JESUS Was MUSLIM !

Now you make me having big doubts about your level of education or your brain sharpness (excuse me for my negative doubts but your replies reflect them!).

My 'Hypothetical' question was very simple and I expected a similar simple direct answer from you! Why can't you answer it directly with few words!?

Let me try it for the last time:

Would you believe that the mobile phone -as an example- (with all its related functioning compnetns) could have existed by Coincidence? ...YES or NO ?

Would i believe it existed by coincidence certainly not.

Would you believe that all existed by coincidence?

First,
Would you believe me if I told you that 2000 years ago someone was walking in the desert and suddenly he found something strange! He found a mobile ..Yes this same mobile phone we use nowadays existed 2000 years ago by itself. It was formed accidentally by itself in the deep desert where Oil existed too! Would you believe me? and [SIZE="5"]why[/SIZE]?

Remember that the main components of any mobile phone are basically made of two elements: silicon (which comes from sand, desert) and plastic (which comes from Oil).

Don't try and make out your are some sort of intellectual genius. Personal attacks are forbiden here, hopefuly the Mods will see this.

Now I will ask you again, If i am to answer youe questions, please answer mine. A debate, I do believe you said we were having one, is a two conversation.

The question was answered, you clearly did not read all of the post.



Look at the bottom, it's there.

Now in the context of the question you asked:



Certainly not, I also gave you a reason why. Which is why I posted all the info in my last post.

Don't remember the word hypothetical being used at any point, though I am happy to stand corrected.

Originally stated by yourself



See that, you asked the question. I replied

Now you make me having big doubts about your level of education or your brain sharpness (excuse me for my negative doubts but your replies reflect them!).

If you don't want the reasons why, then don't ask the questions.

You really are making this alot more difficult than it should be.

Would you like to continue or have you had enough?

So you can not believe that the first mobile phone could have existed by coincidence. Good!

But still you did not directly state WHY you can not believe!
Assume that all necessary conditions and environment, to make the hypothetical mobile phone functioning and usable, co-existed also by coincidence!

Now tell me please WHY can not you believe.

Originally you stated it was made by accident, so that's Reason No.1.

Was there a power source with the phone?

Was the phone connected to a network?

Were there Arial Phone masts in the region?

Was there another phone?

If no to any of these then the phone is useless. it would need these to work. Reason no.2

Essentially the technology did not exist 2000 years ago. Reason no.3

You are not able to demonstrate any physical evidence of the phone. Reason No.4

you are unable to produce any eyewitness accounts of the phone. Reason No.5

Your not playing ball, come on, play the game.



I already gave you Five reasons

But now your adding more and more variables after each of my answers does not tie in with what you want me to say.

Different factors have to be taken into account. I am not going to base my belief on one source, that would be foolish. The mobile cannot come to being as a finished product, with nothing before it, that is impossible. However I demonstrated to you quite clearly (which you took to being the ramblings of a mad man for some reason) that there would have to be a clear and concise evolution of technologically based Communication in order for there to be the finished goal of a Mobile phone. In another 100 years time Communication will have evolved into somehting else.

It seems no matter how many times i show you this, it's just not getting through.

Would you like me to explain and show you again?

I am not playing a game as you want to make it!

But you can not answer this very simple question I keep asking you again and again about WHY can not you believe the hypothetical event I told you assuming all the necessary conditions, environment, variables, etc ... needed to make the mobile phone usable co-existed by coincidence.

You can not answer why you can NEVER believe this hypothetical event could ever have existed.

You just showed how much -in your deep heart- you can not trust/believe the theory of coincidence, and this's my point.

Well i don't think with my heart, i tend to use the ole grey matter. Clearly though, you are only reading what you want to see. I have explained about four times now why the mobile cannot exist by coincidence, but it just doesn't seem to be getting through. Are you actually reading the posts or just skipping through? Because you seem to be missing alot of the things I am explaining to you.

You seem unable to read anyhing that does not fit in with your beliefs.

The analogy you are using, as i said, is very poor. You are trying to say a mobile phone is like the origins of life on earth. And that if i agree that there is absoulutely no chance of coincidence then how can i possibly believe in evolution.
But you logic is completely flawed. the Mobile phone is, as I have stated, the product of a thousand years of development, it is the end product (so far). Do you understand this concept? You are trying to say a Mobile happend by accident/coincidence, correct? But that is impossible, correct? Now answer me this, is the Mobile phone a product of the evolution of Technological Communication?

But how life came about is not the issue, we don't know for sure, but there are theories and people working on it now.

What is clear and testable is that from the very first lifeforms on earth there is geological and fossil records which demonstrate evolution.

Can you show me anything that demonstrates a God please?

How old do you think the Earth is?

Can you show me anything that demonstrates a God please?

I am done with the mobile phone hypothetical question. And remember we are not here discussing evolution but rather we will discuss PROVING THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. After we finish from debating this main core issue then all secondary issues like evolution, age of the Earth, etc.. shall unfold.

Now let us start debating the exixtance of GOD issue.

First, You asked:


[SIZE="2"]What is the definition of God?

You're done with it!! Why?

I haven't even begun. Once we've established the hypothetical phone could not have happend by coincidence and that the ONLY way a phone could have got there is by the ways i have demonstrated, then we will move on.

You've asked enough questions and answered none so far, are we having a debate or are you just having a one way preach?

My example and question are simple and direct and therefore I expect a direct answer from you!

Would you believe me if I say to you that the first of these intelligent small robotic machines existed by coincidence (accidentally by itself) ?

no.

and again, i know where you're going with this and i'm cutting through the BS right now.

Question 1: I can only give you the definition of God from a dictionary. God. 1, the creator and ruler of the universe in Christian, Jewish and Muslim teaching. 2, A superhuman being regarded and worshipped as having power over nature and human affairs, Mars was the Roman God of War. 3, an image of a God or Idol. 4, A person or thing that is greatly admired or adored Money is his God

Simply because i cannot define Something, Someone I neither believe in nor believe exists.

Question 2: The person that studies it and learns how it works first.

Question 1: I can only give you the definition of God from a dictionary. God. 1, the creator and ruler of the universe in Christian, Jewish and Muslim teaching. 2, A superhuman being regarded and worshipped as having power over nature and human affairs, Mars was the Roman God of War. 3, an image of a God or Idol. 4, A person or thing that is greatly admired or adored Money is his God

Simply because i cannot define Something, Someone I neither believe in nor believe exists.

Question 1: I can only give you the definition of God from a dictionary. God. 1, the creator and ruler of the universe in Christian, Jewish and Muslim teaching. 2, A superhuman being regarded and worshipped as having power over nature and human affairs, Mars was the Roman God of War. 3, an image of a God or Idol. 4, A person or thing that is greatly admired or adored Money is his God

Simply because i cannot define Something, Someone I neither believe in nor believe exists.

Question 2: The person that studies it and learns how it works first.

Question 2: The person that studies it and learns how it works first.

Well, by common sense isn't the first person who will be able to provide details of the mechanism of this unknown object should be the person who has made it or created it (if that person does exist) !?

Am I right?

"Not a single messenger did We (Allah) send before you (Muhammad) without this inspiration sent by Us to him - that there is no god but I, therefore worship and serve Me." [The Noble Quran 21:25]

Well that wasn't implied in the question. So, No.

We have to determine what the object is first.

We have to determine what the object is first.

Be sensible and don't waste the time in naive arguments out of arrogance. We are not playing a game. Everyone of us here seeks the TRUTH (or doesn't you!?). Why everytime I ask you a very simple crystal clear question or argument you tries to turn around the main subject and to play with words just to escape from the very simple common sense answer which any 10 years old child knows !!!

Anyhow,



Let's say a very advanced sophisticated flying saucer.

Now, by common sense isn't the first person who will be able to provide details of the mechanism of this unknown object (flying saucer) should be the person who has made it or created it (if that person does exist and we can communicate with) !?

Am I right?

Well, by common sense isn't the first person who will be able to provide details of the mechanism of this unknown object should be the person who has made it or created it (if that person does exist) !?

Now, by common sense isn't the first person who will be able to provide details of the mechanism of this unknown object (flying saucer) should be the person who has made it or created it (if that person does exist [SIZE="5"]and we can communicate with[/SIZE]) !?

Originally stated by SWORD of GOD
"Not a single messenger did We (Allah) send before you (Muhammad) without this inspiration sent by Us to him - that there is no god but I, therefore worship and serve Me." [The Noble Quran 21:25]

Because you don't ask the right questions. Plus evey single time you ask the question something else gets added that I, for some reason should already know, and because I don't I am likend to a 10 year old child. Cheers mate!!

Let me demonstrate;








See, little things keep getting added. If you want it answering Imply what you want and state the question clearly, then don't add something afterwards when i already answered the question.


If you knew how to ask pertinent questions then this would be a whole lot simpler. Now cut to the chase and say what you got to say.

In the context of your question, you would be correct.

Are you going to answer my one simple question or not?



Somewhat confused here. Is Allah a 'we' plural. I didn't realse there were more than one. I always thought yours was monotheistic faith. Or is that just a mispelling?

I never asked you in this thread for any dialogue or debate. You jumped on the wagon!

If you always can not stand a logical rational debate or discussion then why you get yourself involved in it!

I wasn't aware I had to be invited into a PUBLIC forum. Watch your words sword.



Perhaps you should take your own advice. :thumbup: Especially considering that i've already demolished your analogy, and so you must fall back to this defensive position you now find yourself in.