Miracle

[paulpablo]

 Without skin, it cannot generate sensory data on its own. Therefore, skin is responsible for the burning sensation not the brain.

Wrong because of

[i]paulpablo Wrote: As we already discussed this is just one of the many methods people could feel punishment, other organs also have pain receptors.

Harris Wrote - I totally agree!

[paulpablo]

You can associate any presumption with this verse for the sake of enhancing your understanding but that would not affect the literal meaning until you literally change the wording of the verse. The literal meaning is complete and there is no loophole in this verse.

I'm not associating any presumption with the verse, or changing the wording of the verse or doing anything to the verse, I'm not saying there's a loophole in the verse.

You're not replying to what I type with any meaningful words, it's just a mish mash of jibberish.

I'm saying the verse we're talking about would still make sense looking at it from the perspective of the heart being the major organ responsible for perceiving pain.

[paulpablo]

Why only Quran is mentioning about that darkness and about deep ocean currents? Why not anyone else?

This is how unreasonable confirmation bias makes you. 

You act as if you just happened to be studying in extreme detail ancient sources on skin burns and deep ocean currents and you suddenly realized the quran is miraculous.

The true story is that you do believe in it already and you want to try and use science to prove what you already believe.

When you're saying ancient people didn't talk about this subject, it doesn't make it a fact that they didn't talk about the subject.  The record keeping and literacy rate at the time of the quran I imagine was relatively limited.

Ontop of this I don't think anyone involved in this conversation can claim to be experts in the historical accounts of how ancient people understood burning or deep ocean currents.

And ontop of that the point you continually try and avoid when it's pointed out to you is that we're talking about things that are EASILY experienced,  the symptoms of burning, darkness in the ocean, the so called barrier in the seas miracle.

It's all just stuff people can see or feel, and you have to understand that IF people could have discovered these things in a simple way rather than a miraculous way then the simple way will always be more believable.

If I get told an elephant was teleported by the ghosts of aliens using the weapons god gave them from one cage to another, it's more likely I'll  simply believe a person working in the zoo did it instead. 

EVEN if the zoo keeper failed to keep written records of the elephant being moved, or I just can't find the records.

[Harris]

[Cyberman]

... you've got a lot of time on your hands, haven't you?

[IATIA]

If there is no God who is Uncaused then there should be “Nothingness” as things cannot cause their own beings. If “Nothingness” exist out of which everything is popping out spontaneously and then vanishing back into it, then everything is part of “Nothingness.” However, everything is “Something” therefore “Something” cannot be “Nothing” hence, “Nothingness” is a THOROUGH ABSURD. If “Nothingness” does not exist then there should exist an UNCAUSED GOD.

That is opinion. No proof or even evidence. The universe can be "uncaused' quite more easily than a god. The total energy of the universe is zero, ergo 'nothing'.

[Harris]

... you've got a lot of time on your hands, haven't you?

You have 15335 posts at your account compared to about 200 posts in my account. I am a very poor guy.

[Cyberman]

On the other hand, what you lack in quantity you more than make up for in volume.

[Harris]

On the other hand, what you lack in quantity you more than make up for in volume.

You Win! Don't Worry be Happy!

[Cyberman]

And I wasn't even trying. How 'bout that. Gad, I'm good.