AJ:<<Simply stating that this Dr. Maurice Bucaille thinks that such vague verses (that could be applied to a lot of phenomena) agrees with you, is fallacious. It’s known as the Argument from Authority>>

He is an authority and you are not. He learned the langauges of the scriptures and Qur'an to understand them. You did not. He would know what Argument from Authority means. You evidently do not.

AJ: <<I think I’ve sufficiently demonstrated (especially now with the help of Dan) the fact that ancient texts are not reliable evidence for gods.>>

I don't. I think your just rationalising.

AJ:<<And are you seriously trying to suggest that the Old Testament got science right?>>

You're either baiting or suffering sever delusions

AJ:<<I know, and I already discredited that definition>>

In your dreams. Your example was incoherent.

AJ: <<We eventually got to the point where you were going to explain the exact way in which the soul functions to provide us with free will, because of the dilemma that brain injuries presented to your claims. Remember?>>

There is no dilemma. For there to be free will we need to exist independently of our physical condition: unborn, health, ill, brain damaged or dead

Dear grateful, I do believe, in the Koran, it says that all illness are caused by Bad Jinns, not Viruses or Bacteria, etc. Does it not?

Is the Koran right. All illnesses are caused by bad Jinns as stated in the Koran.

I’ve gotta say, grateful, your tone has taken a sudden and unexpected turn for the worse.

<<He is an authority and you are not. He learned the langauges of the scriptures and Qur'an to understand them. You did not.>>

I had explained to you precisely why I thought the vague quotes you provided did not prove your point. If you do nothing to address what I say and simply point to an authority who agrees with you, then http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority.

<<I don't [think you’ve sufficiently demonstrated the fact that ancient texts are not reliable evidence for gods].>>

Then please provide your reasoning for this belief. Dan gave it a shot. My last post couldn’t have possibly been more of inviting of a rebuttal, short of directly requesting one.

<<You're either baiting or suffering sever delusions>>

No. Please refer back to your first dot point spruiking the book of this authority of yours. It suggests that the Old Testament is scientifically accurate. (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18201#324351)

<<In your dreams. Your example was incoherent.>>

Then please explain to me why my response, to the explanation of free will that you quoted, had failed to discredit it; and why my example did not make sense to you. I tried to make doing this easier for you by providing you with a link back to my comment, so clearly I’d be more than happy to go through it with you if there was something you didn’t understand.

<<There is no dilemma. For there to be free will we need to exist independently of our physical condition: unborn, health, ill, brain damaged or dead>>

Simply re-stating your assertion won’t lend it any more veracity. You need to provide reasoning for this assertion. I had explained how brain injury poses a dilemma to your claim that free will requires a spirit (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18201#324124). You even later stated your intention to get back to me on this:

“I should get back to your question regarding the spirit…” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18201#324210)

But now all it sounds like you’re doing is stamping your feet and digging your heels in. Not a good look.

AJ, to be clear on the topic of Scripture, I think the Christian Scriptures are an amazing revelation of God. He has made himself known to many through them. There is good reason the Bible is the world's number one selling book year in year out; by far the book most translated into the world's languages. And that reason is, ordinary people see something uniquely special in it. You might not, but to carry the analogy I raised earlier, some people are not looking; some really don't want to. Those Ancient Greek and Hebrew texts have gone incredibly far, perhaps reaching more people throughout history than if the message had been introduced at some other time, place, or manner.

And don't kid yourself that not having the originals is a terrific problem. The confidence to know what was in the original is derived from the similarities found among the many copies distributed far and wide. For example, if the first established version of the Australian Constitution was destroyed, do you think we couldn't discern what it contained by the many copies that have since spread and multiplied?

Yet for those who aren't seeking him or listening to his words, God still has revealed himself sufficiently for anyone to know his reality. For everywhere you look, one sees what God has made, his invisible qualities being effectively deduced. As this article by Batten demonstrates, the human mind can discern the reasonable limits of what can arise by natural processes (evolve), and what is likely to require plan, purpose and intentionality.

But minds also often require a certain attitude or posture before being capable of admitting the truth of what's evident.

Has it never occurred to you that God may wish to act more gentlemanly, rather than assert to impose himself?

Dan S de Merengue wrote:

"Has it never occurred to you that God may wish to act more gentlemanly, rather than assert to impose himself?"

There is absolutely no evidence that God is anything other than a creation of the human imagination. As long as one imagines an entity one can make that entity anything one likes - even a gentleman. Dan, that is a silly remark.

I’m sure you believe this, Dan. I once did too.

<<[God] has made himself known to many through them.>>

But you still need reliable evidence. Especially if you want others to believe it as well.

<<[The reason the Bible is the world's number one selling book is because] ordinary people see something uniquely special in it.>>

I have no arguments with that at all. It’s not evidence for anything other than what you stated, though.

<<…some people are not looking [for God]; some really don't want to.>>

I already explained why that’s not an argument (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18201#324336).

Further to what I said there, what does that say for a god that has an important message for us all and supposedly wants a relationship with everyone? This excuse doesn’t add up.

You don’t think I used this excuse myself many times before as a Christian? Christian or Muslim, none of you guys are saying anything that I haven’t heard many times before, or even said myself.

<<And don't kid yourself that not having the originals is a terrific problem.>>

It is given that it was apparently the best way an all-powerful being could think to reveal himself. And in a remote and illiterate part of the world, too, mind you.

<<For everywhere you look, one sees what God has made, his invisible qualities being effectively deduced.>>

Then why would he do it all in ways that had perfectly reasonable naturalistic explanations if he wanted to make his existence obvious through his creation?

<<But minds also often require a certain attitude or posture before being capable of admitting the truth of what's evident.>>

Again, you don’t think a god could find a way around that?

<<Has it never occurred to you that God may wish to act more gentlemanly, rather than assert to impose himself?>>

No, because, once again, we’re talking about a god that supposedly has an important message and wants a relationship with each and every one of us. There is nothing gentlemanly about letting people burn in hell for an eternity simply because he didn’t want to be “imposing”.