White Sister Found Prophet Muhammed (S)s Name In Bible [Emotional]

[Vitamin_C]

You are cherry picking. You pick the things you like from the Quran which might be true but then you ignore all the things that turned out to be wrong, like the stick turning into a serpent, or the sun rising from a muddy spring. Just because something that the Quran said turned out to be factually incorrect does not mean that it was not meant to be literal, it means that the Quran was factually incorrect.
When the Quran said sodomy is morally wrong but owning sex slaves was not wrong and also provides instructions on how to own slaves, are you going to say that it is not literal and god was just kidding? Slavery was legal in Saudi, Uae and other middle eastern countries until 1970s when UN forced them to ban it.

This is not the case. Hazrat Ayesha RA has clearly mentioned wrt the door lock aswell as the bed linen remaining cosy in those winter days. Which does point out that it wasn't physical at all.


As far as Moses incidence is concerned it is True and well documented but it wasn't physical. It was a Case of Mesmerism & Hypnotism caused by Allah. But it does not contradict any Law of Science.


Similarly if in real the Moon breaks down into two pieces it would be a massive massive calamity and it would never rejoin again. No wonder if the whole Planetry system and earth vanishes.


So many other things aswell but this does not prove Quran to be false. Another miracle of the Prophets is there Prophecies. Nobody can see or touch God. No one can film God. Yet people have claimed that they have a spiritual communication with GOD and GOD has told them this this thing to take place in future. If those things happen than those are miracles aswell and they prove the claims of Prophets to be True.


There are Prophecies about the coming of Prophet Muhammad Pbuh in Hindu literature. They are wuite precise wrt things which He Pbuh did or changed compared to previous profits. Now there is Nil/Zero evidence that at that time Arabs even knew about Hinduism or Hindus literature was present in Arab for Mohammad Pbuh to Copy/Cheat (Naoozbillah) to do same things so as to prove look prophecies are fulfilled wrt me.


Than there is a Prophecy of Mohammad Pbuh wrt Solar and Lunar Eclipse which occured 1400 years after his death. Exactly as per the Prophecy. Now No Human being can say that Oh Shaitaan Evil caused the Eclipses.

 

[Vitamin_C]

Here is the way I understand the Quran:
1. Read it myself
2. If there is any confusion I look at the exegesis and see what it says about the subject
3. I refer to the prophet's biography and see if there is anything there on the topic
4. I look at the Sahih Hadith and see what it says about the topic
5. If there is confusion in translation of a word or sentence, I look at other places of the Quran where it is used to see the most probable meaning of it and cross confirm it with the exegesis
I do all of this in the context of the world as it was during the time of Muhammad, so I only look at original sources from his time that have been verified.

Only after this that I will claim that the Quran says something.

Dear vitamin c, if I may say so please kindly differentiate between God, his messages, his messengers and ordinary people and refrain from making silly claims about the quran and deen of islam and thereby making yourself look foolish. For example, when you say the quran claims this or that you are putting yourself in the firing line, how? Because by claiming the quran says this or that you are saying you know how to understand the quranic text properly in its proper context as intended by God. This then forces one to ask you, please show me the way to understand the text of the quran properly in its proper context as per your own claims? Here you will definitely get completely stuck because I know for a fact from your posts so far that you do not know the way to understand the quranic text properly in its proper context. Moreover you cannot know the way to understand the text of the quran properly in its proper context till you carry out your own research and explore things about the quran and deen of islam to the level about which I am talking here.

All I can agree with you is about your criticism of ordinary people of the past and present as to what they said about the quran or deen of islam regardless they are muslims or nonmuslims. People are born ignorant so it takes them a lot of hard work and time to come to know things a little bit according to their own time and place or environment. This is not the case with God. You are failing badly to realise this vitally important distinction. Ordinary people cannot think beyond their own time and life experiences. This is why ordinary people are incapable of understanding the message of God till they realise the way to do so. Once they come to know the way to understand the text of the quran properly in its own proper context as intended by God then they can interpret the message of God which talks about facts not baseless fictions as ignorant people will have us believe. So all I can say is, please educate your self about the quran and deen of islam before getting involved in silly exchanges.

May God bless us all with all that may ensure our well being in here as well as in hereafter.

 

[Mughal1]

Here is the way I understand the Quran:
1. Read it myself
2. If there is any confusion I look at the exegesis and see what it says about the subject
3. I refer to the prophet's biography and see if there is anything there on the topic
4. I look at the Sahih Hadith and see what it says about the topic
5. If there is confusion in translation of a word or sentence, I look at other places of the Quran where it is used to see the most probable meaning of it and cross confirm it with the exegesis
I do all of this in the context of the world as it was during the time of Muhammad, so I only look at original sources from his time that have been verified.

Only after this that I will claim that the Quran says something.

Thank you dear vitamin c for explaining your way of trying to understand the quranic text. However as I have explained already how to try and understand the text of the quran properly in its own proper context I will not go into too much detail of things here so please refer to information provided in the given links as what you have stated here needs a proper explanation of things to help you understanding why the way you are trying to study the quran is not going to work. In simple words, it is not a logically consistent way to use for understanding of the quran properly.

For example, for a start you are not stating anything about the reason as to why you are studying the quran in the first place ie what triggered this process in your mind? Has someone told you to do so or you have imposed it upon yourself and in either case why did you think of doing that? If you remember I explained the point that no one investigates anything ever unless something triggers an investigation into something. Once something triggers an investigation then first thing we need is a logically consistent way of carrying out the investigation. However we cannot have a logically consistent way of investigating anything at all till we decide the purpose of investigation which in the case of the quran is to find out whether the quran is word of God or not. So you have not even made the choice as to what you are trying to investigate about the quran. I explained already the logically consistent flowchart when anyone wishes to investigate the quran. In that flowchart first you assume God exists because you cannot start this sort of flowchart from the position of declaring nonexistence of God. The next thing in that flowchart has to be communication from God because we human beings cannot search out God all by ourselves due to our human limitations. Once we suppose we have a communication from God eg the quran then we need to ask ourselves how can we understand the explanation of God which is in our human language but we are born not knowing a thing. Therefore how trustable or reliable or dependable is or can be our understanding of the message of God and why or how? This helps us to devise a way whereby we could understand words of God reasonably correctly. So in this light you should be able to see that your way of trying to understand the quran is not sufficient because it lacks many vitally important links in this chain which make it unsuitable for proper understanding of the text of the quran.

In the links I have provided I have explained many vitally important things about the quran and deen of islam much more than anyone I ever came across. If people will go through that information it will save them decades of hard work to come to the same conclusion. In fact once a person comes to know what is explained in there then one could take the same line of reasoning to a yet higher level instead of wasting time in trying to figure out something that has been figured out and explained in detail already.

So to recount here is a little bit of explanation for you to take aboard if you wish.

Here is the way I understand the Quran:
1. Read it myself

It is good to know that you read the quran yourself but the question will be, are you capable of understanding the quranic text properly in its proper context? I ask this because to start reading the quran is useless unless one first decides in which context one is going to read it ie as a supposed revealed word of God or mere a human word? If you do not decide this to begin with then your study of the quran is not going to lead to a proper end result or conclusion. So I suggest you start reading it as a revealed word of God. I already explained the reason why you should do that ie because the quran claims to be word of God which triggers reason for its investigation by mankind. If you instead ignore the claim of the quran and read it as a human work then you are breaking the logical consistency therefore your study of the quran will end up with all sorts of wrong conclusions.

2. If there is any confusion I look at the exegesis and see what it says about the subject

This is fine once you decide what you take the quran for ie the word of God or human work. Assuming you are taking it as a work of God then before you rely upon exegesis you will need to realise human ideas are human ideas and not necessarily ideas of God. So you should expect a lot of mistakes in the explanations of the quran by human beings since people are born ignorant and only know what they have learned in their lifetime. These explanations are not necessarily telling us what God means by his words but what people made of the text of the quran. One cannot use human works to degrade or limit work of God. So we should take human works only for what they are worth therefore we should not equate them with work of God. This explains why we are right in choosing one explanation of one person and another of another person because although both have made many mistakes but one has explained one thing rightly in his explanation and the other another thing in his explanation. This is why we must listen to all but only accept what they right and reject all else. This also proves to us the mistakes are not in the actual text of the quran but in the explanations of the people. We cannot blame people for making genuine mistakes because we are all humans therefore prone to human errors and limitations.

3. I refer to the prophet's biography and see if there is anything there on the topic

This too is fine but only in the context explained above. These biographies of the prophet are works of human beings not God. Stories of the prophets are also told in the quran itself by God therefore if biographies do not end up contradicting the proper interpretations of the quranic text in this regard then they too are fine but if they do then it is human works that are faulty not the quran provided the correct interpretation of the quranic text is possible. This also proves the point that even if one person has interpreted the quran correctly about something then his explanation stands tall while all others fall because they are wrong therefore they are to be rejected.

4. I look at the Sahih Hadith and see what it says about the topic

This is also fine but one must ensure no hadis report is used which is not sound both in its text=matan or chain=sanad or which has been misinterpreted. Hadis is a human work and not work of God. Only the quran is work of God but its understanding attempts are human works which could be right as well as wrong therefore they cannot be used to undermine the quran unless we have no justifications for what is stated in the quran. if a statement could be proven true then we cannot disprove it by our own misinterpretation of it because that will be misrepresentation of it which in turn will lead us to wrong conclusion about the work of God. This proves the point that none has the right to stick to a wrong interpretation of the quran when the right or proper or appropriate interpretation is staring one right in the face.

5. If there is confusion in translation of a word or sentence, I look at other places of the Quran where it is used to see the most probable meaning of it and cross confirm it with the exegesis

Again a good point but human beings do not know all the meanings of all the words used in the quran by God. This point one comes to realise when one realises the point that human written dictionaries only tell us which word was used when by various people and in which contexts. There is no dictionary in the world which tells us all the meanings of any word used by God. People have invented human language for communication between themselves because they could never directly interact with God as they do with each other. This is where we become stuck and rely upon a mechanism whereby people derived meanings for words they used for communication between themselves. This gives us the tool to expand upon meanings of words that have been used by God in his revealed message and based upon that idea we can create dictionaries wherein we can clearly show how words used by us could have thousands of meanings not just what we are used to. This is what gives us a way to reinterpret the very same quranic text as we become more and more knowledgeable with passing of time and new discoveries and developments. This helps us get closer and closer to what God wants us to make of his words. This is the sticking point which people fail to understand clearly. They do not realise the fact that when God uses a word he knows all its related facts or implications but not necessarily human beings. For example, when God uses word ARD in the quran he knows what the earth is in its totality but we human beings use this word day and night and have been using it for a very long time yet we still have little idea as to what it really means when we say the words the earth. However we are finding out as time passes by exploring it more and more. This is why to make proper sense of words of God we need to keep up our interpretations of his words up to date otherwise we cannot use guidance of God for us to our advantage so it will be useless for us. This is why anyone who says the word of God should not be reinterpreted with passing of time and new discoveries is wrong. For more detailed explanations see the information in the links provided by me.

I do all of this in the context of the world as it was during the time of Muhammad, so I only look at original sources from his time that have been verified.

This is utterly wrong way of looking at the quran and the only reason for which you seem to be doing this is because you assume right from the start the quran is a human work and not revelation from God. No wonder then that that only leads you to wrong conclusion about the quran. If you do not look at the quran the way I have explained then your logical consistency breaks down ie you cannot accept possibility of existence of God unless you also accept possibility of existence of his way of communication with human beings ie his revelation. If we accept possibilities of existence of God and his revelation then we cannot say no message that is claimed to be from God can be word of God rather it is word of human beings. If we do that then our logical consistency suffers a fatal blow. This is why we therefore end up with wrong conclusions about the message of God. However if we accept the assumption the quran is word of God for sake of our logical consistency then our next problem is how to make proper sense of it in its proper context. It is because God knows things as they are but we human beings do not because we are born not knowing a thing so we have to find out and that takes a lot of time and effort. This means to discover what God wants us to know through his message to us we human beings need to work very hard at our learning of things so that we could reach the level of understanding of things in time where at we could attempt understanding of the message of God. Only after reaching that level of understanding we can say what the message of God may be or what it may or can not be. So it is way of knowing things that is of vital importance to begin with rather than trying to know things without having a clear cut way for knowing things. This is why unless we know the way to make proper sense of the quranic text properly in its proper context first and foremost all our claims about knowing the quran fall flat on their face or come to nothing at all.

Only after this that I will claim that the Quran says something.

I hope I have been able to explain for you in sufficient detail why your way of looking at the quran is not sufficient or fit for the purpose of proper understanding the quran. For more detailed explanations of things about the quran and deen of islam please go through following links as and when you have time ie HERE and HERE.


Regards and all the best.

 

[back to the future]

I can see an ahmadi and a non muslim or atheist/antagonist supporting each other.

Their aim here seems to distract and dis illusion other Muslim about their religion. So Beware and careful guys.

 

[Vitamin_C]

The idea of assuming Quran being the message of God is logically flawed, because if you assume a conclusion, you will start with a bias.
If you study any claim being made by a person for example saying that God wrote a book is a claim. The default position from which to study any claim is disbelief. Since books are only written by Homo Sapiens, and since we have no direct evidence of any supernatural entity writing literature and we have no direct evidence of an supernatural entity even existing (If you have any proof of anything supernatural, even ghosts, you could win $1,000,000 prize from James *****). Therefore the logical place to start would be that it is written by uneducated desert peasants.

You can never start from a position of belief while studying a claim because that will be a biased position to start. Especially if your conclusion is unscientific to start with. For example if you go to the doctor for a lump in your throat, the doctor can never start from a position that he is 100% sure it is cancer and then treat it. He has to confirm that it is cancer using xrays and other evidence. David Hume says that we must study all probably causes of an outcome and only reach the conclusion when its proven beyond doubt. According to him a supernatural explanation has a zero probability because we have no recorded occurrences in the past. Therefore it should be the last thing if it is even considered.

This type of logical fallacy that your method is committing was discussed by Aristotle in Prior Analytics. You cannot assume your conclusion to be true (Quran being word of God) to prove your argument (That Quran is the word of God) because that is circular reasoning and it does not prove anything.
<font size="4">

Thank you dear vitamin c for explaining your way of trying to understand the quranic text. However as I have explained already how to try and understand the text of the quran properly in its own proper context I will not go into too much detail of things here so please refer to information provide

d in the given links as what you have stated here needs a proper explanation of things to help you understanding why the way you are trying to study the quran is not going to work. In simple words, it is not a logically consistent way to use for understanding of the quran properly.

For example, for a start you are not stating anything about the reason as to why you are studying the quran in the first place ie what triggered this process in your mind? Has someone told you to do so or you have imposed it upon yourself and in either case why did you think of doing that? If you remember I explained the point that no one investigates anything ever unless something triggers an investigation into something. Once something triggers an investigation then first thing we need is a logically consistent way of carrying out the investigation. However we cannot have a logically consistent way of investigating anything at all till we decide the purpose of investigation which in the case of the quran is to find out whether the quran is word of God or not. So you have not even made the choice as to what you are trying to investigate about the quran. I explained already the logically consistent flowchart when anyone wishes to investigate the quran. In that flowchart first you assume God exists because you cannot start this sort of flowchart from the position of declaring nonexistence of God. The next thing in that flowchart has to be communication from God because we human beings cannot search out God all by ourselves due to our human limitations. Once we suppose we have a communication from God eg the quran then we need to ask ourselves how can we understand the explanation of God which is in our human language but we are born not knowing a thing. Therefore how trustable or reliable or dependable is or can be our understanding of the message of God and why or how? This helps us to devise a way whereby we could understand words of God reasonably correctly. So in this light you should be able to see that your way of trying to understand the quran is not sufficient because it lacks many vitally important links in this chain which make it unsuitable for proper understanding of the text of the quran.

In the links I have provided I have explained many vitally important things about the quran and deen of islam much more than anyone I ever came across. If people will go through that information it will save them decades of hard work to come to the same conclusion. In fact once a person comes to know what is explained in there then one could take the same line of reasoning to a yet higher level instead of wasting time in trying to figure out something that has been figured out and explained in detail already.

So to recount here is a little bit of explanation for you to take aboard if you wish.



It is good to know that you read the quran yourself but the question will be, are you capable of understanding the quranic text properly in its proper context? I ask this because to start reading the quran is useless unless one first decides in which context one is going to read it ie as a supposed revealed word of God or mere a human word? If you do not decide this to begin with then your study of the quran is not going to lead to a proper end result or conclusion. So I suggest you start reading it as a revealed word of God. I already explained the reason why you should do that ie because the quran claims to be word of God which triggers reason for its investigation by mankind. If you instead ignore the claim of the quran and read it as a human work then you are breaking the logical consistency therefore your study of the quran will end up with all sorts of wrong conclusions.



This is fine once you decide what you take the quran for ie the word of God or human work. Assuming you are taking it as a work of God then before you rely upon exegesis you will need to realise human ideas are human ideas and not necessarily ideas of God. So you should expect a lot of mistakes in the explanations of the quran by human beings since people are born ignorant and only know what they have learned in their lifetime. These explanations are not necessarily telling us what God means by his words but what people made of the text of the quran. One cannot use human works to degrade or limit work of God. So we should take human works only for what they are worth therefore we should not equate them with work of God. This explains why we are right in choosing one explanation of one person and another of another person because although both have made many mistakes but one has explained one thing rightly in his explanation and the other another thing in his explanation. This is why we must listen to all but only accept what they right and reject all else. This also proves to us the mistakes are not in the actual text of the quran but in the explanations of the people. We cannot blame people for making genuine mistakes because we are all humans therefore prone to human errors and limitations.

This too is fine but only in the context explained above. These biographies of the prophet are works of human beings not God. Stories of the prophets are also told in the quran itself by God therefore if biographies do not end up contradicting the proper interpretations of the quranic text in this regard then they too are fine but if they do then it is human works that are faulty not the quran provided the correct interpretation of the quranic text is possible. This also proves the point that even if one person has interpreted the quran correctly about something then his explanation stands tall while all others fall because they are wrong therefore they are to be rejected.

This is also fine but one must ensure no hadis report is used which is not sound both in its text=matan or chain=sanad or which has been misinterpreted. Hadis is a human work and not work of God. Only the quran is work of God but its understanding attempts are human works which could be right as well as wrong therefore they cannot be used to undermine the quran unless we have no justifications for what is stated in the quran. if a statement could be proven true then we cannot disprove it by our own misinterpretation of it because that will be misrepresentation of it which in turn will lead us to wrong conclusion about the work of God. This proves the point that none has the right to stick to a wrong interpretation of the quran when the right or proper or appropriate interpretation is staring one right in the face.

Again a good point but human beings do not know all the meanings of all the words used in the quran by God. This point one comes to realise when one realises the point that human written dictionaries only tell us which word was used when by various people and in which contexts. There is no dictionary in the world which tells us all the meanings of any word used by God. People have invented human language for communication between themselves because they could never directly interact with God as they do with each other. This is where we become stuck and rely upon a mechanism whereby people derived meanings for words they used for communication between themselves. This gives us the tool to expand upon meanings of words that have been used by God in his revealed message and based upon that idea we can create dictionaries wherein we can clearly show how words used by us could have thousands of meanings not just what we are used to. This is what gives us a way to reinterpret the very same quranic text as we become more and more knowledgeable with passing of time and new discoveries and developments. This helps us get closer and closer to what God wants us to make of his words. This is the sticking point which people fail to understand clearly. They do not realise the fact that when God uses a word he knows all its related facts or implications but not necessarily human beings. For example, when God uses word ARD in the quran he knows what the earth is in its totality but we human beings use this word day and night and have been using it for a very long time yet we still have little idea as to what it really means when we say the words the earth. However we are finding out as time passes by exploring it more and more. This is why to make proper sense of words of God we need to keep up our interpretations of his words up to date otherwise we cannot use guidance of God for us to our advantage so it will be useless for us. This is why anyone who says the word of God should not be reinterpreted with passing of time and new discoveries is wrong. For more detailed explanations see the information in the links provided by me.



This is utterly wrong way of looking at the quran and the only reason for which you seem to be doing this is because you assume right from the start the quran is a human work and not revelation from God. No wonder then that that only leads you to wrong conclusion about the quran. If you do not look at the quran the way I have explained then your logical consistency breaks down ie you cannot accept possibility of existence of God unless you also accept possibility of existence of his way of communication with human beings ie his revelation. If we accept possibilities of existence of God and his revelation then we cannot say no message that is claimed to be from God can be word of God rather it is word of human beings. If we do that then our logical consistency suffers a fatal blow. This is why we therefore end up with wrong conclusions about the message of God. However if we accept the assumption the quran is word of God for sake of our logical consistency then our next problem is how to make proper sense of it in its proper context. It is because God knows things as they are but we human beings do not because we are born not knowing a thing so we have to find out and that takes a lot of time and effort. This means to discover what God wants us to know through his message to us we human beings need to work very hard at our learning of things so that we could reach the level of understanding of things in time where at we could attempt understanding of the message of God. Only after reaching that level of understanding we can say what the message of God may be or what it may or can not be. So it is way of knowing things that is of vital importance to begin with rather than trying to know things without having a clear cut way for knowing things. This is why unless we know the way to make proper sense of the quranic text properly in its proper context first and foremost all our claims about knowing the quran fall flat on their face or come to nothing at all.



I hope I have been able to explain for you in sufficient detail why your way of looking at the quran is not sufficient or fit for the purpose of proper understanding the quran. For more detailed explanations of things about the quran and deen of islam please go through following links as and when you have time ie HERE and HERE.


Regards and all the best.

 

[Mughal1]

The idea of assuming Quran being the message of God is logically flawed, because if you assume a conclusion, you will start with a bias.
If you study any claim being made by a person for example saying that God wrote a book is a claim. The default position from which to study any claim is disbelief. Since books are only written by Homo Sapiens, and since we have no direct evidence of any supernatural entity writing literature and we have no direct evidence of an supernatural entity even existing (If you have any proof of anything supernatural, even ghosts, you could win $1,000,000 prize from James *****). Therefore the logical place to start would be that it is written by uneducated desert peasants.

You can never start from a position of belief while studying a claim because that will be a biased position to start. Especially if your conclusion is unscientific to start with. For example if you go to the doctor for a lump in your throat, the doctor can never start from a position that he is 100% sure it is cancer and then treat it. He has to confirm that it is cancer using xrays and other evidence. David Hume says that we must study all probably causes of an outcome and only reach the conclusion when its proven beyond doubt. According to him a supernatural explanation has a zero probability because we have no recorded occurrences in the past. Therefore it should be the last thing if it is even considered.

This type of logical fallacy that your method is committing was discussed by Aristotle in Prior Analytics. You cannot assume your conclusion to be true (Quran being word of God) to prove your argument (That Quran is the word of God) because that is circular reasoning and it does not prove anything.
<font size="4">

Dear vitamin c, thanks for your reply but if I may say so you seem to be utterly confused about things. I suggest you go through the links I have provided so that you may have some basis to argue your point from. I see no consistency in your reasoning. For example, you state," The idea of assuming Quran being the message of God is logically flawed, because if you assume a conclusion, you will start with a bias." If assuming or supposing something about something for purpose of its investigation causes bias (which makes absolutely no sense to me) then that bias even if I accept it does exist will exist in any case regardless we take something positively or negatively. So why not take something positively instead of negatively which cannot be taken negatively at all eg idea of nonexistence of God?

You see conclusion in my view does not come from starting assumption but after the assumption has been thoroughly investigated and therefore conclusion is reached. So I am totally lost about what you are trying to explain. Therefore to me it seems you are arguing just for sake of argument because you have no idea as to what you are trying to explain.

You have brought in idea of logical fallacy here but that has nothing at all to do with what I have explained. Logical statements do not mean anything in isolation rather they need to be applied in context of a purpose of use and if they make sense they are ok otherwise not. The quran is word of God is a claim, true, but not on its own rather it is part of a flowchart as explained already in detail. I have explained the idea how God, revelation of God and its proper understanding are interlinked inseparably if we wish to make proper sense of things. You either accept them all together as a unit or you reject them all together. That is because they work together as a system or unit ie G & GR & GRU= Truth or proper explanation of things. G=God, R=revelation of God and U= proper understanding of God's revelation. God on his own means nothing at all, concept of revelation means nothing at all without God and without proper understanding nothing makes any sense regardless God or his revelation or creation.


https://blogs.scientificamerican.co...ain-why-theres-something-rather-than-nothing/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/earth/story/20141106-why-does-anything-exist-at-all
Why does the universe exist? | Jim Holt
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORUUqJd81M

Life, the Universe and Nothing: Why is there something rather than nothing?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V82uGzgoajI

Lawrence Krauss and Neil deGrasse Tyson "Existence of Nothing!" [FULL DEBATE]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYohZRivNhI

Neil deGrasse Tyson: Atheist or Agnostic?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzSMC5rWvos

Richard Dawkins: Faith
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sm220Q5wks4

Sam Harris: Considering a Creator
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nh7ymp6dVWo
Sam Harris Explains Why God Exists
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSGhX4ZcFAw

Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJUyLBbAz9w

Quentin Smith - Why is there Something rather than Nothing?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5n4mJkVivs

Colin McGinn Why is There Anything At All
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DuAvNdbeu8o

Dean Rickles Why Is There Anything At All Closer to Truth
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tD80iDlKc5Q

Hugh Ross vs Kent Hovind How old is the Earth
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_Z_br-4RCo

Latest Scientific Evidence for God's Existence - Hugh Ross, PhD
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4EaWPIlNYY

Dr Michael Shermer, God does NOT exist
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pOI2YvVuuE

J L Schellenberg Atheism's Arguments Against God
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o22UIZQKosY

J L Schellenberg Is Atheism a New Faith
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1PC0lKifcI

dr J L Schellenberg What is God
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yQEpSaYY-k
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9f1Avl9JgMc

Bede Rundle Arguments Against God
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVRc5-wO8DM

Does God Exist?" David Wood vs. Michael Shermer (Christian vs. Atheist Debate)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMWKm40-dnM


If you go through these links, you will come to know there is no such thing as empty space or perfect vacuum in this universe. This is why scientists so far have not been able to create perfect vacuum even in their labs. They can only work within this universe with whatever is available to them. It is therefore impossible for them to create the original condition out of which the universe arose. This is why to eliminate idea of God creating this universe is impossible. All scientist are doing is suggesting causes behind causes but nothing is final yet as to what the ultimate cause was if not God. It is not possible for science to investigate God for science can only investigate matter or energy not its creator.

Philosophers and scientists raise a lot of questions against God which I have answered in my posts. However my work is an ongoing project which is going to take yet more time to complete. This is why I do not have time for discussing things in detail yet.

All I can say is, realise the fact that highly educated people are not dismissing idea of existence of God as you do. If it was a simple logical fallacy as you assume then why are they wasting their so much time in trying to have detailed discussions about existence of God and his communication? Moreover hardly anyone takes the position that God does not exist for sure. Those who say God does not exist say it on the basis of what they know about religions and scriptures but if their understanding of religions or scriptures is wrong then so is their belief of nonexistence of God based upon that. In my explanation I have explained the message of the quran in context of deen of islam, not in comtext of mazhab of islam.

regards and all the best.

 

[The_Choice]

 

[Vitamin_C]

You are saying that because it is God's revelation then we should apply special treatment to it. And that argument you are basing on illogical assumptions that that God exists and that God is specifically your God, not the God of Hindus or Buddhists. You have to show that your assumptions are reasonable. First you have to prove that a God exists, then you have to prove that it the actual God you are talking about, there is no evidence for any of that. Therefore I do not see a reason for the special treatment.

You are saying that, because it is hard to think about what must have happened before the big bang so therefore God did it. That is a logical fallacy. If you know there is a corpse, and you know that John didn't do it and you know that Jill didn't do it, then that does not mean that Jack did it. You need to have direct evidence of linking Jack to the corpse, just because the other 2 didn't do it is not an argument against Jack (That person could have died from natural causes). You cant just say that because I dont know what explains the universe, therefore God did it, you have to find direct evidence pointing to your conclusion.
There are other hypothesis for the origin of the universe, some of them we have mathematical calculations to support them such as the Multiverse. Until now there is no evidence pointing to a God, needless to say there is no evidence of any supernatural event or entity ever existing such as Gods, Tooth Fairies, Angels, Ghosts or Golden Unicorn. All our understanding come from natural explanations which always dislodge supernatural explanations. The evolution of humans can be explained from a natural explanation, the biogenesis of life is also explained through natural phenomena, the evolution of the universe, the expansion, formation of stars, planets, heavy elements is all explained through natural phenomena. Eventually we will be able to explain the formation of the universe through natural phenomena, but just because we do not know it yet, does not mean that it happened by magic or God did it.

"It is not possible for science to investigate God for science can only investigate matter or energy not its creator."
That is just a loaded assertion. First there is no evidence for that assertion. Second its loaded because your assertion is assuming that there is a creator, which no one has ever proved. Circular reasoning again.
There is also an argument from ignorance buried in it. Just because you cannot explain something, does not mean that it must be true. You cannot explain whether a Golden Unicorn exists in space, just because you cannot explain it does not have an effect on its probability. You need direct evidence linking it to the probability.
I can also say that a Golden Unicorn made the universe, then apply a special condition to it that you cannot investigate it because science cannot investigate "The Golden Unicorn", just because I say so based on my assertion. That is an asinine argument.
You cannot say that God does not exist for sure or a Golden Unicorn does not exist for sure, but that does not mean anything. That is a basic argument from ignorance fallacy.

<font size="4">

 

[The_Choice]

Prove to me the origin of your existence and I will prove the existence of the Originator.

 

[Sam Sam]

Allah has set a seal upon their hearts and upon their hearing, and over their vision is a veil. And for them is a great punishment." (The Noble Quran 2:6-7)




تو پھر اس میں اس انسان کا کیا قصور ہے؟ پھر تو سارا الزام خود اس پہ جاتا ہے جس نے مہر لگائی

 

[The_Choice]

Allah has set a seal upon their hearts and upon their hearing, and over their vision is a veil. And for them is a great punishment." (The Noble Quran 2:6-7)
تو پھر اس میں اس انسان کا کیا قصور ہے؟ پھر تو سارا الزام خود اس پہ جاتا ہے جس نے مہر لگائی

http://islamicresponse.blogspot.ca/2011/05/why-does-allah-seal-hearts.html?m=1

 

[Sam Sam]

http://islamicresponse.blogspot.ca/2011/05/why-does-allah-seal-hearts.html?m=1

Someone commented on the above article.

Anonymous23 July 2011 at 01:28
Hello,
Interesting article.
Let just go down to the main points and see if I can make you understand my opinion. Again, no one is here to try to make a you an unbeliever, I just want you to see inside the mind of an infidel :) .

1.)
"God sealing of the heart is the direct outcome of the volitional conduct of the human being."

Well, ok , lets say I choose to turn away from allah. Is he not the most merciful? Doesn't he love me? Can't he use his awesome power to change me? Why not? If he can create the universe surely he can make me a believer, at the snap of the finger.
And don't give me that "but he wants to give your free will". What kind of free will is that!! He punishes you in hell for eternity, just for not believing in him?
Or Maybe allah chooses not to be merciful, that would mean that he is not the most merciful.
Or perhaps allah can't change my heart, but according to the Koran, he can change my heart, but only to make me a bigger unbeliever! That makes NO SENSE!

2. As the sealing of the heart is part of the cosmic scheme of Divine destiny and decree, it is attributed to God

If there is a plan, "god's plan", then there is no free will. Also, there is no need to pray since everything has already been decided for you since before your great grandparents were born. A truly , truly absurd and horrible idea , basically human beings beings slaves of allah. You might choose to live that way, but, I do not.

3. The human being whose heart has been tainted by the dross of sin can add to his spiritual contamination by repeating the past mistakes. It should be noted that this perpetuation of sin is on his own accord.

I actually agree with this, the downward spiral I call it. People self destroying and destroying others. It happens all the time.
I think however that in this context the author is referring to the sin of non-belief. So it might start as a little drop that all makes bigger and bigger. Instead of coming down from the heavens and healing this unbelief, he perpetuates it, and then he sends you to HELL, for something he helped create.


4. Im going to abbreviate this one so you don't become bored:

"if the soul and heart of the unbeliever and hypocrite become sealed and dark and debased such that no bright space remains"
- what a horrible thing to say about unbelievers. First of all, there is no such thing as a soul. Second, in the metaphorical sense, to call my heart and soul dark and debased is just plain evil. Just cause I'm an unbeliever? I am quite happy and actually quite well rounded thank you very much! I am not perfect and no one is!

Peace

 

[The_Choice]

@_Sam Sam

"The truth is from your Lord, so whoever wills - let him believe; and whoever wills - let him disbelieve." (The Noble Quran 18:29)

 

[SachGoee]

@_Sam Sam

"The truth is from your Lord, so whoever wills - let him believe; and whoever wills - let him disbelieve." (The Noble Quran 18:29)

If one believes than disbelieves than what to do under Islamic Jurisprudence with him ?

 

[Mughal1]

You are saying that because it is God's revelation then we should apply special treatment to it. And that argument you are basing on illogical assumptions that that God exists and that God is specifically your God, not the God of Hindus or Buddhists. You have to show that your assumptions are reasonable. First you have to prove that a God exists, then you have to prove that it the actual God you are talking about, there is no evidence for any of that. Therefore I do not see a reason for the special treatment.

You are saying that, because it is hard to think about what must have happened before the big bang so therefore God did it. That is a logical fallacy. If you know there is a corpse, and you know that John didn't do it and you know that Jill didn't do it, then that does not mean that Jack did it. You need to have direct evidence of linking Jack to the corpse, just because the other 2 didn't do it is not an argument against Jack (That person could have died from natural causes). You cant just say that because I dont know what explains the universe, therefore God did it, you have to find direct evidence pointing to your conclusion.
There are other hypothesis for the origin of the universe, some of them we have mathematical calculations to support them such as the Multiverse. Until now there is no evidence pointing to a God, needless to say there is no evidence of any supernatural event or entity ever existing such as Gods, Tooth Fairies, Angels, Ghosts or Golden Unicorn. All our understanding come from natural explanations which always dislodge supernatural explanations. The evolution of humans can be explained from a natural explanation, the biogenesis of life is also explained through natural phenomena, the evolution of the universe, the expansion, formation of stars, planets, heavy elements is all explained through natural phenomena. Eventually we will be able to explain the formation of the universe through natural phenomena, but just because we do not know it yet, does not mean that it happened by magic or God did it.

"It is not possible for science to investigate God for science can only investigate matter or energy not its creator."
That is just a loaded assertion. First there is no evidence for that assertion. Second its loaded because your assertion is assuming that there is a creator, which no one has ever proved. Circular reasoning again.
There is also an argument from ignorance buried in it. Just because you cannot explain something, does not mean that it must be true. You cannot explain whether a Golden Unicorn exists in space, just because you cannot explain it does not have an effect on its probability. You need direct evidence linking it to the probability.
I can also say that a Golden Unicorn made the universe, then apply a special condition to it that you cannot investigate it because science cannot investigate "The Golden Unicorn", just because I say so based on my assertion. That is an asinine argument.
You cannot say that God does not exist for sure or a Golden Unicorn does not exist for sure, but that does not mean anything. That is a basic argument from ignorance fallacy.

<font size="4">

Dear vitamin c, the issue of existence or nonexistence of God can only and only be decided by assuming existence of God on basis of creation of God and his revelation as the evidences for it. There is no other way to decide this issue and you are failing to acknowledge this point because you have not yet grasped this point which philosophers and scientists have grasped and that is why if you look at the debates between theists and philosophers or scientists they are all debating the issue of God only and only on that basis. Philosophers and scientists are not saying there is no God at all or there is no such things as creation or revelation of God instead they are critical of stance of theists that whatever theists are making of creation and revelation is nonsense ie it makes absolutely no sense. Here I say the same thing because if we look at make beliefs and useless practices of religious people they have nothing at all to do with with actual texts of the scriptures. This is why my objection on stance of philosophers and scientists is, if religious people are talking nonsense about God on basis of their understandings of creation and revelation then why don't they investigate the allegedly God sent scriptures themselves in light of rationality and real world realities instead of leaving this matter there and keeping the debate going? This is why my argument is same for you or anyone like you that if others are not talking sense why don't you?

The day people grasp my this point on this issue of existence or nonexistence of God things will start making sense to people otherwise people are only wasting their time instead of solving the facing problem. So in a nutshell I am explaining the ways for doing things for all people be they philosophers, scientists, religious or secular etc and the rest I am leaving up to people themselves. I want people to accept my way of looking at the issue of existence or nonexistence of God or come up with something better if they can. I am reasonably sure none can because if anyone could they will have by now for this debate between people has been raging for thousands of years and all because people have not yet realised how to solve this problem. This is why I took on this project to explain to people why they are wrong the way they are debating the issue of God from all sides. This is why people have no choice but to accept my stance and not be foolish .

In your case you are differing with everyone to date on this issue and are telling me I should take nonexistence of God as the starting point for the investigation of existence of God to reach the right conclusion regarding this matter. My question to you is, how can that be possible if we use your way of going about this issue? So kindly go ahead and explain in detail and give examples if anyone has ever done this your way. If not then also explain why no one did this your way for thousands of years? My answer is because your way does not make any sense at all ie it does not and cannot work. In that case you have a long way to go yet because you have a lot to learn yet.

As for your saying that I am assuming existence of God therefore I am reaching conclusion of existence of God before investigation therefore I am wrong in going about this issue that way is not right and I have already explained it in detail for you as to why your claim is wrong. I am not assuming existence of God just for sake of it but for purpose of investigation as I already explained in detail to arrive at a sensible conclusion. Since you do not try to understand my point or are not yet capable of doing that just now due to your level of knowledge of things so far therefore let me try to put things to you in another way to help you understand the problem in taking things your way. Let say we assume God does not exist as you say, now how are you going to investigate if he really does not or he does? You see now you have no way to prove God does not exist. By following this line of inquiry you have trapped yourself badly. It is because the only way you can prove God does not exist is if you have such ability whereby you could show your jurisdiction over all that exists. Since you are an ordinary human being like everyone else so you or anyone else who makes such a claim cannot prove it at all that way.

The only way one can try and prove nonexistence of God is by starting from point of existence of God and his creation and revelation then see if that proves existence of God. If not then one has the right to claim God as explained in a related scripture does not exist and that is exactly what all atheist philosophers and scientists are doing except that they leave things at this point where in comes my objection against their claims because they never studied scriptures the way they should have as explained by me in detail in the provided links. This is why to disprove an alleged God sent scripture one has to enable oneself to be able to make proper sense of an alleged God sent scripture. This is why I explained for you and the rest of people the way to understand the message of God in form of the quran. This is how we end up with falsification method ie we have a way to prove the God existence claim false. However is God claim really false? This needs proper scrutiny or careful examination of things related to the quran as well as of the quran itself. This is why logical fallacies have nothing at all to do with what I have explained about God, his revelation and creation.

This is why your saying that nonexistence of God should be the starting assumption for investigation of existence God is not right because it eliminates possibility of existence of God altogether which is not right at all to begin with because it is an irrational position to start from, which means it is you who is committing logical fallacies, because by taking that position one closes every way of investigating the possibility of existence of God. How can we be right if we eliminate even the possibility of God's existence right from the start? Since we cannot investigate nonexistence of God this way so where do we go from here? This is why it is necessary for us human beings to start this investigation by assuming existence of God instead of his nonexistence. This is why no philosopher or scientist worth the name ever argues on basis of nonexistence of God because then by making such a claim one becomes totally trapped and thereby loses one's own credibility as a sensible human being.

This is why all philosophers and scientists only argue in response to theists claims about God. The youtube is full of videos where in debates between theists and atheists are shown. Theist successfully argue their point up to a point rationally but then they fall on their make beliefs and useless practices relating God, the real world and themselves and that is where they lose their ground to atheists but atheist have no ground to start from either because they never found a way to understand scriptures properly if anyone has show me or because they are not bothered with proper study of the scripture in detail. This is my project and you will have known this had you bothered to go through my provided links.

The reason theists lose their ground to atheists is because they assume their scripture is from God which may not be true in case of each and every scripture there is in the world and also because they assume they are able to make proper sense of their scripture that is truly from God but in actual fact they cannot because they do not know the way. They do not realise that issue of existence and nonexistence of God between theists and atheists cannot be decided unless theists come up with a comprehensive explanation from their scripture which gives atheists satisfactory answers to all their genuine vitally important questions about God, his creation and mankind.

The main question of atheists is purpose for which God created this universe and mankind in it. It is certainly not pooja paat or to show love to mankind or this and that etc etc. I have answered this question in the links I have provided. I have answered the human suffering question and many others that are not even in minds of atheists yet. This is why unless people read what I have explained they cannot think right about God or humanity. So if you are really interested in knowledge about God do take out some time and read through what I have explained in detail HERE and HERE.

You talk about direct evidence, can you explain what you mean by direct evidence and where it is used and why or how? Human beings cannot investigate everything on basis of direct evidences alone as I have explained in detail already because they are very limited in their scope or use. We human beings can only and only infer or deduce or explain things on basis of reasoning and whatever evidences are available to us. Moreover if a tree is there in front of us its existence cannot be proven just by it being there rather it needs an explanation that explains or interprets or proves its existence to our minds ie we have no choice but to interpret the available evidence by way of reasoning. Likewise regardless God is visible or invisible to our senses but his existence can be explained by our reasoning on basis of this world and his scripture as evidences of his existence. This is why the best explanation of an object is proof of its existence not the object itself because we could be imagining things about it. You seem to be confused about words evidence and proof as to what they mean in various contexts. Almost all explanations have holes or gaps in them but some have more than others this is why the best explanation of facts wins the day in a court of law on basis of which a case is decided. In case of God there is only one broken link and that is we cannot observe God or what he does directly. Think about why evolution is called a theory and not a fact. It is because facts are objects or evidences and theory is their explanation or proof as much as it can be. We do not necessarily have all the possible facts or related objects in all cases nor all the possible related small explanations to fit in with main explanation as its parts about them but in case of TOE we accept it anyway because we have nothing better to rely upon as far as our overall knowledge of things goes. If we did not do this we will not be here where we are today.

Therefore to claim one already knows God does not exist was, is and always will be a foolish way to tackle the issue of existence of God. This is why I say, learn to make proper sense of a God sent scripture and to begin with learn the way to do so and then claim the scripture says this or that after studying the scripture properly in detail otherwise one is making false claims about understanding of a God sent scripture. One must realise that real God is not God of one thing but of all that he has created. If one understood the creation and the God sent scripture properly that will teach one everything necessary one needs to know about God and things according to his purpose and plan. This is why all will fall in place like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle when it is put together properly. To do so mankind will have to learn a lot and not be ignorant fools talking nonsense about God and his creation or revelation.

As for your tooth fairies and unicorns, did we have any claims and evidences to investigate about them as to what they have created and what messages they have revealed or how and is all that consistent with each other in light of their messages and what we observe in real world etc etc? No we did not so stop confusing yourself by mixing up different things that have no relevance to the issue under discussion. Only and only God made the claim that he created all the creation and to prove he did it he sent his messages through a lot of messengers throughout the human world explaining to them his purpose and plan for them.

The video you have posted talks about assuming existence of God without any evidence or explanation whatsoever. That is not my claim at all. I claim existence of God on basis of creation and revelation of God. So one has to study the creation and the revelation in detail before one could declare the quran false. Moreover one cannot study the quran properly till one learns the way to do so. One has to realise there are gaps between knowledge of God and knowledge of human beings. Human beings are created to catch up on knowledge of God about things by way of exploring and discovering things so that they come to know things as they should with help of God sent scripture.

Let me further explain things to help you understand things about evidence and explanation. Suppose a witness sees a person killing another person by shooting him with a gun by firing two bullets into him. We have evidences and we have a witness as to what happened and how it happened etc etc. We have the dead body of the person killed with bullets in it and we have the gun with finger prints on it and a witness of the events. It is now up to the witness to connect all these things together by his testimony or explanation. If the witness fails then case falls apart but if witness passes then case is solved. Gun, bullets, dead body etc etc do not speak but we human beings do on basis of reasoning where by we explain what happened and how or why it happened and that is what we call proof and proving. It is therefore our explanation or interpretation of the available evidences as to how we put things together on basis of consistent reasoning which will decide which way the case should be solved. Evidences or objects as well as explanations of objects are all important but the main thing is how we solve the problem or murder case and get the killer. Word evidence also means testimony of a witness which is nothing more than an explanation of the events as to how or why things happened which happened or took place.

If you still fail to grasp the point I am trying to explain then you have problem with sense of making proper sense of things not God or his creation or revelation. It is a long and drawn out process to learn sense of making proper sense of things and you are on the right track for learning it but I am afraid I cannot help due to being busy for the time being with my project. However I do hope that you do find help you need but if you will carry on questioning and answering you will definitely end up with sense of making proper sense of things all by yourself. So keep learning.

Regards and all the best.

 

[Vitamin_C]

Okay, hold your horses and let clear out your misconceptions. The first thing about argument is that we argue to the rules of the argument. From what I can see you lack a basic understanding of logic and reason. I do not blame you if you went to school in Pakistan, they put more importance on teaching religion than on teaching critical thinking. Here in Canada basic philosophy courses are required before admissions. You are making basic errors, I will demonstrate how in a bit. But if you want to learn it quickly then just search crash course philosophy on youtube it will teach you a lot about it and the religious arguments that have popped up over the centuries. What you are saying is not new and I am familiar with these mistakes.

1. You cannot use a book as an evidence for God. Ill demonstrate.
Problem 1: No direct evidence of Gods writing books. They only species that we have evidence of writing books are homo sapiens. It is just an unsubstantiated claim. You cannot use an unsubstantiated claim to prove another unsubstantiated claim.

Problem 2: It is circular reasoning. For example I tell you that I am God, you ask me to give you evidence, I say there I wrote a book and it says in the book that I am God, and you say but where is the evidence that the book is written by a God. I wrote the book and I am a God.
Do you see the problem with circular reasoning? At the end of the day you do not prove anything and all you have is a circle of unsubstantiated claims.

2. Default position on any claim is disbelief
Problem 1. This is the basic of philosophy that any claim being presented has to be studied from a neutral position. You only believe in a claim after you have a reasonable reason to believe it. For example I tell you that I am superman and I have super powers. What will be your default position, will you believe or disbelieve until you have reasonable evidence to believe it? If I tell you that I am God, what will be your default position? Will you believe in it first or will you ask for evidence first and then pass judgement?

Problem 2. Conclusion always comes in the end after the premises, not before it.
This is the basic standard form of a logical argument. You make your premises and base your conclusion on the premises. The premises are supported by evidence or proofs and based on those you reach a conclusion. What you are proposing is starting with a conclusion that God exists and his revelation exists. This goes against any form of rationality and basic common sense. This is the first thing they teach you in intro to logic and argument that you need to follow the evidence to reach a conclusion, not the other way round, because your premises will be biased.

Problem 3. You are also committing fallacy of special pleading by asking for special treatment just for your argument and not the argument of me being God. If you are making a rule it should apply to every argument and still be logical, in your case it is not.

Problem 4. There are many hypothesis for the origin of the universe, you can make an infinite number, like a unicorn did it, of Ra did it or Thor did it. All those hypothesis are mutually exclusive, Ra being the creator and Allah being the creator at the same time cannot be true. Therefore you cannot take those claims to be true before you investigate them, you should view them all from a neutral position.

Your Question on Direct evidence.
Here is a simple example of how we validate a logical claim based on evidence.
One of the astronomers while studying the galaxy noticed that most of the stars were red shifted (Red shift means an object is going away and blue shift means object is coming towards you). How is it possible for everything to move away from each other. Also if everything is moving away from each other that must mean that it was closer together before and started from a single point (This is how the big bang theory was made), the red shift was used as indirect evidence for it. Later with advances in cosmology we used instruments and detected the big bang back ground radiation that was released right after the big bang. The radiation was the direct observation evidence that confirmed the big bang. This is how logic works.
As for your god hypothesis, there is neither direct nor indirect evidence for it. Not only God but there is no evidence for any supernatural being or activity like ghost or angel or tooth fairies.
I am not saying that there is no God, I am saying that there is as much evidence for God as there is evidence for a tooth fairy or a Golden Unicorn in space, it is not enough for me to believe in either of those 3.

Dear vitamin c, the issue of existence or nonexistence of God can only and only be decided by assuming existence of God on basis of creation of God and his revelation as the evidences for it. There is no other way to decide this issue and you are failing to acknowledge this point because you have not yet grasped this point which philosophers and scientists have grasped and that is why if you look at the debates between theists and philosophers or scientists they are all debating the issue of God only and only on that basis. Philosophers and scientists are not saying there is no God at all or there is no such things as creation or revelation of God instead they are critical of stance of theists that whatever theists are making of creation and revelation is nonsense ie it makes absolutely no sense. Here I say the same thing because if we look at make beliefs and useless practices of religious people they have nothing at all to do with with actual texts of the scriptures. This is why my objection on stance of philosophers and scientists is, if religious people are talking nonsense about God on basis of their understandings of creation and revelation then why don't they investigate the allegedly God sent scriptures themselves in light of rationality and real world realities instead of leaving this matter there and keeping the debate going? This is why my argument is same for you or anyone like you that if others are not talking sense why don't you?

The day people grasp my this point on this issue of existence or nonexistence of God things will start making sense to people otherwise people are only wasting their time instead of solving the facing problem. So in a nutshell I am explaining the ways for doing things for all people be they philosophers, scientists, religious or secular etc and the rest I am leaving up to people themselves. I want people to accept my way of looking at the issue of existence or nonexistence of God or come up with something better if they can. I am reasonably sure none can because if anyone could they will have by now for this debate between people has been raging for thousands of years and all because people have not yet realised how to solve this problem. This is why I took on this project to explain to people why they are wrong the way they are debating the issue of God from all sides. This is why people have no choice but to accept my stance and not be foolish .

In your case you are differing with everyone to date on this issue and are telling me I should take nonexistence of God as the starting point for the investigation of existence of God to reach the right conclusion regarding this matter. My question to you is, how can that be possible if we use your way of going about this issue? So kindly go ahead and explain in detail and give examples if anyone has ever done this your way. If not then also explain why no one did this your way for thousands of years? My answer is because your way does not make any sense at all ie it does not and cannot work. In that case you have a long way to go yet because you have a lot to learn yet.

As for your saying that I am assuming existence of God therefore I am reaching conclusion of existence of God before investigation therefore I am wrong in going about this issue that way is not right and I have already explained it in detail for you as to why your claim is wrong. I am not assuming existence of God just for sake of it but for purpose of investigation as I already explained in detail to arrive at a sensible conclusion. Since you do not try to understand my point or are not yet capable of doing that just now due to your level of knowledge of things so far therefore let me try to put things to you in another way to help you understand the problem in taking things your way. Let say we assume God does not exist as you say, now how are you going to investigate if he really does not or he does? You see now you have no way to prove God does not exist. By following this line of inquiry you have trapped yourself badly. It is because the only you can prove God does not exist is if you have such ability whereby you could show your jurisdiction over all that exists. Since you are an ordinary human being like everyone else so you or anyone else who makes such a claim cannot prove it at all that way.

The only way one can try and prove nonexistence of God is by starting from point of existence of God and his creation and revelation then see if that proves existence of God. If not then one has the right to claim God as explained in a related scripture does not exist and that is exactly what all atheist philosophers and scientists are doing except that they leave things at this point where in comes my objection against their claims because they never studied scrip0-tures the way they should have as explained by me in detail in the provided links. This is why to disprove an alleged God sent scripture one has to enable oneself to be able to make proper sense of an alleged God sent scripture. This is why I explained for you and the rest of people the way to understand the message of God in form of the quran. This is how we end up with falsification method ie we have a way to prove the God existence claim false. However is God claim really false? This needs proper scrutiny or careful examination of things related to the quran as well as of the quran itself. This is why logical fallacies have nothing at all to do with what I have explained about God, his revelation and creation.

This is why your saying that nonexistence of God should be the starting assumption for investigation of existence God is not right because it eliminates possibility of existence of God altogether which is not right at all to begin with because it is an irrational position to start from, which means it is you who is committing logical fallacies, because by taking that position one closes every way of investigating the possibility of existence of God. How can we be right if we eliminate even the possibility of God's existence right from the start? Since we cannot investigate nonexistence of God this way so where do we go from here? This is why it is necessary for us human beings to start this investigation by assuming existence of God instead of his nonexistence. This is why no philosopher or scientist worth the name ever argues on basis of nonexistence of God because then by making such a claim one becomes totally trapped and thereby loses one's own credibility as a sensible human being.

This is why all philosophers and scientists only argue in response to theists claims about God. The youtube is full of videos where in debates between theists and atheists are shown. Theist successfully argue their point up to a point rationally but then they fall on their make beliefs and useless practices relating God, the real world and themselves and that is where they lose their ground to atheists but atheist have no ground to start from either because they never found a way to understand scriptures properly if anyone has show me. This is my project and you will have known this had you bothered to go through my provided links.

The reason theists lose their ground to atheists is because they assume their scripture is from God which may not be true in case of each and every scripture and also because they assume they are able to make proper sense of their scripture that is truly from God. They do not realise that issue of existence and nonexistence of God between theists and atheists cannot be decided unless theists come up with a comprehensive explanation from their scripture which gives atheists satisfactory answers to all their genuine vitally important questions about God, his creation and mankind.

The main question of atheists is purpose for which God created this universe and mankind in it. It is certainly not pooja paat or to show love to mankind or this and that etc etc. I have answered this question in the links I have provided. I have answered the human suffering question and many others that are not even in minds of atheists yet. This is why unless people read what I have explained they cannot think right about God or humanity. So if you are really interested in knowledge about God do take out some time and read through what I have explained in detail HERE and HERE.

You talk about direct evidence, can you explain what you mean by direct evidence and where it is used and why or how? Human beings cannot investigate everything on basis of direct evidences alone as I have explained in detail already because they are very limited in their scope or use. We human beings can only and only infer or deduce or explain things on basis of reasoning and whatever evidences are available to us. Moreover if a tree is there in front of us its existence cannot be proven just by it being there rather it needs an explanation that explains or interprets or proves its existence to our minds ie we have no choice but to interpret the available evidence by way of reasoning. Likewise regardless God is visible or invisible to our senses but his existence can be explained by our reasoning on basis of this world and his scripture as evidences of his existence. This is why the best explanation of an object is proof of its existence not the object itself because we could be imagining things about it. You seem to be confused about words evidence and proof as to what they mean in various contexts. Almost all explanations have holes or gaps in them but some have more than others this is why the best explanation of facts wins the day in a court of law on basis of which a case is decided. In case of God there is only one broken link and that is we cannot observe God or what he does directly. Think about why evolution is called a theory and not a fact. It is because facts are objects or evidences and theory is their explanation or proof as much as it can be. We do not necessarily have all the possible facts or related objects in all cases nor all the possible related small explanations to fit in with main explanation as its parts about them but we accept it anyway because we have nothing better to rely upon as far as our overall knowledge of things goes. If we dis not do this we will not be here where we are today.

Therefore to claim one already knows God does not exist was, is and always will be a foolish way to tackle the issue of existence of God. This is why I say, learn to make proper sense of a God sent scripture and to begin with learn the way to do so and then claim the scripture says this or that otherwise one is making false claims about understanding of a God sent scripture. One must realise that real God is not God of one thing but of all that he has created. If one understood the creation and the God sent scripture properly that will teach one everything necessary one needs to know about God and things according to his purpose and plan. This is why all will fall in place like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle when it is put together properly. To do so mankind will have to learn a lot and not be ignorant fools talking nonsense about God and his creation or revelation.

As for your tooth fairies and unicorns, did we have any claims and evidences to investigate about them as to what they have created and what messages they have revealed or how etc etc? No we did not so stop confusing yourself by mixing up different things that have no relevance to the issue under discussion. Only and only God made the claim that he created all the creation and to prove he did it he sent his messages through a lot of messengers throughout the human world explaining to them his purpose and plan for them.

The video you have posted talks about assuming existence of God without any evidence or explanation whatsoever. That is not my claim at all. I claim existence of God on basis of creation and revelation of God. So one has to study the creation and the revelation in detail before one could declare the quran false. Moreover one cannot study the quran properly till one learns the way to do so. One has to realise there are gaps between knowledge of God and knowledge of human beings. Human beings are created to catch up on knowledge of God about things by way of exploring and discovering things so that they come to know things as they should with help of God sent scripture.

Let me further explain things to help you understand things about evidence and explanation. Suppose a witness sees a person killing another person by shooting him with a gun by firing two bullets into him. We have evidences and we have a witness as to what happened and how it happened etc etc. We have dead body of the person killed with bullets in it and we have the gun with finger prints on it and a witness of the events. It is now up to the witness to connect all these things together by his testimony or explanation. If the witness fails then case falls but if witness passes then case is solved. Gun, bullets, dead body etc etc do not speak but we human beings do on basis of reasoning where by explain what happen and how or why it happened and that is what we call proof and proving. It is therefore our explanation or interpretation of the available evidences as to how we put things together on basis of consistent reasoning which will decide which way the case should be solved. Evidences or objects as well as explanations of objects are all important but the main thing is how we solve the problem or murder case and get the killer. Word evidence also means testimony of a witness which is nothing more than an explanation of the events as to how or why things happened which happened.

If you still fail to grasp the point I am trying to explain then you have problem with sense of making proper sense of things not God or his creation or revelation. It is a long and drawn out process to learn sense of making proper sense of things and you are on the right track for learning it but I am afraid I cannot help due to being busy for the time being with my project. However I do hope that you do find help you need but if you will carry on questioning and answering you will definitely end up with sense of making proper sense of things all by yourself. So keep learning.

Regards and all the best.

 

[Mind_Master]

@Vitamin_C

My dear their starting position is always that there is a GOD!! how come you make any sense to them? its not possible and they are not even capable of getting it. Waste of time kinda exercise.

However, I would like to know if you find this argument sound ? please provide your inputs.

"The Christian God is defined as a personal being who knows everything. According to Christians, personal beings have free will. In order to have free will, you must have more than one option, each of which is avoidable. This means that before you make a choice, there must be a state of uncertainty during a period of potential: you cannot know the future. Even if you think you can predict your decision, if you claim to have free will, you must admit the potential (if not the desire) to change your mind before the decision is final.


A being who knows everything can have no "state of uncertainty." It knows its choices in advance. This means that it has no potential to avoid its choices, and therefore lacks free will. Since a being that lacks free will is not a personal being, a personal being who knows everything cannot exist.
Therefore, the Christian God does not exist."

 

[The_Choice]

Allah has set a seal upon their hearts and upon their hearing, and over their vision is a veil. And for them is a great punishment." (The Noble Quran 2:6-7)
?? ??? ?? ??? ?? ????? ?? ??? ???? ??? ??? ?? ???? ????? ??? ?? ?? ???? ?? ?? ?? ??? ?????

 

[Mughal1]

Okay, hold your horses and let clear out your misconceptions. The first thing about argument is that we argue to the rules of the argument. From what I can see you lack a basic understanding of logic and reason. I do not blame you if you went to school in Pakistan, they put more importance on teaching religion than on teaching critical thinking. Here in Canada basic philosophy courses are required before admissions. You are making basic errors, I will demonstrate how in a bit. But if you want to learn it quickly then just search crash course philosophy on youtube it will teach you a lot about it and the religious arguments that have popped up over the centuries. What you are saying is not new and I am familiar with these mistakes.

Dear vitamin c, anyone could be mistaken about anything but as far as I know due to knowing things about creation and revelation I do not have any misconception regarding the issue we are discussing. In fact it is people like you who are more likely to be mistaken who only know half of the story. The way I see things your position is irrational altogether when it comes to discussing issue of existence of God. You do not have to listen to me instead see the debates between theists and atheists. You may come to realise your mistakes. To begin with all sensible people be they theists or atheists accept the point that God if there is one has to be a supernatural being, why? Because if the creation and revelation is his work then it is beyond capability of anyone or anything else. If God was like me or you no one will be arguing over this issue. Till you correct your starting position all that follows from your logic will remain senseless therefore mere false assumptions on your part.

If we assume God to be a supernatural being then we cannot trap God by telling him what he can or should or cannot or should not be or do or have or use. That is because we human beings being very limited creatures are in no position to dictate things for God or to God. Moreover we were not there when God decided things so that he could consult us about things, so it was entirely up to God alone to be or do or have or use whatever he decided. However we are created capable of making sense of things so all we can do is try and make sense of creation and revelation of God the best we can and if we do that then that is all we can be expected to do. Your mistake is, you want to bring God down to your level or level of creation but then if God is like the rest of us then what is the point of having such a God who lacks ability for creation and revelation?

If we come to assume existence of God then we must also come to realise he will do things his way and not our way. I say that because humans beings are born not knowing a thing and it takes a lot of time for them to grow both mentally and physically before they come to question their existence or origin and origin of all that is all around them. It wasn't the case that as soon as we were born we already knew there is a God or there is no God or there can or cannot be a God or there should or should not be a God. This is why not everyone reaches that stage of development where at one starts thinking about God issue seriously. This is why there are billions of people in this world who have no idea about issue of God other than what they have learned or imagined. Most people in the world are ignorant, illiterate, uneducated, untrained and unthinking. In short they are like animals and the reason is they remain as they were born with very little mental changes in them. It is because some are limited naturally and others by themselves and yet others by each other. This is why we have only a minority who have some knowledge at least and only a tiny minority who really are on the top of the class among human beings. However the way things are continuing may be one day we will have a huge majority of people in our world who are truly learned and aware of things as they should be. Regardless we are gradually moving towards that end in any case. Our situation is not any different because we both are also part of this very same world. So long as we keep ourselves busy with learning about things may be we will reach our target one day or die trying like many others like us who passed away before us. From your position however it seems you are hell bent on ignoring the issue of existence of God rather than trying to investigate it in a way that makes sense.

1. You cannot use a book as an evidence for God. Ill demonstrate.
Problem 1: No direct evidence of Gods writing books. They only species that we have evidence of writing books are homo sapiens. It is just an unsubstantiated claim. You cannot use an unsubstantiated claim to prove another unsubstantiated claim.

It is purpose of an explanation that decides how logic and available evidences should be used not the logic or evidences used in the explanation. Evidences are simply put together the way they may suit the explanation. If evidences do not fit-in in the explanation then the explanation cannot be brought about at all but if they do then the explanation is sound. So the question is what is your purpose in all this issue and can your explanation satisfactorily explain the issue of God's existence? My answer is it does not. This is why I am saying you are going about this issue the wrong way. On the other hand my purpose is proper investigation of issue of God's existence so I am using the logic and the available evidences the way they make perfect sense.

As for your question, how can we prove things by supposing things, it is easy. We always suppose things when we start something and only the completion of the thing shows if our suppositions are right or wrong. For example, when we want to build an electrical circuit, we first decide what we want to do and then gather all we need and start putting it together and finally when it is complete we switch the thing on and see if it works or not. If it does work then we have supposed everything right from the beginning to the end and if it does not work then we must have made a mistake while supposing things as to how they should be put together. A building is only right once it is complete and not only in the mind or on the paper as a map. In case of finding a dead body having no witness we have only some clues to suppose what might have happened or how it may have happened or why or when etc etc? All we do is get all the explanations that fit-in with the main explanation and then look at all of them to see if they fit-in with each other or not with whatever evidence is available to us. If they fit then there is nothing wrong with supposing things but if they do not then the main explanation cannot be raised. When we try to show a person used a gun to kill another we put all the evidences and explanations in series with each other and look at the final result of doing so. If things work we have solved the issue otherwise case remains unsolved. Here we use sequential and combinational logic ie we have a gun with finger prints of a person who used it. Then with it we put bullets that came from the body of the dead person which were shot from the gun as proven by the ballistics tests and that is how we bring all the pieces of the evidences together along with their explanations. If we did not have the purpose for an explanation to begin with as to how we were going to use the available evidences then all these evidences will have become useless. When we found dead body with gun shot wounds but no gun it gave us a small clue or possibility that there was involved a weapon to kill ie a gun. This is how related things lead us to proper explanation of things regarding something. Before we discovered these ideas and related technologies we could not solve such problems. Likewise the more we learn how to discover things we get better and better at solving our problems. If we had not waited till the explanation was complete we could never have solve the problem. Likewise if we had told each other you cannot use this or that piece of information because on its own it does not lead to proof then nothing could have been accomplished in this regard. We began with supposing each and everything because we had reasons to do so. If purpose is clear, reasoning is sound and available evidences are combined properly then things should work or make proper sense. Only if purpose is not there or reasoning is inconsistent or evidences do not exist at all that we get stuck for raising a working explanation. Remember always it is the rationally sound and best explanation that is the proof not the evidences. Evidences if available can either support or oppose an explanation.

You are saying God does not write books only human beings do, how can you make such a claim? Have you met God and asked him? No. Has God told you personally? No. We do have evidences where people claimed God sent them with his revelations. All we can do is study those claims and evidences and see if they are true or false. We do not know God and we have no idea about how God has done things so if any scripture explains things which make sense to us then how can we reject that evidence merely on basis of our baseless assumptions that God cannot do things this way or that way? The problem we face in trying to study any scripture of this nature is to first find out the way to study it due to gap or difference in knowledge between human beings and God. Dismissing such evidences without due process of investigation cannot be less than a catastrophic disaster for humanity. As for the quran I have explained the way for studying the quran properly and have also explained how the quran proves to be word of God. Not only that I have also explained how it is impossible for any human being to produce a book like the quran even today never mind 1400 back in time. The way you are trying to reason things is therefore totally irrational in this respect.

Problem 2: It is circular reasoning. For example I tell you that I am God, you ask me to give you evidence, I say there I wrote a book and it says in the book that I am God, and you say but where is the evidence that the book is written by a God. I wrote the book and I am a God.
Do you see the problem with circular reasoning? At the end of the day you do not prove anything and all you have is a circle of unsubstantiated claims.

This is really silly that you are putting things this way. It shows you have not read the quran or have read it but have not understood it. Let me take you on that. The quran is not just making claims but points out evidences and very clear ones at that which none can deny. For example, it repeatedly tells us to travel through out the world and observe it carefully so is that not pointed out of the external evidences from the quran by the quran? It explains many natural phenomena as well as a way of life which mankind should adopt for their united, peaceful, progressive and prosperous existence as a proper human community. I challenge anyone to come up with any better way of life than the one proposed by the quran. Not only that the quran repeatedly tells us look at our past generations to see what happen to them due to adopting ways of life that opposed the way of life advised by God. Is this not pointing out the external evidences by the quran? This is why I want you to go through my provided links and then you will have better idea how to respond to my line of reasoning.

2. Default position on any claim is disbelief
Problem 1. This is the basic of philosophy that any claim being presented has to be studied from a neutral position. You only believe in a claim after you have a reasonable reason to believe it. For example I tell you that I am superman and I have super powers. What will be your default position, will you believe or disbelieve until you have reasonable evidence to believe it? If I tell you that I am God, what will be your default position? Will you believe in it first or will you ask for evidence first and then pass judgement?

Again look at videos wherein theists and atheist are debating the issue. Most people take the position of don't know either way ie they plead agnosticism not atheism. If default position is disbelief in this regard then why so many highly educated and thinking people are not taking that position and instead are sticking to agnosticism? As I already explained in detail any people who claim to be atheist do so on basis of finding faults in allegedly God sent scriptures. However if one could prove a scripture is free of any faults then they will have no reason to reject it but my question is, have atheists prepared themselves sufficiently to be able to examine a God sent scripture properly? In my experience they have not and my evidence is they did not even know the way to understand the God sent scripture properly. This is the point I made already with detailed explanation for you. If you claim to be atheist then you need to come up with irrefutable basis for your claims or adopt my way of looking at things or you can never prove your point ever. I know where you stand and why and I have explained it in the links I provided for you. What I am explaining to you here I have already explained in my provided links and all you are doing is making me repeat things and thereby you are wasting my time which I cannot afford at the moment. This mindset, attitude and behaviour of yours gives me a feeling that you have not yet reached the point where at you may be really interested in knowing the truth about things because if you were really interested in knowing things you will have looked at what I have explained already and you will have argued your case on that basis. By ignoring my standpoint and talking nonsense you are only isolating yourself from truth whatever it may be. I am not here to force anyone to accept my point of view but to share my understanding of things. if there is any strength in my point of view it will take over minds of people who understand it all by itself otherwise if anyone has better understanding of things I am all ears.

Problem 2. Conclusion always comes in the end after the premises, not before it.
This is the basic standard form of a logical argument. You make your premises and base your conclusion on the premises. The premises are supported by evidence or proofs and based on those you reach a conclusion. What you are proposing is starting with a conclusion that God exists and his revelation exists. This goes against any form of rationality and basic common sense. This is the first thing they teach you in intro to logic and argument that you need to follow the evidence to reach a conclusion, not the other way round, because your premises will be biased

No, conclusion always follows a conclusive investigation of the issue raised. This is why one raises a question about something first and then looks for ways to answer the question. On the other hand we human beings look for solutions of problems once we come face to face with them. This causes us to raise questions and find answers or solutions to known problems so the purpose of a study or investigation is already decided. All we are then looking for is explanation and evidences to support the explanation This is why it is human beings who raise question of existence of God by looking at what is all around them and that is why they look for ways to answer this question and on the other side it is God who brings his messages to human attention through his agents and so people come together and discuss this issue and try to find the truth about it. Some have already found the answer and others are still looking for it and may be one day they too will find it if they will make sufficient effort on basis of right way for going about this issue. People who have not yet realised even the right way to go about this issue will have a bit longer to go. But good luck to all of them.

You need to realise how questioning is triggered in our minds to begin with because we human beings never investigate anything unless we have a reason to do so. The reason for investigating something is triggered by our minds by things out there in the real world which we sense through our senses to investigate further in one or another sense for looking for further information about things. This is the way God has made us so we cannot do things any other way unless we have been given a choice in a matter. This is why I am following evidences but not you.

Problem 3. You are also committing fallacy of special pleading by asking for special treatment just for your argument and not the argument of me being God. If you are making a rule it should apply to every argument and still be logical, in your case it is not.

You and I both have a lot to learn yet and I hope we do. It is because unless we all learn sense of making proper sense of things and thereby we try to make proper sense of God sent message for us for this era this world will remain a hell whole that we human beings have turned it into. The quran tells us to make our world a paradise for ourselves by adopting the way of life advised by God for us. However we are trying to come up with all sorts of ways of life which are leading us away from what God wanted for us. Plan and purpose of God is going to succeed but it is going to take time because people are not ready for it yet. Once people have tried everything they can and give up on trying things their way and come to God then things will start getting there where they are supposed to be going and very fast.

Problem 4. There are many hypothesis for the origin of the universe, you can make an infinite number, like a unicorn did it, of Ra did it or Thor did it. All those hypothesis are mutually exclusive, Ra being the creator and Allah being the creator at the same time cannot be true. Therefore you cannot take those claims to be true before you investigate them, you should view them all from a neutral position.

God introduced by the quran on basis of deen of islam is not an imaginary God but one true God. How the quran proves this God true through deen of islam needs to be understood properly. To help with that I have given the links for you and others who may be interested in knowing.

Your Question on Direct evidence.
Here is a simple example of how we validate a logical claim based on evidence.
One of the astronomers while studying the galaxy noticed that most of the stars were red shifted (Red shift means an object is going away and blue shift means object is coming towards you). How is it possible for everything to move away from each other. Also if everything is moving away from each other that must mean that it was closer together before and started from a single point (This is how the big bang theory was made), the red shift was used as indirect evidence for it. Later with advances in cosmology we used instruments and detected the big bang back ground radiation that was released right after the big bang. The radiation was the direct observation evidence that confirmed the big bang. This is how logic works.

As for your god hypothesis, there is neither direct nor indirect evidence for it. Not only God but there is no evidence for any supernatural being or activity like ghost or angel or tooth fairies. I am not saying that there is no God, I am saying that there is as much evidence for God as there is evidence for a tooth fairy or a Golden Unicorn in space, it is not enough for me to believe in either of those 3.

I have explained a little bit above how the quran can become a direct evidence for existence of God and the rest of explanations you can see in the provided links if you are interested to know. if a book cannot be produced by human beings and on that basis claims it is from God then it is from God and no one else. The question is, how does it prove its claim that it can never be produced by mankind? The answer will be found in the provided links for those interested HERE, HERE and HERE.


regards and all the best.

 

[Vitamin_C]

“To begin with all sensible people be they theists or atheists accept the point that God if there is one has to be a supernatural being, why? Because if the creation and revelation is his work then it is beyond capability of anyone or anything else. If God was like me or you no one will be arguing over this issue. Till you correct your starting position all that follows from your logic will remain senseless therefore mere false assumptions on your part.”

So basically your argument is that because no one is capable of writing the Quran therefore a supernatural entity did it.

First of all if you do not know if A did it, it does not mean B did it. It just means you do not know what did it.

Second, There is no evidence that the supernatural exists. If you can prove this you can win $1,000,000 from James *****. So sensible person will ever point to a supernatural conclusion. Have you ever heard of Hume?

Third there is nothing special about the Quran. Just one book written by Newton had a bigger impact on the world than all the biblical books of all the major religions combined. Imrul Qays, the father of Arabic poetry, wrote higher quality poetry than the Quran before it was even written. Infact there are verses in the Quran that are directly copied and plagiarized from the works of Imrul Qays word for word.

“You are saying God does not write books only human beings do, how can you make such a claim? Have you met God and asked him? No. Has God told you personally? No. We do have evidences where people claimed God sent them with his revelations. All we can do is study those claims and evidences and see if they are true or false.”

This is such an asinine argument i'm shaking my head right now. We know that humans write books because we can observe them write books. Have you ever directly or indirectly observed a God write a book? This is so stupid. What is in the book is not evidence for anything. Harry Potter says a lot of things, so what?

“Again look at videos wherein theists and atheist are debating the issue. Most people take the position of don't know either way ie they plead agnosticism not atheism. If default position is disbelief in this regard then why so many highly educated and thinking people are not taking that position and instead are sticking to agnosticism?”

I am not aware of any credible debaters who are agnostic, Richard Dawkins, Lawrence Strauss, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens are all atheists. The neutral position of any claim regardless it is religion, or anything else, is always disbelief until you have better evidence to believe it. This is basic logic. Also if they say they don't know it does not mean they are agnostic. I can say I do not know if a golden unicorn exists in space, it does not mean I think it is likely to exist. Agnostic on the other say that is not possible to known. You are confusing the definition of an Agnostic.