Is Quran the proof of God?

[GrandizerII]

If you say so, and if I happened to be a very very close friend (who actually trusts you 100% as a truthful & honest fella), I might believe you, as long as nothing contradicts the existence of demonic teapots.

I don't recommend trusting anyone 100% as truthful and honest.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'll put many lines under "inescapable"; as in : "according to whom ?"

There is no "whom" numbskull.  Genetics isn't the opinion of some random douche.  There was no Adam, and no Eve.

Clear this up for me, are you incapable of accepting a fact when it conflicts with your beliefs?

[The Grand Nudger]

Scientifically, nobody knows how & when humans started to read and worship deities, but also there is no ancient film showing how humans were not taught by a God.

Sometimes, proving something ,is all about disproving another thing. No disprove ? no proof.

Yeah, we actually do know when we started to read (hint..has to do with when we started writing), and we have a good idea of when we started to worship deities as well (pro-tip...long before yours was invented).  An ancient film showing how humans weren't taught by god?

Never go full retard.

[Cyberman]

They definitely didn't though.

I see that it makes a lot of sense to assume, that in the long tree of human origin, God chose one creature and taught him how to use their brain. Science never said that they don't exist, and God never said how they looked like or what were they.

I don't see why they can't exist.

Yes, it might make sense to make assumptions, in fact that's part of the process of investigation. But it's not the end of the process. You have to go on and test those assumptions, and be open to altering or even abandoning them.

If I handed you a glass of H2SO4, would you assume it was safe to drink because it looks like water and has H2O in its formula? Or would you do some investigating first?

[Homeless Nutter]

[...]
If I handed you a glass of H2SO4, would you assume it was safe to drink because it looks like water and has H2O in its formula? Or would you do some investigating first?

Of course he'd investigate. He'd make sure it's not liquid pork.

[WinterHold]

If you say so, and if I happened to be a very very close friend (who actually trusts you 100% as a truthful & honest fella), I might believe you, as long as nothing contradicts the existence of demonic teapots.

I don't recommend trusting anyone 100% as truthful and honest.

A good recommendation, since humans are indeed can't be trusted at certain points.
But all of us have to trust somebody to the max every once & a while.

Rhythem

Keep trying to insult me; it won't help you prove your point. But btw, I'm immune to these child game; thank you for being a "keyboard jihadists".

No you don't know when; what we only know is "the oldest archeological piece that proved humans' ability to represent the world via written methods".
I'm asking for the first; the very very first evidence; science knows nothing about that.

What if there was an evidence that was all lost ? oh, but instead, I have to believe you that it didn't exist.

So you also claim that genatics say, that through the tree of human origin, humans had no parents ? 
It makes me wonder..

[The Grand Nudger]

It's not a point that needs proving Atlas, we're not having a philosophical debate, understand?  I have informed you of a fact.  There was no Adam, and there was no Eve.  We would know if there were...and our methods for determining this are a little more sophisticated than digging up a grave.  

The very first evidence is trivial, the earliest evidence science has is, by default, the very "first" evidence.  Why do you think science would know nothing about something that it possesses and exists by fiat of definition?

Lost evidence is no evidence. Is that what you're holding out hope for..some "lost evidence" that contradicts all other evidence and allows your fairy tale? Good luck waiting on that.

I have not claimed that humans have no parents, mouth breather...I told you, in no uncertain terms..that there was no adam and no eve..repeatedly.  You could not have gotten that wrong on accident. I wish this fact would make you wonder...but I'm not sure you're capable.

[SofaKingHigh]

They definitely didn't though.

I see that it makes a lot of sense to assume, that in the long tree of human origin, God chose one creature and taught him how to use their brain. Science never said that they don't exist, and God never said how they looked like or what were they.

I don't see why they can't exist.

They definitely didn't though.

[Homeless Nutter]

[...]
Scientifically, nobody knows how & when humans started to read and worship deities, but also there is no ancient film showing how humans were not taught by a God.

Sometimes, proving something ,is all about disproving another thing. No disprove ? no proof.

LOL. Are you naturally this dumb, or is this the result of your religion burning holes in your brain? You demand an "ancient film", showing the entirety of history of all the humans in the world, so that we can disprove some sh*t, that an illiterate pedophile made up in the desert, during the Dark Ages, in the sandy a**hole of the world?

Anyone can make up fantastic sh*t and demand that others disprove it. You want an example? Here - Muhammad had sex with dogs. After all - there is no "ancient film" showing the prophet never having f***ed a canine, is there? Well - how are you going to disprove that? And if you can't - then it must be true, right?

So - what's it like, following a dog-f***er?

[robvalue]

If I say so? I'm explaining basic logic.

If you don't care about logic, there can be no meaningful debate.

No, you don't have to disprove magical claims to do science. You ignore them as speculation at best, unless they have any actual evidence behind them. How much time have you spent disproving Lord of the Rings? How can you be so sure it didn't really happen just as written?

Are you going to start making a video disproving every sentence of the book, or are you going to ask me why I have any reason to think it is true?

"You can't prove it false so it's probably true" is not a valid argument, which I made a whole video about recently. I'll repeat it here in case you missed it. If you ignore this and continue with the same argument, you're utterly wasting your time.

You're also using the appeal to authority fallacy by assuming anyone is qualified to talk about the details of supernatural magic stuff, with your "trusted friend". Knowing a lot of stuff that can be known does not mean you know lots of stuff that can't.

http://youtu.be/BzxMXzdaxtI