Proving the existence of God

[naomi24]

I've been having a very interesting discussion with 123everton on another thread about ultimate 'truth', as opposed to faith or belief, and this question stems from that.

Can you imagine trying to 'prove', beyond doubt, in a court of law, the existence of your God? How would you go about it?

[naomi24]

No, that's not what it's about on AB, especially on R&S. You'll find some very intelligent and well informed people here, Keyplus, and they will challenge your beliefs, like it or not. You have to know your stuff if you want to argue here - and your so called 'experts' can't do it for you because the people here have looked at this subject not from one aspect - but from EVERY aspect. My advice is that if you want to stick around and argue about things you have no evidence for, then hang on to your hat because you're in for a bumpy ride. Just advice, you understand. Take it or leave it.

[WaldoMcFroog]

Look, sperm are produced in the testicles. Even you know that's the truth. Reiterating this simple, uncontentious and mundane point must be deeply boring for anyone reading this, but apparently you're prepared to argue that it's not the case despite the wealth of evidence.

Bones are not produced before flesh. Again, not controvertial. Basic biology.

If Moore is saying the Koran is entirely, without exception scientifically accurate about embryology, then I don't give a toss what his qualifications are because the Koran is just utterly wrong on that point. If any other scientist is saying the same thing, they're equally wrong. Again, their qualifications are irrelevant.

Dr. Bucaille, on the subject of the Koran's claim that sperm comes from between the backbone and the ribs has said, "This would seem more to be an interpretation than a translation. It is hardly comprehensible." i.e. it makes no sense because it's not true.

In Moore's Highlights of Human Embryology in the Koran and the Hadith, he claims the word �alaqa means 'leech' but this is not borne out. In fact, the word means 'clot' and is even used exactly in this sense elsewhere in the Koran, not in the supposed 'leech' sense. There is no clot stage in embryonics.

By the way, check Aristotle's 'On the Generation of Animals' if you don't believe that these ideas were originally Greek ones.

Galen's De Semine from the second century CE also states similar claims.

The idea that these notions of embryology are somehow original to the Koran is simply untrue and easily shown as such.

I reiterate, if a scientist makes a provably false claim then his qualifications count for nothing.

[123everton]

I'm no theologian, but if it were a court case (as the analogy we were following) then as any self respecting atheist would tell you "it is not for me to prove that God does'nt exist" so if God was the defendant, the prosecution would offer no case.
P.S.
I never said anything about ultimate truth, there are no absolutes or ultimates in my book. Apart from Everton, what a team!

[naomi24]

123 We've had this conversation on the other thread, and I realise there aren't any ultimate truths in your book. Like all people of religion, 'Truth', according to you, is what you want it to be.

[Octavius]

Sperm is also produced in the antheridium.

[WaldoMcFroog]

In humans..?

It looks to me like that's a plant feature, Octavius.

[keyplus90]

Naomi - First I will answer your point. You are saying it is common on AB for people not to take the research of the qualified people into consideration?

Then what your beliefs are based on. A cookery book. In simple words then people are just wasting time here then. In that case you might be right that I may not stay here for that BUMPY ride of yours. having said that do not be glad to hear that, as I am going to carry on posting here the views of the people who have a reputable name, and trust me even that is for your sake, and for those people who might think about these things. I do not believe that every one here is like you just arguing for the sake of argument. otherwise I do not have to wait for these people to confirm what Quran says. I have no doubt about what Quran says, only Science is not as advance yet to accept these facts. Now I will go towards Waldo as he needs more comforting.

[keyplus90]

�If Moore is saying the Koran is entirely, without exception scientifically accurate about embryology, then I don't give a toss what his qualifications are because the Koran is just utterly wrong on that point. If any other scientist is saying the same thing, they're equally wrong. Again, their qualifications are irrelevant.�


Dr. Moore was a former President of the Canadian Association of Anatomists, and of the American Association of Clinical Anatomists. He was honoured by the Canadian Association of Anatomists with the prestigious J.C.B. Grant Award and in 1994 he received the Honoured Member Award of the American Association of Clinical Anatomists "for outstanding contributions to the field of clinical anatomy."

According to Waldo his qualifications are irrelevant.

[keyplus90]

�Dr. Bucaille, on the subject of the Koran's claim that sperm comes from between the backbone and the ribs has said, "This would seem more to be an interpretation than a translation. It is hardly comprehensible." i.e. it makes no sense because it's not true�.

Born in 1920, former chief of the Surgical Clinic, University of Paris,

Chief of Surgical clinic, But Waldo says his qualifications are irrelevant, only because he said something what Waldo did not like.

[keyplus90]

In Moore's Highlights of Human Embryology in the Koran and the Hadith, he claims the word �alaqa means 'leech' but this is not borne out. In fact, the word means 'clot' and is even used exactly in this sense elsewhere in the Koran, not in the supposed 'leech' sense. There is no clot stage in embryonics.

�By the way, check Aristotle's 'On the Generation of Animals' if you don't believe that these ideas were originally Greek ones.�

Only Waldo found out that it was written by the Greeks, I feel sorry for all these EXPERTS of their fields that they did not think about that factor.

[~write~path~]

"write path, that means every time your parents have sex, one child must be created with this theory. "

No it doesn't!

[Octavius]

Of course it is a plant feature, thought you were talking about sperm production generally. Its not just balls you know.

[keyplus90]

And finally, Quran is not a book of Science, It is a manual for human life, and yes does cover scientific topics as well.

I know you do not agree with the findings of all these highly qualified people but if we go about 60 years back they as scientists did not know what they know now. So if there are few things in Quran where scientists do not accept then one day they will. Because Science needs more research. Science is still on Nursery level. If you do not believe and wants to carry on Hypothetically then I wish you good luck, But you are lost in Space. And that's all.

[WaldoMcFroog]

FFS...

Keyplus, even I, known as I am for doggedly pursuing an argument past the point of normal human endurance, am getting bored now, but you're apparently (since you're clearly not stupid) being deliberately obtuse on this matter, so I'm going to keep going until I manage to simplify the already simple concepts under discussion sufficiently for you to follow the logic.

I'll do it stage by stage.

If at any stage you disagree with my logic, then please speak up.

Part one:

"The Koran states that sperm is produced between the backbone and the ribs."

Please confirm or deny whether that statement is correct.

[Octavius]

Although the male sperm is formed in the testes the blood supply which is integral to the making of the sperm comes from between the ribs and the back. Also the cells that form the sperm originate from between the ribs and the back.

If you are trying to interpret ancient text so literally, then I suppose you would also presume that man comes from �a water gushing forth� like in a waterfall or sewage outlet.

I don�t really get your point, but you certainly seem to like talking about sperm and bollox.

[WaldoMcFroog]

Oh please, Octavius! If one has to twist the meaning of the words to that extent to make it fit what one wants it to mean, one really should be getting pangs of intellectual conscience.

Thanks for the ad hom at the end.

[keyplus90]

Thanks Octavius - and Waldo someone else has given the answer you were expecting from me, As far as Quran is concerned YES I believe what Quran says is right even if Science has not proved as yet. Because again Science is not as advance, Again Science did not know few things yesterday which they know today.

Again please I have used YESTERDAY & TODAY as time laps don't say what science did not know on 21st Feb 2008 and knows on 22nd Feb 2008.

[keyplus90]

Waldo, why do you not use your brain on this point that today in this modern time you are having difficulties to understand these terms, what about Arabs 1400 years ago. They would not have a clue about if someone had to use proper terms. That is why Dr Zakir Naik (my favorite) I know you do not like him says that Quran is not a book of Science, but SIGNS. The people who use their intellect they can work out what these SIGNS mean.

[figure]

The occurrence of miracles might be a start.

[keyplus90]

I heard a Hadith (I am not sure if it is authenticated or not) that Muhammed (pbuh) said once to his companions that a time would come when people would travel faster than clouds.

Now if he had to say Time would come when people would fly in the planes then When Plaines were invented long after that Suppose Planes were not called planes and perhaps Called Chairs. You would say Muhammed said It would be Plan but it is called Chair.

You would not give him credit for telling us what would happen in the future but would pick on difference in language.

Understand that or shall I make more easier.