1hr long but seemingly irrefutable

Originally posted by webbinator
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=282105001717383226

A bunch of nonsense.

Originally posted by webbinator
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=282105001717383226

Of course I believe the Bible is God's inspired Word to us, but it was interesting nonetheless. My real problem with the Qu'ran, as well with all other religious writings, is that they don't deal with the sin issue as does the Bible.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
A bunch of nonsense.

So!

I've been reading your posts for over a year now and I don't see how you have contributed much that isn't nonsense either.

I think I'm in the mood for a fight! 😠

Originally posted by webbinator
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=282105001717383226

Irrefutable? No. In fact, it was not difficult to refute these claims at all:

(1) The Origin of the Universe: the program claims that the Qur'an predicted the discovery of the Big Bang 1400 years ago, merely because the Qur'an asserts that God was the "originator" of the universe. This is very weak proof for the validity of the Qur'an in itself, but also due to the fact that the Hebrew Bible asserted that God "created the heavens and the earth" (Gen 1:1) LONG before the Qur'an ever did (bolstering the suspicion that Muhammad derived his supposed revelations from God by studying the Hebrew texts).

(2) The Expansion of the Universe: the program claims that the Qur'an predicted Hubble's discovery that the universe is expanding, quoting the Qur'an as saying God is "steadily expanding it." Again, though, the Hebrew texts, written LONG before the Qur'an, already asserted that God, "stretchest out the heavens" (Psalm 104:2).

(3) Orbits: the program claims that the Qur'an, 1400 years ago (632 A. D.), predicted the eventual discovery of planetary orbits, quoting the Qur'an as saying, "the sun and the moon... swim along each in an orbit," and that the sun, "runs to its resting place," suggesting that the Qur'an predicted the discovery that the sun orbits the galactic center. According to this program, the Qur'an would therefore have to be God-inspired since only God could know that planets run in orbits, or that the sun orbits the center of the Milky Way. The problem is, the notion of planetary orbits had been in existence since the time of Ptolemy in the second century -- almost 500 years before the Qur'an was written! Oops. Further, it is impossible to infer that the Qur'an is positively asserting that the sun is orbiting the center of the Milky Way; rather, the data provided is more in keeping with the astronomical understanding prevalent during Muhammad's time, namely, that the sun orbits the earth.

(4) The Protected Roof: "We made the sky a preserved and protected roof yet they still turn away from Our Signs." If it were obvious to everyone that the atmosphere protected the earth, which this verse positively asserts, then how is this evidence of the Qur'an's prescience?

(5) The Returning Sky: "By heaven with its cyclical systems." The program attempts to tease out of this one line far more than it actually contains. The term "cyclical" supposedly can also mean "returning," which the program claims is proof that the Qur'an is God's revelation to man, since this verse is validated by the 20th century discovery that radio and T. V. transmissions can be reflected off of the ionosphere and "returned" to earth. Unconvincing.

(6) The Layers of the Atmosphere: "Seven heavens..." The program claims that the Qur'an is the word of God, since 1400 years ago it correctly asserted that the sky was composed of seven layers, the "seven heavens," as it were, i.e. the troposphere, stratosphere (containing the ozone layer), mesosphere, thermosphere, ionosphere, and exosphere. The ozone is technically part of the stratosphere, but the program considers it a separate layer unto itself in order to up the number of layers from six to seven. This aside, the notion of "seven heavens" had been around for centuries before the Qur'an was written, taught in Jewish mysticism. (Further, if you notice, in the verse immediately following the "seven heavens" verse it says, "we adorned the skies nearest to the earth with lights, and made them secure" -- an astronomically backwards assertion which, of course, the program fails to mention.)

___________________________

You get the gist of it. I'll try to get to the rest of them later.

Originally posted by josephw
Of course I believe the Bible is God's inspired Word to us, but it was interesting nonetheless. My real problem with the Qu'ran, as well with all other religious writings, is that they don't deal with the sin issue as does the Bible.

You sound like knightmeister and his 'if it isn't what I am looking for then it is not true'.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You sound like knightmeister and his 'if it isn't what I am looking for then it is not true'.

You sound like all atheists who have the narrow minded misconception that those who believe in God are uninformed. It's as if you think all believers in God are somehow subnormal and bereft of critical cognitive skills and abilities.

Believers in God are no different than anyone else. We can see, hear, feel, taste, and smell just like everyone else. The problem the atheist has is that he is lying to himself. He knows there is a God, but the acknowledgement of that fact means he has to come down off his self constructed throne.

Originally posted by josephw
You sound like all atheists who have the narrow minded misconception that those who believe in God are uninformed. It's as if you think all believers in God are somehow subnormal and bereft of critical cognitive skills and abilities.

Believers in God are no different than anyone else. We can see, hear, feel, taste, and smell just like everyone else. The p ...[text shortened]... but the acknowledgement of that fact means he has to come down off his self constructed throne.

But if an atheist knows there is a God, let's say, in the same way he knows it is raining outside by the sound of raindrops on his roof, don't you think he would just as readily acknowledge God as he would the rain? Perhaps it is somewhat of a leap to assume all atheists 'know' that God exists. After all, even Christians do not 'know' God exists, for if they knew God existed, then faith in Him would not be possible.

Originally posted by Jorge Borges
Perhaps it is somewhat of a leap to assume all atheists 'know' that God exists.

It's more than a leap. It's flat out wrong. And particularly ironic coming as part of a message that criticises atheists for assuming things about theists.

Originally posted by webbinator
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=282105001717383226

I have yet to see anything that is irrefuteable. Some people even insist the world is still flat.

Originally posted by Jorge Borges
But if an atheist knows there is a God, let's say, in the same way he knows it is raining outside by the sound of raindrops on his roof, don't you think he would just as readily acknowledge God as he would the rain? Perhaps it is somewhat of a leap to assume all atheists 'know' that God exists. After all, even Christians do not 'know' God exists, for if they knew God existed, then faith in Him would not be possible.

It is a fallacy that faith is blind.

Originally posted by josephw
Believers in God are no different than anyone else. We can see, hear, feel, taste, and smell just like everyone else. The problem the atheist has is that he is lying to himself. He knows there is a God, but the acknowledgement of that fact means he has to come down off his self constructed throne.

In other words you are making the claim that atheists do not exist, only people who claim to be atheists. Of course your claim to know that I know there is a God only confirms my suspicion that you are 'bereft of critical cognitive skills and abilities.' I have left out the 'subnormal' bit because people like you are not uncommon. However you are wrong to think that I think all theists are 'bereft of critical cognitive skills and abilities'. I know many highly intelligent theists.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You sound like knightmeister and his 'if it isn't what I am looking for then it is not true'.

You mis- represent with the consistency of Federer serve! There is a logic to looking for something in particular because if one does not find that thing it calls into question the validity of that faith. Any faith that does not deal seriously with sin/ human falleness and offers solutions to it cannot really be taken seriously.

If I offered you a Grand Unification Theory that did not deal with gravity you would say that it was not what you were looking for because you know that any GUT worth it's salt would include gravity because it has to. I would not then accuse you of discarding my theory on that basis. Similarly a God who is not a God of love and justice isn't worth looking for and to me is not what I expect truth to be because it is inconsistent with what I see of truth around me.

Originally posted by josephw
It is a fallacy that faith is blind.

It is a fallacy that atheists are lying to themselves.

Originally posted by josephw
It is a fallacy that faith is blind.

I never said faith in God is blind. Faith finds its terra firma in the evidence. But though there is indeed evidence for God, God still cannot be proven to exist beyond a shadow of a doubt.