Grateful,

<<I don’t see how you can say you KNOW the claims of Islam are wrong...>>

Which claims are you referring to specifically? You're being deliberately vague here to create a false impression of what I was saying.

What a actually said was, that like the Greek gods, one doesn’t need to know Islam or the Qur’an very well to know that it is all nonsense, (or more specifically, that all the supernatural claims are nonsense) and that’s because there is no reliable evidence whatsoever for the existence of a god.

Reason tells us that the supernatural claims in the Qur’an are better explained by more rational means.

<<Also, can I ask how you “know” God did not create everything, including the laws that manifest themselves in the form of ‘causes' and 'effects’.>>

I don’t “know” that. No one - including yourself, mind you - can “know” either way. But we can reach high levels of certainty, and that’s what I’ve done. If you use a god to explain “the laws that manifest themselves in the form of ‘causes' and 'effects’”, then that is simply a way of giving up. You are - for no rational reason at all - simply plonking a god in the unknowns of the universe.

Again though, Grateful, you are forgetting that the burden of proof is on the believer, not the sceptic. It is up to you and your fellow believers to provide the proof, and so far you have come up with precisely zip.

Grateful - that is an interesting example.

"...how would Occam’s Razer be applied in this instance? It cannot be said that Muhammad, peace be upon him, or anyone else at the time, could have known about internal waves."

'Cannot be said'- why not? I think Ockham's razor still applies - it may seem unlikely, but that they did know (or guessed at it) or that this is a piece of poetry that just happened to match later observation (to name the two most likely possibilities IMO) is still astronomically more likely than your alternative.

"Does this not constitute a piece of evidence in support of his claim that indeed he was a Prophet of God?"

Ok, yes, it COULD, if you ignore some much simpler possibilities. but the stretch to such an extreme supernatural explanation only makes sense if you've already accepted the existence of a god.

One more for Occams razor.

From Maulana Muhammas Ali’s (1874–1951) translation of 1917:

78:6 Have We not made the earth an expanse
78:7 And the mountains as pegs?

A later translation by Yusuf Ali (1872 – 1953) in 1934 also refers to pegs, while the translation by Marmaduke Pickthall, (1875 – 1936) in 1930 refers to “bulwarks”.

Consider now this scientific description (from http://www.search.com/reference/Mountain#Geology)
QUOTE
The compressional forces in continental collisions may cause the compressed region to thicken, so the upper surface is forced upwards. In order to balance the weight of the earth suface, much of the compressed rock is forced downwards, producing deep "mountain roots"[see the Book of "Earth", Press and Siever page.413]. These roots are deeply embedded in the ground, thus, a mountain have a shape like peg [See Anatomy of the Earth, Cailleus page.220]. Mountains therefore form downwards as well as upwards (see isostasy). However, in some continental collisions part of one continent may simply override part of the others, crumpling in the process.

UNQUOTE

Furthermore, a somewhat longer description from the Encyclopaedia Britannica (on CD). The last 2 sentences bear direct comparison with the description in the Qur’an:
1/2 Cont..

2/2 cont..

QUOTE
Two properties of rocks contribute to the support of mountains, mountain belts, and plateaus, namely strength and density. If rocks had no strength, mountains would simply flow away. At a subtler level, the strength of the material beneath mountains can affect the scale of the topography.
In terms of strength, the lithosphere, the thickness of which varies over the face of the Earth from a few to more than 200 kilometres, is much stronger than the underlying layer, the asthenosphere (see plate tectonics). The strength of the lithosphere is derived from its temperature; thick lithosphere exists because the outer part of the Earth is relatively cold. Cold, thick, and therefore strong lithosphere can support higher mountain ranges than can thin lithosphere, just as thick ice on a lake or river is better able to support larger people than thin ice.
In terms of chemical composition, and therefore density, the Earth's crust is lighter than the underlying mantle. Beneath the oceans, the typical thickness of the crust is only six to seven kilometres. Beneath the continental regions, the average thickness is about 35 kilometres, but it can reach 60 or 70 kilometres beneath high mountain ranges and plateaus. Thus, most ranges and plateaus are buoyed up by thick crustal roots. To some extent the light crust floats on the heavier mantle, as icebergs float on the oceans.
QUOTE

Note the reference to "thick crustal roots", which the first quote referred to as "mountain roots" giving the mountain the appearance of a "peg".

Orange Donkey, you assigned a low probably ("it may seem unlikely") to someone accurately describing internal waves below the ocean surface over 1400 years ago. Presumably you would also assign a low probably to someone being able to accurately describe the structure of mountains beneath the earth.

That makes the JOINT probably VERY much lower, does it not? And there is more, not necessarily related to science...

...so how would Occam's razor be now applied?

You're clutching at straws, Grateful.

If the Koran is the literal word of God, and the verses you've quoted contain factual information about the nature of the world, why are they expressed in such an obscure way? Why rely on riddles, aphorisms and metaphors when a simple exposition would answer all our questions? And provide unambiguous evidence for the existence of God?

Once again, Occam's Razor provides the answer.

Because its about CHOOSING to follow Him. How would we be able to choose if we knew with absolute certainty.