Present arguments for your trust in science, without using your scientific texts...

Who says that if is humanly impossible. Just because you and me can't do it doesn't mean it cannot be done and who says that Muhammad did it? Maybe the people were not as against it as we are led to believe? We only have the word of the "victors' and we both know that it is the "victors" that write history and it is not always accurate.

There could be thousands of different scenarios of what happened, and yes, some of them include the presence of Allah, but it doesn't prove Allah's existence.

This reminds of the argument that the pyramids must be created by aliens since it was impossible for the Egyptians to create them with their technology.

 

And the PROOF of your claims is where?

 

There is no proof, only evidence that supports these claims.

 

If there is no proof, then why should I or anyone else believe you?

 

Because we have evidence behind our claims instead of nothing.

 

What evidence do you have?

 

For which topic?

 

You had an outburst of emotions? Interesting.

The only thing, so far, with regard to your writing that shows, is that you have an opinion. You have not proven anything yet other than your right to express that opinion.

The Bible also has lots of processes that need to be completed by the individual. As for changes in the Bible due to something that has been proven wrong>>>>>> Never, that I know of.

Like yourself, I admire science for the temporal advancements that it has provided for man: However, science has never been nor will it ever be a substitute of Christ and many of the other religions. BTW: Science also will never be able to disprove the existence of God.

 

The birth of the universe.

 

To make you look ridiculous.

 

Well, you failed on all accounts. In fact your evasive measures are doing nothing but taking this thread off topic. Now, can you provide that which is spoken on in the OP or not?

 

Not possible... as you know.

Science is based on rules... just as Christianity is. I can prove the mathematical soundness of p = m • v and it will be agreed on by a majority of scientist whether they be religious or non religious. But you cannot prove that Moses walked off Mount Sinai holding the 12 commandments and that they were given to him by God. That takes faith and is only accepted by those religions that hold true to the Old Testament and Hebrew Bible.

 

Reread post #23.

In your OP you claimed science is a religion but we all know that is nonsense.

 

Well, as one of the most notable mathematicians of our time once said:
""As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." " Albert Einstein.

Subsequently your application of a mathematics law in relation to a reality is concerned, the mathematics do not apply and renders your comparison like comparing cucumbers with airplanes.

 

Science is a religion. It is a religious offshoot of the ancient practice of Numerology. Seemingly you missed that former discussion. Just use the search engine in this forum and search on the term 'numerology'.

 

Response: The challenge itself provides a hands-on eyewitness account that it is humanly impossible to use speech/literature that goes against the wants of a mass of people, that is invented by a person/s, to inspire enough followers amongst them to conquer a nation. So when you ask who says so, the challenge itself provides a hands-on eyewitness account that it is so. Humans are the same in nature. Our physicality, mentality, and emotions are similar. This is the same in any species. So if a person comes along and performs something super extraordinary, that is uncommon to normality, then it is called supernatural. It is not just someone who is different. If someone can leap 200 feet, or lift the statue of liberty, that is considered supernatural and miraculous, because another human being would not come close to doing it. Similarly, no one can come close to answering the chalenge, thus proving that it is humanly impossible. And since it is humanly impossible to use invented speech by a person/s to answer the challenge, yet Muhamad used the Qur'an to answer the challenege, then that means that the qur'an that Muhamad used is not the invention of a person, but must come from one with a greater power and authority than humans, and that is Allah.

 

You mean the Big Bang?

 

No! I mean the birth of the universe. The term "Big Bang" is from one of those scientific writings which cannot be used in this thread.


Notice also, that I refrained from using any theological expression relating to said time and event.

 

Uh, I don't agree with the foundations of your thread. Books are a way for people to learn about certain things without first hand experience these kinds of sources are necessary for a field like science.

You can't use words because they come from books that you've read from. Therefore this thread is useless. That is where this idiotic thread would go if we people weren't allowed to rely on outside sources.

Also, there is a ton of evidence for the Big Bang that can be easily observed using the right equipment. You know what?

 

Then admit defeat and don't participate.

Let me clarify: The use of specialized words and phrases that are primarily associated with science is not allowed. The point being, you cannot use any scientific material as an alleged proof of claim or even an evidence.

What specific evidence?

 

Why?

Because otherwise you immediately lose an argument instead of slowly losing one?

Red-shifting cosmic bodies which can be measured using larger observatories (I have personally measured red-shifts during my Astronomy courses), the abundance of light elements, measurements of cosmic background radiation via satellites or radio telescopes, etc.

 

What an intelligent response. I am overwhelmed with the extent of your knowledge.

Not necessarily, but you did bring to my attention that I left the OP in an arbitrary and capricious condition which needed clarification of the terms. So I obliged.

I see below, that you are one who cannot either adhere to the conditions stipulated with regard to the use of specialized words or phrases, and that you cannot otherwise respond to the OP without referencing scientific texts (books you studied from in your Astronomy class). EPIC fail on your part.

Without study from those scientific texts, you would not have known how to recognize such things. EPIC FAIL.

 

I don't think there's any other logical response to what you said to me. Stop with the sensationalism, you're just like those people that tell anybody who says anything bad about America to leave the country.

And? So what? Without history books I wouldn't know about the Cathars, the Revolutionary War, Rome, or anything else. Seriously, what is your point?

 

And you are sounding like one of those folks who does not like to consider the viable options that are put in front of them.

The same point that I made earlier. Your learned knowledge (whether it came from a book or by word of mouth) is knowledge that you have not undertaken yourself to guaranty that which has been given to you. You accept the greatest portion of that learning experience on good faith. Good faith that the person (authority figure) telling you something, is not filling you full of bs. Example: The number system. Where, when and how did the number system originate? What were the dynamics that were used in forming that system? How about the number symbols themselves. How were they originated? Who invented them? The words representing the symbols? Which came first the words or the symbols? Yet, you, like everybody else (myself included) accept them on good faith..... not KNOWING if we are being truthful or not.... but merely following tradition. Admittedly, it has proven to be an effective means within this culture, but like Einstein says:
"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."

 

Sure, if you want to call it faith call it faith. I don't see it that way, but whatever. The fact is that it is just impossible for people to become specialists in everything, which is why we have a system set up where scientists can publish their work and others can scrutinize it. After heavy scrutiny for a number of years, the idea could become mainstream and be published in textbooks. However, the science in these textbooks originate from this pretty simple and very objective system.

Sure, I am believing what somebody is saying. I don't consider it faith for a variety of reasons: 1) these people are specialists in their field 2) the observable evidence has been heavily scrutinized by other specialists in the field 3) all of the experiments can be done by basically anybody as long as they know basics about the field.

The difference I see is that the claims made by your holy books were created by unknown people thousands of years ago who made multiple claims that have since then been effectively shown to be false. That and the fact that your holy books also touch on something that is unobservable. I prefer to think of faith as an ignorant belief because there simply is NO evidence and NO way to test many of the supernatural claims in religions.