pairs, and no mention of bacteria.
My kids grand parents are atheist and not all but certainly the elders lived with them as I lived in my in laws house in the early days. No Muslims in their vicinity and I wasn't practising Drinking and eating pork has never been apostasy No shunning or death either, just checked
Yep. "Before I address any further issues raised I would like an explanation on how you believe I have "got indignant" and an explanation how the Koran is a variation of paganism adapted for political gain. i would specifically like this open minded background you speak of. No answer to that and no more engaging with you" So, my answer again, I'm guessing it's this one the one about the koran (and all abrahimic faiths) using pagan traditions, and adding some bits for political gain? The pagan origins of most of the dates and traditions are very clear, there was a short video someone posted that showed it quite well. The adaptations for political gain, are tied in with the reuse and adaptation of the traditions, so that people bought into it. You only need look at a few key elements to see that they're the work of a mortal, rather than a divinity. It's a common distinction made that Islam is largely a political ideology, and that is based on the writings as a good percentage of the koran and hadiths relate to dealing with kafirs and how to rule.
No it really doesn't. Science has actually helped to destroy certain models of God any "acts of God" that were attributed to God differ from people dying of a disease that people didn't understand to earthquakes etc but these are not odds with God and never have been. Most writings in religions, for example, say go to those with knowledge for explanations.
I posted your exact quote and the question you demanded an answer to before you'd proceed. I've answered it again. If it's another one you're claiming as the issue, post the link.
So how was I indignant How us Koran a variation of paganism adapted for political gain And the open minded background you spoke of
You seem to be displaying the closed mind I mention, as you try to make your god the answer to every question, despite the host of rational reasons why it's improbable. The other questions have been answered. If you disagree with the answer, it's up to you to describe which bits and why.
See above. I want evidence, quid pro quo and all that, not just musings and rants from you Actual evidence Its only right if you want the same in return. Saying key elements are xyz is not sufficient, give me those key elements so they can be explored and discussed
You haven't answered them. I have made them succinct for you so off you go Start with the first and work your way through. If you can't of don't I will continue with others and leave you on PNP pile
They're neither musing nor rants, that's just an example of you being indignant. The evidence of the pagan origins is found in any study into ancient beliefs, as evidenced by the video posted earlier. The political aspect of Islam, is a core function of the koran and hadiths.
Yes, it really does. "Science has actually helped to destroy certain models of God" Gods are not, nor possess, "models" . In science, models are a construct that inferior humans use to produce representations of phenomena that exist in the real world, in order to attempt to improve their inferior understanding of said phenomena.
Not sure what you think indignant means? Not like I didn't lay out a criteria Its OK though my kids told me what internet winning is
It really does I can cut and paste too In science, a model is a representation of an idea, an object or even a process or a system that is used to describe and explain phenomena that cannot be experienced directly. Models are central to what scientists do, both in their research as well as when communicating their explanations.
Which bits of science support the god of your book? The science in the book was mainly taken from the Greeks, including the errors, such as Galen's theories on embryonic stages and all things coming in pairs, and no mention of bacteria
I did and you ignored hence why we are where we are You claimed I was bring indignant I asked how? Nada Koran and paganism? Nada Etc etc etc
