Does God exist? (5 Viewers)

[BLIT2014]

But how about you christians?

I'm not a Christian so I'll leave it to other people to respond.

 

[teridax]

I'm not a Christian so I'll leave it to other people to respond.

what would you consider yourself to be then?

 

[BLIT2014]

what would you consider yourself to be then?

Atheist. But I think mine,and other peoples' viewpoint should always be challenged. Hopefully with both parties being respectful to the others viewpoint.

 

[namely]

Hello

The beleif in god varies from people and its become a subject of logic.

The quran is based on scientific knowlege that explained the human embroyo in such a logical and academic manner that it can only be from a soverign.

watch: https://youtu.be/sYajKl-Xr6c

 

[dan964]

Hello

The beleif in god varies from people and its become a subject of logic.

The quran is based on scientific knowlege that explained the human embroyo in such a logical and academic manner that it can only be from a soverign.

watch: https://youtu.be/sYajKl-Xr6c

A response I found on the net, to save the hassle I have only posted the conclusions here:

1. The Qur'an itself omits mention of the ovum in human reproduction, with doctrinal evidence that it regards the progeny to be the resulting union between the seed from the male parent and the female parent as tilth. As tilth do not provide genetic material to the seed, it is clear that the Qur'an regards the nutfah (semen) as the diploid seed. Moreover, the choice of the words nutfah (small amount of liquid) and maa' maheenin (water/liquid disdained) in key passages indicate a belief that the embryo is formed out of semen, with no knowledge of the sperm cell.

2. The Qur'an includes an initial dust stage that cannot be reconciled with modern embryology.

3. The missing stages of verse 40:67 contradict the other embryology verses.

4. The stages of bone formation then clothing with flesh is in error, even assuming that izhaam means both bone and cartilage.

5. The Qur'anic view of cell differentiation at the Mudgha stage is incorrect, as modern embryology has discovered cell differentiation occurring before and after the putative ‘Mudgha’ stage.

6. The claim that the Qur'an correctly predicted the beginning of the fetal stage is shown to be in error because the transition between the embryo and the fetus is arbitrary.

7. The claim that the Qur'an correctly states the least period of conception at 24 weeks is in error, as according to modern medical knowledge this period is closer to 21-22 weeks or even less with advanced medical science, and at least 30 weeks without modern medical assistance.

 

[theKingPin]

I, being Agnostic, will say that both are possible. Scientifically I highly doubt it god can exist however I would like to say that it is impossible to disprove. And if there still is not solution to the problem of what was before the big bang, religion can fill in the gaps, however these are then correctly filled by science and religion transforms to fill the other gaps.

 

[dan964]

^^ That said, I don't necessary agree with the argument that I posted above, as I myself am not familiar with interpretation.

 

[dan964]

I, being Agnostic, will say that both are possible. Scientifically I highly doubt it god can exist however I would like to say that it is impossible to disprove. And if there still is not solution to the problem of what was before the big bang, religion can fill in the gaps, however these are then correctly filled by science and religion transforms to fill the other gaps.

I think it is extremely flawed to view God as a "God of the gaps", because that is not what religion is, in the sense of the common ones today e.g. Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and possibly Hinduism.

I agree somewhat and understand what you are trying to say, but of course I disagree that science has somehow disproven God or nullified humanity's need to believe in God.

 

[SylviaB]

A response I found on the net, to save the hassle I have only posted the conclusions here:

1. The Qur'an itself omits mention of the ovum in human reproduction, with doctrinal evidence that it regards the progeny to be the resulting union between the seed from the male parent and the female parent as tilth. As tilth do not provide genetic material to the seed, it is clear that the Qur'an regards the nutfah (semen) as the diploid seed. Moreover, the choice of the words nutfah (small amount of liquid) and maa' maheenin (water/liquid disdained) in key passages indicate a belief that the embryo is formed out of semen, with no knowledge of the sperm cell.

2. The Qur'an includes an initial dust stage that cannot be reconciled with modern embryology.

3. The missing stages of verse 40:67 contradict the other embryology verses.

4. The stages of bone formation then clothing with flesh is in error, even assuming that izhaam means both bone and cartilage.

5. The Qur'anic view of cell differentiation at the Mudgha stage is incorrect, as modern embryology has discovered cell differentiation occurring before and after the putative ‘Mudgha’ stage.

6. The claim that the Qur'an correctly predicted the beginning of the fetal stage is shown to be in error because the transition between the embryo and the fetus is arbitrary.

7. The claim that the Qur'an correctly states the least period of conception at 24 weeks is in error, as according to modern medical knowledge this period is closer to 21-22 weeks or even less with advanced medical science, and at least 30 weeks without modern medical assistance.

BTFO

science actually demonstrates that the Quaran is incorrect

 

[dan964]

hello Sylvia again

 

[Drsoccerball]

A response I found on the net, to save the hassle I have only posted the conclusions here:

1. The Qur'an itself omits mention of the ovum in human reproduction, with doctrinal evidence that it regards the progeny to be the resulting union between the seed from the male parent and the female parent as tilth. As tilth do not provide genetic material to the seed, it is clear that the Qur'an regards the nutfah (semen) as the diploid seed. Moreover, the choice of the words nutfah (small amount of liquid) and maa' maheenin (water/liquid disdained) in key passages indicate a belief that the embryo is formed out of semen, with no knowledge of the sperm cell.

2. The Qur'an includes an initial dust stage that cannot be reconciled with modern embryology.

3. The missing stages of verse 40:67 contradict the other embryology verses.

4. The stages of bone formation then clothing with flesh is in error, even assuming that izhaam means both bone and cartilage.

5. The Qur'anic view of cell differentiation at the Mudgha stage is incorrect, as modern embryology has discovered cell differentiation occurring before and after the putative ‘Mudgha’ stage.

6. The claim that the Qur'an correctly predicted the beginning of the fetal stage is shown to be in error because the transition between the embryo and the fetus is arbitrary.

7. The claim that the Qur'an correctly states the least period of conception at 24 weeks is in error, as according to modern medical knowledge this period is closer to 21-22 weeks or even less with advanced medical science, and at least 30 weeks without modern medical assistance.

Heres a non-muslim embryologist talking about the embryology in the Quran. Hopefully would answer your claims.

"Muhammad could not have known these facts in the seventh century because most of them wernt discovered till the 20th century. Muslims and others are justified in concluding that theses facts could only have been revealed to muhammad by the one who knows all about us.."

 

[Drsoccerball]

BTFO

science actually demonstrates that the Quaran is incorrect

So i guess you can explain all the scientific contradictions in the bible ?

 

[dan964]

So i guess you can explain all the scientific contradictions in the bible ?

in you question you just asked, you assumed SylviaB is a Christian/Jew for holding that the Quran is incorrect?
(*which he isn't, as far as what I've been told)

and secondly I am wondering whether that the guy in the video would still not be a muslim. irrespective.
is there another "non-Muslim" other than Mr Moore that can back up his claims??

here is another response to the claim (the above one was probably secular response, this one is a Christian response):
http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Science/embryo.html
(warning it is fairly lengthy, which is why I haven't just copied and pasted it)

concerning this: " scientific contradictions in the Bible", I have already posted a suitable reply on this and will not need to post another.

My position is closer to that of the second article rather than the first. (as I am am not non-religious)

 

[Drsoccerball]

why did you assume SylviaB is necessarily a Christian/Jew for holding that the Quran is incorrect?

SylviaB is Christian right ? I wasn't making that assumption based on his/her claim... They voted yes for belief in God and is backing up Christianity so is it wrong to assume he/she is Christian?

 

[Drsoccerball]

in you question you just asked, you assumed SylviaB is a Christian/Jew for holding that the Quran is incorrect?
(*which he isn't, as far as what I've been told)

and secondly I am wondering whether that the guy in the video would still not be a muslim. irrespective.
is there another "non-Muslim" other than Mr Moore that can back up his claims??

here is another response to the claim (the above one was probably secular response, this one is a Christian response):
http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Science/embryo.html
(warning it is fairly lengthy, which is why I haven't just copied and pasted it)

concerning this: " scientific contradictions in the Bible", I have already posted a suitable reply on this and will not need to post another.

Can't you see whats wrong here? Im looking at all your links and you dont even watch anything I post or if i give a link i doubt you'd read it...
Everything is cleared up in the vid its not a matter of how many people said something... If everyone believed there was a black hole in the center of Earth would you also believe it?

 

[Drsoccerball]

How about the mathematical errors in the bible? Did you address them ?

 

[dan964]

SylviaB is Christian right ? I wasn't making that assumption based on his/her claim... They voted yes for belief in God and is backing up Christianity so is it wrong to assume he/she is Christian?

not necessarily. Hindus believe in a God, doesn't make them Christians. Those of the Baha'i faith believe in God.
"backing up Christianity " - example?
refuting or arguing against Islam does not count as "backing up Christianity", secondly presenting a case that Jesus must have existed or God existing does not either consist of a claim for Christianity (or any theistic religion).

So don't jump to conclusions.

 

[Drsoccerball]

How about the mathematical errors in the bible? Did you address them ?

Bump... By the way do you believe yourself to be a true Christian ?

 

[dan964]

Can't you see whats wrong here? Im looking at all your links and you dont even watch anything I post or if i give a link i doubt you'd read it...
Everything is cleared up in the vid its not a matter of how many people said something... If everyone believed there was a black hole in the center of Earth would you also believe it?

I do actually watch the videos and links you send.

Concerning your DR Moore video: Yes, but if only one person said it, then if that one person happens to be wrong, there goes your only person who said that.

 

[dan964]

How about the mathematical errors in the bible? Did you address them ?

example?
nvm here is one.
was Jesus crucified on friday or what day?
(all are in agreement that the resurrection was on the Sunday)

The reason why that could be seen as a mathematical error has to do with the fact, that Jesus prophesised he was going to be dead for 3 days (and 3 nights) in Matthew.
(http://www.gotquestions.org/three-days.html)