Pleasure and Joy

[paulpablo]

The quran doesn't say finger prints are unique.

[bennyboy]

I hate it when threads I'm enjoying get dragged back to the OP.

[genkaus]

For a moment, I thought it was Benny replying and wondered why the quality of his posts had tanked - then I took another look at the username and sighed in relief.

Psychology deals with human behaviourism. It only deals with hard facts, means it can’t answer why we have phenomenal experiences and what in fact are those. Factually, science can’t explicate anything which transcends the boundaries of matter.

If there are any psychologists reading this, I'm pretty sure they're laughing their asses off. One of the most common criticisms of psychology from the other sciences is that it deals with phenomenal experiences and not facts of matter. And for the record, science can and has explicated many things that transcend the boundaries of matter - which you'd know if you had read rest of the posts in this thread.

As for faith, check this quote:

Quote
Faith cannot be solely analysed as something negative, irrational or as Camus would picture it, compared to a blind leap onwards. Faith, according to German philosopher should be always engaged from the standpoint in which it is strictly related to human knowledge.

Meaningless quote. It provides no arguments relevant to my point.

Second argument raised by Jaspers is that faith should not be analysed from subject-object division. If phenomenons of existence are looked upon on basis of these two categories, the problem of transcendence in regard to the human desire for totality becomes impossible to achieve. The transcendent being, according to Jaspers cannot be understood in such manner, making space for one of the most interesting concepts of Jaspers’ philosophy – das Umgreifende – encompassing. The understanding of the transcendent as encompassing allows to look upon it without treating the transcendence as the object of human endeavour. The encompassing is, from what we start and towards which we proceed in our existence without dogmatizing the lively human thought. The encompassing is founded both on the existence – as the external world of phenomena and the internal world of experience, on the consciousness relating to the object of perception and in spirit as the idea inside me and the idea i am confronted with. …

…Faith, reaching towards the encompassing must be done in full awareness of freedom, granting an open status of the existence, not allowing the individual to withdraw towards establishing a permanent feeling of understanding or objectifying the transcendent. The only way towards such belief leads through philosophical standpoints, founded on Kantian critique and existential understanding of human condition. THIS MEANS THAT THE PARTICIPATION IN TRANSCENDENCE CANNOT BE APPROACHED WITH THE ELIMINATION OF THE NATURAL PHENOMENOLOGICAL ASPECT OF HUMAN KNOWLEDGE AND REASONING.

Page 343
Essay by Maciej Kałuza
Transcendental in Philosophy of Faith (paper)
Transcendentalism Overturned (book)

More meaningless jibber-jabber.

That you can find a philosopher who - based on nonsensical presumptions or transcendence and encompassing - justifies the equally ridiculous notions such as faith, means nothing. If you are appealing to authority then you should atleast start with his primary justifications - not the conclusions

You are wrong in stating, “As to its cause - we do not even know if there can be a cause”. We have firm evidences on philosophical and scientific grounds that Universe has a Cause. What was that cause? It’s a different area of discourse.

Nope - sorry. Both on scientific and philosophical grounds, it has not yet been established that the Universe had a cause.

Do you have any scientific proof in support of your statement “UNIVERSE IS NOT AN AGENT” or is it only your opinion?

Ofcourse I do.
Agency is a quality of consciousness.
Consciousness can exist only in specific forms of complex systems like human brain.
Universe - as a whole - is not such a system.
Therefore, universe is not an agent.

Without knowing Quran, you can’t distinguish between right and wrong.

And yet, I do it all the time.

None of Atheist scholars (including staunchest of all Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Krauss, etc.) is using any of those false allegations to prove Quran to be wrong in their debates (especially with the Muslim Scholars) neither have they mentioned any of those allegations in their writings.

They don't have to. There are so many other problems with it.

All non-Muslim scholars discern exactly why those false accusations are floating over the net. The purpose of these web sites is only to spread misconceptions about Quran. It is something similar to the spreading of wrong meaning of Jihaad (to strive) by replacing it with the meaning (Holy War against non-Muslims). Word for war in Arabic is Qitaal.

The only way those are 'misconceptions' is if they are incorrect translations - in which case it should be easy for you to disprove them using the correct ones. So, go ahead - do that - and then come back with your indignant posturing.

[paulpablo]

Can you name couple of eminent biologists who agreed that genetic coding of an ape DNA could evolve into human DNA by means of evolution?

No biologist agrees or suggested in the first place that humans evolved from apes to humans, it was an ape like creature we evolved from and we are still great apes according to biologists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominidae

[genkaus]

Sorry! From now on, I’ll keep the font size normal.

If you think my arguments are stupid then you should prove them stupid instead of using mere vocalization. Without appropriate reasoning, your statement is in fact no more than a Hullabaloo.

I don't see why I can't do both.

Can you name couple of eminent biologists who agreed that genetic coding of an ape DNA could evolve into human DNA by means of evolution?

If you think answer is yes then show us, how many ape genes out of 10 to the power 100 evolve into human DNA at average and what time factor involved in this process?

Read up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominidae

If freedom of speech means humiliating others then why you feel angry when someone compares your beloved ones with disgusting things?

I don't - especially if the comparison is untrue.

Nope! You are wrong. They are Conspiratorial, not Coward.

Nope! I am right. Suppressing free-speech to appease Islamic extremists is cowardice.

Is that the reason why poor Afghans receiving western bombs over their heads since last 40 years in their own homes?

That's one of the reasons.

It is near to impossible for someone to memorize a book in foreign language without knowing that language especially when the text that has discrepancies in it. However, this glory goes to Quran exclusively. There are approximately 30,000,000 Hafiz Quran in the world today. Hafiz Quran are those people who memorize complete Quran from beginning to end and word by word. These hafiz Quran belongs to all cultures, nations, race, colour and language. Around 70% of these hafiz Quran are those people who don’t know Arabic as language.

That's not impossible at all. People have memorized and translated books of foreign language with discrepancies in it. Quran is no different in that respect.

First point, am I asking you to read Quran?

Second, if you don’t know Quran then how comes you are criticizing it? Perhaps, you are one of those who follow blind faith. Possibly, it’s your dire desire to condemn Quran by hook or by crook and for this reason you agree with everything which goes against Quran whether true or false.

First point, you are not giving me any reason to.

Second, I do know Quran and I don't need to know its contents to know what it is. I have made no secret of my desire to condemn Quran and the I have made no secret of the fact that I condemn it because it is bullshit. I don't need to know about any true parts if my knowledge of the false parts is sufficient.

Wikiislam is managed by Crooks, whose job is to distort everything related to Islam. Better, you search Wikipedia, which is, if not saying the truth then at least, not distorting it as well. For its honest job, Wikipedia is famous worldwide and people don’t hesitate giving their financial donations in acknowledgement to its fabulous services to humanity.

Funny you should say that - Wikipedia agrees.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_L._Mo...e_Qur.27an

Can you validate your statement true through proper references and by presenting the writings of Greeks and Indians who were living before the invention of microscope?

Sure:

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/History_of_Embryology

Word Nutfa came in Quran no less than 11 times. Nutfa means minute quantity of liquid.

Verily We created Man from minute quantity of (Nutfah) a drop of mingled fluid, in order to try him: So We gave him (the gifts), of Hearing and Sight
Al Insaan (76)
-Verse 2-

Nutfa can refer to male and female Gemmates after they form the Zygote. It yet remains a Nutfa “a minute quantity of liquid”.

It can also refer to the spermatic fluid, which contains several secretions from various glands like the testis, which contain spermatozoon it also includes the secretion from seminal vesicle, the seminal fluid that is a reservoir of spermatozoon but does not contain the fertilizing agent.

In addition, it refers to secretion of prostatic gland, which gives the creamy texture, and the characteristic odour to the sperm as well as gland attached to urinary track, which gives specific texture of mucus to the sperm.

Quran refer “minute quantity of mingled fluid”, which is male and female gemmates surrounded by these fluids, which are responsible for the birth of a human being.

Quran tells about different stages of embryology.

Man We did create from a quintessence (of clay);
Then We placed him as (a drop of) sperm in a place of rest, firmly fixed;
Then We made the sperm into a clot of congealed (leech like) blood;
Then of that clot We made a (chewed like) lump;
Then we made out of that lump bones and clothed the bones with flesh;
Then we developed out of it another creature. So blessed be Allah, the best to create!
Al Mu'minuun (23)
-Verses 12 to 14-

“Then We placed him as (a drop of) sperm in a place of rest, firmly fixed;”

Today Embryology tells us that the embryo is protected posteriorly by the backbone and the posterior muscles of mother and of course by the anti-abdominal wall, the womb’s wall, and amniocordionic membrane.

“Then We made the sperm into a clot of congealed (leech like) blood;”

Alaqa in Arabic has three meanings

a. Something which clings
b. A leech like substance
c. Blood clot

Under the hood of embryology all three meanings fits perfectly well in the description. Embryo in the initial stage clings to the uterine wall of the mother. It looks like a leech and behaves like a leech, which is a bloodsucker. It derives the blood supply and the nutrition from the mother. At this stage if an abortion takes place the Conceptus looks like a blood clot. This is the beauty of Quran that in one word “Alaqa” it implies all three meanings and all three meanings are in perfect harmony with embryological interpretation of initial stages of embryo.

“Then of that clot (Alaqa) We made a (chewed like) lump;”

In Arabic “Mudgha” means Chewed like lump.

Dr. Keith Moore took a plaster seal and bit it with his teeth. He was astonished that the teeth marks resembled to somite from which develop the spinal column.

“Then we made out of that lump bones and clothed the bones with flesh;”
“Then we developed out of it another creature.”

What does Quran means by “another (new) creature”?

In the initial embryological stages of development, human embryo is similar to other animals’ embryo. It is only at this stage that the particular appearance of human being appears. At this stage appear the head, the hands and the feet.

And what does all this blather supposed to signify?

The quranic verses quoted here do not imply any of the embryological knowledge, anymore than other religious texts did.

When Dr. Keith Moore went through the translations of different verses of Quran he said that most of the things which Quran speaks are matching with the latest discoveries in the field of embryology. However, there are few things which I can’t say are right or wrong as I don’t have sufficient knowledge about that. One such verse was:

Proclaim! (or read!) in the name of thy Lord and Cherisher, Who created-
Created man, out of a (mere) clot of congealed blood (a leech like substance):
Al 'Alaq (96)
-Verses 1 & 2-

Dr. Keith Moore said he don’t know whether the embryo looks like a leech or not. So in his laboratory he examined whether the embryo in its early stages looks like leech or not by comparing it with the photograph of a leech.

To his astonishment, he found exact resemblance between the appearances of embryo and of leech.

Regarding the 80 question that were formulated based on Quranic verses and tradition of Prophet of Mohammad, Dr. Keith Moore said that if these questions were asked 30 years back, no one could have answered them as Embryology is somewhat a new field in medical science.

In his book “The Developing Human”, third edition he has incorporated new discoveries that he discovered through the clues given in Quran for which he got an award for writing a best medical book in that year. This book afterwards translated into several different languages of the world.

Those were the facts based on which professor Keith Moore proclaimed that he has no objection that Prophet Mohammad was the messenger of God and Quran is the Word of God.

A connection with Royal Saudi Family is nothing more than an attempt came out of desperation.

Not really. His statements fail on their own merit. Specifically his statements about the historical human knowledge about embryology. The Saudi Family connection simply proves the motive for lying.

As for your reference of his book, here's an interesting read about it:
http://rationalislam.blogspot.in/2012/03...ft-to.html

Please give us the reference material from the work of anyone who before the invention of microscope had explained the stages of human evolution similar to what Quran had given and modern embryology had confirmed.

Already have.

When professor Marshal Johnson (head of anatomy department, in the Denial Institute, in Thomas Jefferson hospital, Philadelphia USA) was asked to comment on these verses he said it is possible that Prophet Mohammad had a microscope and he had observed all these stages. At that, when he was reminded that microscope was not there 1400 years ago. He laughed loudly and said, “Yes, I know that”, he continued “I have seen the first microscope myself and it hardly enlarge 10 times”. He proclaimed that the source of description of these stages in Quran should only be a divine one.

Glad you brought this up:

http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses...chap06.htm

BURQA is not a prerequisite to behave like those about whom Bible says:

… they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
(Matt 13:13 [KJV])

You just don't get a metaphor, do you?

Many times, I had referred to Quran as a book of signs. Quran gives these signs in such a manner that a layman and scholar both can apprehend the meanings according to the level of their intellects. In both cases of comprehension, these meanings remarkably suffice the same purpose.

Before the discovery that Francis Gold had made, no one had any idea why Quran gave the example of fingertips. Now we can understand the purpose behind that example. It is because although all fingertips are more or less similar in their physical appearances but they are unique for every individual person in terms of signatures they carry. Allah is saying not only He is proficient enough in reassembling the bones but also He is in full command to recreate the fingerprint in their exact fashion as He had created them first time.

This is the beauty of Quran that alongside positing its message in an easy and explicable manner, it gives clues on facts, which are not yet known to us, but in reality, they are there.

Previously, I had elucidated that what looks ambiguous in Quran is in fact not ambiguous. It is our acquired knowledge that has not reached the level at which we can understand most of the clues that Quran is giving beside the formal meanings these clues depict. If Quran is giving some specific example, it is to draw our attention toward to some reality and asking us to ponder and try to reach a higher level of understanding. As Quran is the book of commandments, it doesn’t go into intricate details related to science, philosophy, history, etc.

What's the name of that other guy who ran the same scam? No, wait, that's the same scam used by every religion in existence.

"Our holy book is not only compatible with current scientific discoveries, it already predicts all scientfic knowledge in ambiguous and non-specific terms. If you look at this ambiguous phrase here, you can draw a convoluted conclusion from it that fully agrees with science."

Sorry, that doesn't work. If your Quran had knowledge of finger-prints, then they would've been discovered way before Sir Francis.

They are not giving these arguments in debates and in their written works, because they know these allegations have intentional purpose to distract general people from Quran and those allegations are not necessarily reputable facts. They don’t want that people who have proper knowledge of Quran would laugh at their cheap shots.

No, they are not giving these arguments in their debates and written works because they know that these facts are already out there for people to find from other sources and they don't want to waste time repeating the same thing.

You can find their debates on YouTube. Those debates might be boring for you as in them two theists are defending their specific ways they perceive and believe in God and you do not believe in the presence of that God.

Then go ahead and use that youtube video to disprove the allegations made.

Arguments against Quran are not established facts on which everyone can unequivocally agree. You cannot experience the experience of others as your own experience. Merely on the words of others, you are trying to build your conclusions, which in itself is an unjust act. Perhaps people, whom you are following, have unwise intentions against Quran. If you are really striving to know the truth, then there is no way other than putting your personal effort in the research and learning. Else, your verdicts against Quran based on other people’s opinions (which are not established facts) are no more than notorious act of a hypocrite.

Except those people have given evidence for their claims - which changes their claims from opinions to facts. Unequivocal agreement is not required for establishing facts - evidence is. And that is available in abundance.

Quote

We shall willingly grant that bad faith is a lie to oneself, on condition that we distinguish the lie to oneself from lying in general. Lying is a negative attitude, we will agree to that. But this negation does not bear on consciousness itself; it aims only in transcendent. The essence of the lie implies in fact that the liar actually is in complete possession of the truth, which he is hiding. A man does not lie about what he is ignorant of; he does not lie when he spreads an error of which he himself is the dupe; he does not lie when he is mistaken. The ideal description of the liar would be a cynical consciousness, affirming truth within himself, denying it in his words, and denying that negation as such.

Unquote

Page 48
Being and Nothingness
Jean-Paul Sartre

Relevance?

You are listening what you desire to listen.
All those allegations are based on misquotes, quotations out of context and on the implications of false synonyms to the words. The authors had also taken advantage on general people’s lack of knowledge on Quran and Arabic Language while framing those allegations.

Then it should be easy for you to disprove each and everyone of them. Go ahead and do so.

Let me give you one example:

Until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it set in a spring of murky water: Near it he found a People: We said: "O Zul-qarnain! (thou hast authority,) either to punish them, or to treat them with kindness."
Al Kahfi (18)
-Verse 86-

The objection here is that sun setting in a spring of murky water is unscientific.

The Arabic word used here is “VAJADA” means, “it appeared to”. Allah is describing what appeared to Zul-Qarnain.

The Arabic word Maghrib (West) can be used for time as well as for place. When we say sunset at 7pm it means time but if I say sunset in the west then it means place.

Therefore, “when he reached the setting of the sun” means he reached at the time of sunset and sunset appeared to be in spring of murky water.

If someone ague no it means sun was factually setting in murky water then lets analyses it further.

We in our everyday life use the words sunrise and sunset. Is scientifically sun is rising or is it setting? Sure not. Yet you are reading every day in the newspapers “sunrise at 7 AM” and “sunset at 6 PM” so does that means all the newspaper around the world are wrong because they are unscientific? Sure not.

Hence, Al Kahfi (18)-Verse 86- is not in contradiction to the established science it is the way how people speak in generalised form based on general natural appearances of natural phenomenon.

So, basically, Quran makes an ambiguous statement which can be interpreted as "he reached the place of sun setting and it appeared to set in murky water" (a popular local myth of the time) or as "at the time of sunset, it appeared that sun was setting in murky water" - and you can say without any doubt that it actually meant the latter and not the former. Yeah, not buying it. At best, it would establish inconclusive evidence. Go on to the rest then.

It is a sign of an obstinate character to argue on things without giving proper reasons. It is something as if you are saying, “I agree with all those allegations and I don’t care whether they are true or false”

No, what I am saying is that there are hundreds of factual reasons why Quran is wrong. Expecting each debater to list them all - or even know them all - is not reasonable. So, people not using those arguments says absolutely nothing about their validity.

You have crushed me! Bravo!

[Harris]

And anyone reading it with a neutral mind would see it for the bullshit it is.

A thief sees every other person with the eyes of a thief only.

If you say brain function IS consciousness then why brain is functioning at all? In other words, what is keeping brain to function? You know better than I do that behind every effect there is a cause.

That would be the food you eat - that provides the energy to keep your brain functioning.

Is it then correct then energy is the self-consciousness? Perhaps, our food is our self-consciousness!

Car needs a driver in order to perform its functions. Behind the functioning of car the cause is the driver’s intensions.

We're trying to correct that limitation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_car

Congratulations!

Wrong. Most scientists and philosophers would say that "outside the universe" is nonsensical to begin with.

So, what is your logical reasoning for being Nonsensical outside the universe?

[quoteAlmost everyone now agrees that there is nothing in the universe, which comes out of “Nothingness” as “Nothingness” simply doesn’t exist.

No, they don't.[/quote]

Who don’t agree?

Now if there is “No Nothingness” then from where the roots of this universe grew?

That's a nonsensical question. Any answer would automatically make that entity a part of the universe.

Here we are talking about the origin of Universe itself, not about its components.

Why there is a balance in the universe, why not a chaos?

Because the concept of balance is dependent upon the universe.

So, on what the universe is depending?

Which is why no one uses chance as an explanation for existence of universe.

Agreed.

Exactly. The theists go for immediate gratification and come up with whatever comes to their minds first and go with that. Atheists, in their search for truth, are not afraid of a little intellectual hardship.

You would find it unfortunate, but theist did most of the Intellectual Hardship not atheist. Check out some history books.

No they haven't. All scientific facts have established is that the came into its current form from a singularity 13.77 billion years ago (a figure which, by the way, is missing from your quran).

Today all Atheist who are supporting Multiverse model are in fact those who are in supporting the idea that universe is eternal in the infinite past.

In the language of an astronomer, singularity means (we don’t know). It is simply a mathematical idealization. It is the point at which all space-time shrink down to literally nothing at all. Therefore, this is not an actual physical state of reality. Mathematical example to define singularity is something like dividing finite mass by zero, which always gives infinity.

13.77 billion Years, is a scientific speculation, not a scientific fact.

Quran gives a clue how universe came into being. See the following verses:

Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder?
Al Anbiyaa' (21)
-Verse 30-

Here Quran is not elaborating on what that unit of creation was but main idea is, universe began from a single unit of creation. You may name that as singularity or anything else but the model of Big Bang theory, which is the most consistent model compared to all other models of universe, is in perfect match with this verse of Quran.

1,400 years ago, there was no one around who might have thought how the universe came into existence. This is yet another great example.

And the theist has no logical explanation for god. Atleast we are intellectually honest.

We know, “Nothing” comes from “Nothingness” yet we are denying this fact. Negation of a fact does not make someone an honest person. It is in reality contrary to honesty.

No it doesn't. Scientists and philosophers alike don't even acknowledge something like "supernatural balance". What the hell is that? And they certainly don't assume anything to be designed.

I used “supernatural balance” instead of “fine-tuning.”

Fine-tuning (supernatural balance) in fact is responsible for physical constants, notably the relative strengths of the four fundamental forces. If any of the four fundamental forces (weak and strong nuclear forces, electromagnetic force, and electron charge) had been even minutely different, the universe would not have supported life; they too must have been fine-tuned to an almost unbelievable accuracy. In addition, the suggestion, again, is that given the infinite range of possible values for the fundamental constants, design is suggested by the fact that the actual values fall in that extremely narrow range of values that permits the development of intelligent life.

Calculations show that if any of these constants had deviated even slightly from its actual value, the universe would have evolved in a radically different manner, making life, as we know it - and probably life of any sort - impossible. An example of the ‘fine-tuning’ is that if the ratio of the strength of electromagnetism to gravity had varied by as much as one part in 10 to the power 40, there would be no stars like our sun.

Earth is following path of its motion as consequence of this fine-tuning of fundamental forces. We are talking about 1 cm variation but scientist are talking in terms of 10 to the power 40 (depending what is the case under consideration).

No - order, balance and symmetry are properties of the universe.

I have no objection.

IT MOST CERTAINLY DOES NOT.

The farthest distance on earth's orbit from the sun is 152,098,232 kilometres.

The closest is 147,098,290 kilometres

That a variation of about 5 million kilometers. One centimeter either way would not make any difference.

When I say universe is fine-tuned and 1 cm deviation of earth from its fixed path of motion can bring threat to life it means that a range of life permitting values of a constant or quantity is infinitesimally small compared to the possible values that constant or quantity might have had. If life permitting constant or quality were altered by the slightest amount, life would have been impossible. Life in this universe is balanced on the razor’s edge of incomprehensible fineness and precision. So if the balance would be slightly altered, life would not exist simply. Life is incredibly precarious in this universe.

Look at the human body how accurate and perfectly balanced functions are happening within it without our own incentives. Simply look at the function of genes and that alone gives you surprises after surprises.

You have evolution to thank for that - not god.

Did you ever ponder, what are the principles on which the processes of evolution are based? The big question is why there are principles and laws in the universe at all. Do you think all these smart principles and laws are only a matter of happenstance?

By words, one can deny the existence of God but no one can explain how this grand design and fine-tuning is running on its own.

Yeah they can. Open a science book every now and then. Its all in there.

Science without religion is lame and religion without science is blind.
Albert Einstein.

It is a laughable joke for us if someone says his wristwatch caused by some desert as a matter of chance and it is running precisely by its own without the need of an operator. However, we don’t laugh when we say this humongous and intricate universe caused by itself as a matter of chance and it is running super precisely by its own.

Because the first one is known a-priori to be artificial. Whereas no agency with regards to the universe has been proven.

Logic of Grand design and fine-tuning is loud enough to speak about intelligent Being behind the cause of the universe.

Premise 1 - Unproven.
Premise 2 - Unproven

You have obscenely rejected first two premises without giving literary support to your contentions.

Conclusion - Even if the argument was true, it would only establish a cause - not that the cause is god.

I argue:

1. Universe cannot be without a cause
2. Cause of the universe is God

a. You have rejected God
b. You cannot prove “Nothingness” to be the cause

Therefore, if God and Nothingness are not your candidates then what is your suggestion for the cause of this universe?

[1] - Invalid. Never been established
[2] - Invalid. Fallacy of equivocation.
Hence, the conclusion is invalid as well.

---

Thanks for the palate cleanser.

Saying “invalid or unproven” in thin air is an unthinkable act.

---

(1) Whatever begins to exist is caused to exist by something else.
(2) The universe began to exist.
(3) Therefore the universe was caused to exist; and the cause of its existence is God.

(1) May or may not be true. Quantum particles and wave-fronts appear (at the present state of knowledge) to be uncaused phenomena. Causality gets fairly weird at the quantum level - effects preceding causes and so forth.

Hi Boru,

Firstly, the claim that things begin to exist from nothing in Quantum Mechanics is just patently false. In the first place, there are at least 10 different physical interpretations of the mathematical equations of the quantum mechanics and some of these interpretations are fully deterministic. Only according to Copenhagen, interpretation events are said to occur without determinant causes. But that is one out of 10 interpretations. Furthermore nobody knows which interpretation is correct. So in fact, it is not a successful counter example to the first premise.

Secondly, it is simply not true that quantum events simply exist out of nothing. These events are results of fluctuations in the quantum vacuum, which is Not Nothing. Virtually when these particles form in the vacuum they are fluctuation of the energy that is locked up in the vacuum which is a sea of fluctuating energy govern by physical laws having a rich physical structure. There is nothing in the Quantum Mechanics even on the deterministic interpretations, which would suggest that things literally comes into being from nothing so it is not a successful counter example.

Victor Stinger admits it in his book “God the Failed Hypothesis” that causes for these events may someday be found therefore we can’t assert with any kind of confidence these events are really uncaused.

(2) Unjustified assumption. There is no philosophical or physical reason why the Universe cannot be infinitely old.

The idea that universe is infinitely old is against Established Facts of Science. Namely, expansion of the universe and all component of the universe are in continuous motion. Even inside a static rock, there is an incredible amount of activities happening at the atomic level. We know through science there is nothing in the universe that is not bound by the concept of aging. At all levels concept of ageing is working perfect well.

Second premise can be supported by both philosophical argument and scientific evidence. The philosophical arguments aim to show that the idea of an infinite regress of events in time is impossible metaphysically. In other words, number of past events must be finite and therefore the universe has a beginning. The scientific evidence is based on the expansion of the universe. So I see the scientific evidence confirmatory on the conclusion which already reached on the bases of philosophical arguments.

(3) Given the objection to #2 above, the most you can say here is that the Universe and God are coeval, which pretty neatly eliminates God as a cause of, well, anything, really.

According to Big Bang Theory, singularity is the point where Universe starts to be. Now how would that stands in causal relations to a transcendent cause? Well, I would say that God creates the universe at the moment at which the universe began to exist. So that the moment of God’s creation of the universe is the moment at which universe began to exist. Of course, those are simultaneous, what could be more obvious than that. Those are co-incident. They occur at the same time. Therefore, at T = zero God creates universe at the singularity and the universe began to expand. I don’t see any difficulty in understanding God’s relationship to time or his causation of the universe.

[paulpablo]

When I say universe is fine-tuned and 1 cm deviation of earth from its fixed path of motion can bring threat to life it means that a range of life permitting values of a constant or quantity is infinitesimally small compared to the possible values that constant or quantity might have had. If life permitting constant or quality were altered by the slightest amount, life would have been impossible. Life in this universe is balanced on the razor’s edge of incomprehensible fineness and precision. So if the balance would be slightly altered, life would not exist simply. Life is incredibly precarious in this universe.

You were already informed that it would make no difference if the earth moved 1cm from its orbit, you're just making the same false claim using different words.

Are you going to ignore the fact the quran makes no mention of unique finger prints and repeat that claim in a few days again and forget what you were told about that too?

[Harris]

Human genes developing into ape genes makes no sense.
It's the same as saying biologists disagree that felines can be developed into cats, cats are felines.
Biologists classify humans as apes, great apes (hominidae) The family also includes chimpanzees and gorillas. Human genes are the genes of apes.

First and foremost Darwin’s Theory of evolution is a THEORY and not an established scientific fact. From history of science, we know that hypothesis and theories may take U-Turns. So far, I never encountered something like FACTS OF EVOLUTION in any book I have read.

In 1861 Charles Darwin wrote a letter to his friend Thomas Thomson saying, “I don’t believe in the word natural selection (theory of evolution) because I don’t have any proof. I only believe in it because it helps me in classification of Embryology, in morphology, in rudimentary organs”.

Basically, the idea of evolution was supported by the opponents of church who were against bible. That support to Darwin’s Theory of evolution was purely based on politics not because theory was true. “Enemy of my enemy is friend of mine”.

Science tells us there were four hominoids.

a. Lucy
The nickname of a partial female skeleton of a fossil hominid found in Ethiopia in 1974, about 3.2 million years old and 1.2 m (4 ft) in height

b. Homo sapiens
Modern humans belong to these primate species. They live about 500,000 years ago.

c. Neanderthal man
An extinct species of human that was widely distributed in ice age Europe between c. 120,000 and 35,000 years ago, with a receding forehead and prominent brow ridges. The Neanderthals were associated with the Mousterian flint industry of the Middle Palaeolithic People lived in Europe between 35,000 and 70,000 years ago.

d. Cro-Magnon man
The earliest form of modern human in Europe, associated with the Aurignacian flint industry. The group's appearance c. 35,000 years ago marked the beginning of the Upper Palaeolithic and the apparent decline and disappearance of Neanderthal man; the group persisted at least into the Neolithic period

Most interestingly there are no links between these four humanlike species. It is an absurd to derive roots of present day humans out from the fossils.

Secondly, according to molecular biology theory (the genetic coding), visualization of single ape DNA evolving into Human DNA is almost infinitesimally improbable.

Web is full of such controversies.

The web is full of controversies that giants exist, this point is irrelevant.

If this point is irrelevant then why you are giving references from the web?

Cartoons of Prophet Mohammad were intended to humiliate Islam based on hatred and Jealousy. There was no literary contention behind that act.

This is another irrelevant point.

In this act, no logical reasoning was involved. It was thoroughly aimed to humiliate Muslims all around the World.

They are well aware about their audiences in Muslim world who are around 2 billion in numbers.

This is a relevant point which supports my argument, why would the BBC one of the most politically correct tv stations look at the political climate, muslims murdering cartoonists, book publishers and other people in the media then come to the conclusion that they should commission a program which intentionally tries to debunk the quran. Also being aware of how many muslims are in the audience?

BBC and CNN are politically most hypocrite channels in the world. When Soviets were killing poor Afghans, both these channels were showing great sympathy to Afghan nation. However, when Allied forces entered Afghanistan, both these channels had transformed whole Afghan population into Terrorist to justify killings of poor women, children, and elderly citizens. Policies of these channels are based on double standards.

Again people have challenged this but no one seems to know what the quran actually says and the people who do disagree on what it says.

If you say there is no God then this is not a challenge for Quran because Quran has given logical and rational clues for the existence of God.

If you say that people have challenged Quran by producing a book similar or better than Quran then I don’t know any official record of such a book.

The only critique (not challenge) which people tried against Quran is a claim that Quran has discrepancies and errors. Nevertheless, all false allegations had long been refuted with success and consequently no challenger is giving references to those concocted allegation in his scholarly work anymore.

No there are many ambiguous statements in the quran that are ambiguous because of the definition of the words they use.

Here is one example.

And of everything We have created pairs, that you may remember (the Grace of Allah).

This verse is from

Adz-Dzaariya (51)
-Verse 49-

Let me comment on the meanings:

(And of everything We have created pairs,) meaning, all the created are in pairs, the heaven and earth, night and day, sun and moon, land and sea, light and darkness, faith and disbelief, death and life, misery and happiness, Paradise and Fire, in addition to the animals and plants. The statement of Allah the Exalted,

(that you may remember) and know that the Creator, Allah, is One without partners,

We only know that the concept of pairs exist in living beings (human, animals, plants) and we can apply notion of pair on concepts like positive & negative. However, we have not reached to the level of knowledge where we could apprehend the meaning of pairs in its totality.

I have used the pair samples in my commentary just for an objective purpose. Those might not be appropriate scientifically.

We are not certain on what does the phrase “everything are in pairs” means. This shows our incompetence due to insufficient acquired knowledge and this human hesitation, Quran has highlighted at a different place:

Glory to Allah, Who created in pairs all things that the earth produces, as well as their own (human) kind AND (OTHER) THINGS OF WHICH THEY HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE.
Yaa Siin (36)
-Verse 36-

[quote='paulpablo' pid='501063' dateline='1377985289']
I've heard muslims say this verse is talking about electrons, and talking about pairs of sexual mates which they insist do all come in pairs.

This verse is giving no information. If I worked as a top scientist and one day I came into work and said to my colleges who were other respectable scientists. "Everything is created in pairs so that we be mindful" it wouldn't be a breakthrough, it's not a revelation. No one can prove it wrong or right or do any testable experiments on it because it isn't specific enough information.

It’s an important point you raised here.

“No one can prove it wrong or right or do any testable experiments on it because it isn't specific enough information.”

This is very true.

Several times, I mentioned that Quran is not a book of science, history, etc. The basic purpose of Quran is to unite people based on moral values. This purpose cannot be achieved without firm faith in Allah who is the supreme ruler and creator of everything.

(Here will not go in details why God is central in keeping people on their moral values. That is an entirely different topic).

As a token, Quran provides some technical information in from of clues so to keep its authentication firm on its claim to be the word of God. It is not the intention of Quran to reveal intricate scientific details at all.

These clues are helpful to facilitate development of faith in modern minds. Based on established scientific facts, which are in perfect conformity with known clues of Quran, modern thinker has clear evidences that other than God no man could have given those clues in time when intellect of man was not proficient for originating such scientifically correct hints.

In 2002, Moore declined to be interviewed by the Wall Street Journal on the subject of his work on Islam, stating that "it's been ten or eleven years since I was involved in the Qur'an."

I assume he's actually embarrased about the work he did with the quran. Even in the interviews I've seen he did not say he converted to Islam. I could be wrong though.

I don’t know either about his latest work on Embryology and about his approach towards Islam.

Again this is a perfect example of a verse which is ambiguous, when PZ myers was interviewed by muslims who told him the quran says specifically the bones come first then the flesh he said it was incorrect because the bones and the flesh form simultaneously, to which the muslims responded by saying the words in the quran could also be taken to mean the bones and the flesh form simultaneously.

So again if muslims haven't agreed even in their own minds as to what the quran means then it can't be proven right or wrong, you need to first know what a book actually says before it can be proven right or wrong.

Unfortunately, I haven’t seen that interview but if what you are saying is true then from that I can postulate that the host had lack of proper knowledge.

The guest (PZ Myers) was at the same time correct as well as wrong in stating that “bones and the flesh form simultaneously”. It seems he had not commented on the technical side of this simultaneously formation.

Quran states:

Man We did create from a quintessence (of clay);
Then We placed him as (a drop of) sperm in a place of rest, firmly fixed;
Then We made the sperm into a clot of congealed (leech like) blood;
Then of that clot We made a (chewed like) lump;
Then we made out of that lump bones and clothed the bones with flesh;
Then we developed out of it another creature. So blessed be Allah, the best to create!

Al Mu'minuun (23)
-Verses 12 to 14-

In the above verses, Quran is precise in stating first come the bones then flesh.

So question arises whether Quranic statement is wrong or is it science making some mistake? If I say neither science nor Quran is wrong this might make you confuse in first instance but in fact, this is the reality.

First point to be noted that description of embryological stages in Quran is based upon appearances not on the functions.

First appearance, leech like substance that clings and looks like blood clot
Second appearance is chewed like lump
Third appearance of bones and flesh

Regarding bones and flesh, embryology says that primordia of the muscles and the bones form together between the 25th and 48 days, which is the stage Quran refer to as Mudgha (chewed like lump) but both bones and muscles, are not developed yet. At the end of 7th week, the embryo takes form of human appearance that is the time when the bones are formed. According to modern embryology, bones start to develop after the 42nd day. Moreover, at the end of 7th week it took skeletal appearance. Even at this stage when bones are formed, muscles are yet not developed. After the 7th week and starting of 8th week muscles are formed.

Therefore, primordia of the muscles and the bones are formed simultaneously between the 25th and 48 days but out of the primordia first develop the bones then the muscles. Hence, Quran is perfect in describing the order of all these embryonic stages.

So what? You have just done exactly what I said is illogical about the way muslims look at verses of the quran.
You have took a verse which is saying god will be able to put every part of a mans body back together including the finger tips.
It is totally illogical and conjecture to think this is talking about unique fingerprints.
No where in the verse does it mention finger prints being unique.
If finger prints weren't identical it wouldn't make the verse false therefore the verse is not actually providing information that can be proved true or false.
I genuinely hope you will at least try to understand the point I'm trying to get across to you here.
I'm not saying it's definitely all bullshit, I'm saying from what I've seen it isn't valid information that can be proved true or false to any serious degree at all.

I had given a response on a similar question to what you have imposed here. As an extension to that, I add one more example.

Those who reject our Signs, We shall soon cast into the Fire: as often as their skins are roasted through, We shall change them for fresh skins, that they may taste the penalty: for Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise.
An Nisaa (4)
-Verse 56-

In this verse, Quran had given a clue about our Skins. It is showing our skin has some especial feature. Today we know that it is our skin, which is responsible for the sensation of pain and pleasure due to the presence of pain receptors in it.

When person gets a burn, doctors assess the depth of burn by examining the damage to the pain receptors. At the test if victim does not feel pain, that shows hopelessness for his survival.

No one had any idea to what this clue is pointing before science had revealed characteristics of our skins. However, for a person at any intellectual level and in any time there is no trouble to grasp the formal meaning of this verse.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Do you believe the Quran has scientific facts in that predate the current understanding of reality that we have today?
Eg. That the earth is an oblate spheroid?

[Harris]

Fighting has been enjoined upon you while it is hateful to you. But perhaps you hate a thing and it is good for you; and perhaps you love a thing and it is bad for you. And Allah Knows, while you know not.
Muhsin Khan
Jihad (holy fighting in Allah's Cause) is ordained for you (Muslims) though you dislike it, and it may be that you dislike a thing which is good for you and that you like a thing which is bad for you. Allah knows but you do not know.
Pickthall
Warfare is ordained for you, though it is hateful unto you; but it may happen that ye hate a thing which is good for you, and it may happen that ye love a thing which is bad for you. Allah knoweth, ye know not.
Yusuf Ali
Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.
Shakir
Fighting is enjoined on you, and it is an object of dislike to you; and it may be that you dislike a thing while it is good for you, and it may be that you love a thing while it is evil for you, and Allah knows, while you do not know.
Dr. Ghali
Prescribed for you is fighting, and you have a hatred for it; and it may be that you hate a thing, while (Literally: and) it is most charitable for you; and it may be that you love a thing while (Literally: and) it is evil for you; and Allah knows and you do not know.

These are quotes from the website simply titled the noble quran, according to you every single translation is wrong?

If you are really interested in the study of Quran then try translation by Yousif Ali. This is the translation which most of the Christian, Jews, and Atheist are using for their scholarly work.