Pleasure and Joy

[genkaus]

I praise Quran with highest words of respect. I count it to be the SUPERIOR MOST SCRIPTURE over all scriptures and books of the world. I literally count it to be a MIRACLE. I came to this opinion after I have studied Quran in little depth. My opinion has nothing to do with Blind Faith.

Your opinion IS blind faith. And you can't see that.

If you are troubled with this assertion then you have your choice. Prove Quran is false by using methods of science, Logic, and rationale. What you are thinking about me or what I am thinking about you is not important here.

Let me simplify your task. You just show the world that Quran has:

1. Discrepancies
2. Contradictions
3. Scientific errors and
4. mathematical errors

It as already been done. To death.

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Contradictions...e_Qur%27an

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Scientific_Err...e_Qur%27an

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/..._name.html

Your opinions are blind faith because you refuse to see this.

Thank you for pointing towards Pinker’s article. Although the article has contradictions within its context, yet it is an enlightening article.

Your comments, in fact excited me, but after reading the article, I only got disappointment.

That's probably because you didn't understand what they were talking about.

The article is speculative in nature especially where Pinker discussed on “TACKLING THE HARD PROBLEM”

Look what he wrote:

“No one knows what to do with the Hard Problem. [i]Some people may see it as an opening to sneak the soul back in, but this just re-labels the mystery of "consciousness" as the mystery of "the soul"--a word game that provides no insight…

…Whatever the solutions to the Easy and Hard problems turn out to be, few scientists doubt that they will locate consciousness in the activity of the brain.”[/i]

So unfortunately, science only has speculations and it has not even scratched the surface of Self-Consciousness/Soul.

How predictable.

Pinker predicted that your kind would consider hard problem to be an opportunity to sneak back the soul - and that's precisely the first hing you try to do.

You also ignored the very next paragraph, where he questions the very foundation of the hard problem.

As for the article being speculative - the mountain of evidence provided within it is anything but speculative.