grateful: you read most of my posts I think you’ll also find that I actively seek to expose my faith to critical scrutiny as long as the scrutiny is based on evidence and reason.

grateful: “I won’t read it is because there is no reliable evidence for this god that it claims exists”. The Qur’an is the evidence.

The only evidence there is for the Koran is Mohammed word that it was dictated to him by the Archangel Gabriel. Since he couldn’t read or write I find his statement to be false. The Koran was then complied some 150-200 years later by a Sheik, which is, I take it, where the second part comes from. (Mohammed’s supposed earlier part & then his later part.)

The Original was written by a ignorant tribal Camel Train Hijacker who was Racist, Sexist, Misogynist, urges Violence, Scientifically incorrect, Medically incorrect & Political incorrect male & backed up (Hadith) by other Racist, Sexist, Misogynist, urges Violence, Scientifically incorrect, Medically incorrect & Political incorrect males from then on.

I take it that you actively seek to expose follow through with the following;
Quran 2:191 slay the unbelievers where ever you find them
Quran 3:28 muslims must not take infidels as friends
Quran 3:85 any religion other than islam is not acceptable
Quran 5:33 maim and crucify the infidels if they criticize islam
Quran 8:12 terrorize and behead those who believe in scriptures other thsn the quran
Quran 8:60 muslims must muster all weapons to terrorize the infidels
Quran 8:65 the unbelievers are stupid; urge the muslims to fight them
Quran 9:5 when the opportunity arises, kill the infidels wherever you catch them
Quran 9:23 make war on the infidels living in your neighbourhood
Quran 47:12 do not hanker for peace with the infidels; behead them when you catch them.

All illness is caused by Bad Jinns & women are second class & can be beaten at a mans whim, backed up by Umars.

I take it also that you, poirot, Steelie, etc. agree with the all the Rulings in the Hadith as well.

Sorry, grateful, I should have said, “That’s not very good evidence then”, in response to your claim that the Qur’an is the evidence for a god (I can think of 2.2 billion people who would probably disagree with you there).

I have already pointed out why holy scriptures could not be evidence for anything that could qualify as a god, unless that god is not interested in presenting evidence for itself in any way that could rationally justify a belief in its existence. My logic here also runs contrary to your claim that I have acknowledged a necessity in assessing scripture as evidence for a god. Clearly I don’t.

Apparently you do agree with me on the unreliability of scripture as evidence (at least to some degree) given this claim:

“A rational justification for not revealing himself directly would be that he wants you to choose without compulsion.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18201#324474)

An overarching assumption here is that God has toned down the persuasiveness of the evidence for himself, so as to not compel us to believe. But then what does that say for a God who is ready to condemn unbelievers to an eternity of torture in the afterlife if they don’t believe? (I can only assume, given your lack of urgency to correct me earlier, that you agree with a literal interpretation of the Qur’an when it speaks of Hell.)

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/says_about/hell.html

<<You have not provided arguments as to why free will requires a god or a spiritual realm. >>

True. The evidence for this lies elsewhere.

The point of my original argument is the notion of an existence that is independent of our existence in this world allows free will, as defined by the OED:

OED: “The power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate;” (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/free-will?q=free+will)

With free will the notion that there is no compulsion in religion is meaningful.

Well, grateful? Don't keep us all waiting in suspense.

<<The evidence for [why free will requires a spiritual realm] lies elsewhere.>>

If you have evidence for this, then I'd love to hear it. So too would the Christians still reading, I reckon. I'm willing to bet they're not sure what this evidence is that you're referring to either.

<<The point of my original argument is the notion of an existence that is independent of our existence in this world allows free will, as defined by the OED:>>

Oh, okay. Because, before, you were saying that a soul/spirit was essential for free will to be possible. Now it just allows for it? Sounds like you might be backpedaling.

But sure, by itself, I suppose. But that doesn't mean much when one then introduces the threat of Hell. That is a mighty big constraint, after all.

<<With free will the notion that there is no compulsion in religion is meaningful.>>

Sounds reasonable enough. Neither one proves the other, though. Religion doesn't prove the existence of free will, and free will wouldn’t prove the supernatural claims of religions because of the problems that brain injuries present.

So we've just come back to that dreaded brain-injury dilemma again.

Rhian,
Thanks for the link to the Epic of Gilgamesh. I've never read it before. Its story of the flood does seem reminiscent of the biblical flood account. I'm sure Don Batten might especially enjoy the line, "In the evening, when the rider of the storm sends down the destroying rain, enter the boat and batten her down."

However, I'm not sure what you're saying it shows. I've often heard people say that the flood legends found among diverse cultures lends weight to the biblical flood legend not being true. Perhaps you could help explain to me this logic, because by contrary, in my understanding many flood legends would be just the type of evidence I would expect if the biblical flood account was real. For if it really happened, I would expect that all mankind would share a deep memory of the event, and this memory would survive within the legends and stories passed down through the centuries. What is notable is not that the legends vary somewhat, but the level of similarity found in flood legends from diverse parts of the earth.

The vital question for a reader of Genesis is what type of literature does it fit. What is its purpose or genre? Putting Genesis alongside one of Aesop's tales of a race between a hare and a tortoise would be to ignore the grandeur, scope and majesty of the Biblical creation account. Much of the detail of the flood account seems unnecessary for what might be taken simply as imagery, or symbolism within a parable. That it was intended to be read as historical was the dominant view of the church for the greater part of its history, and overwhelmingly the way most scientists saw it up until about mid to late Eighteenth Century (e.g. Usher's date of creation at 4004 BC based of Genesis 5 and 11 had the respect of scientists such as Isaac Newton.)

cont ...

To consider the purpose of the Genesis account, an important angle it carries is as a defence of the goodness of God. Many times within Genesis 1 we see God affirming creation as 'good' (Yusutsu take note, we weren't always "stuck in the mud of the origins of our bodies", but our bodies were created gloriously in God's image.) It's perfectly clear that God is the originator of a good earth. It then gives some explanation of the origins of evil, and its relation to human accountability. Only after mankind rebelled did evils and other unpleasantness arise, including the curse of death; an inadvertent invader into human history.

In this Biblical scenario, humanity's abuse of free will, pride and rebelliousness is at the cause of suffering and death. But in the evolutionary scenario, death, struggle and suffering simply always were, from time immemorial. If God supposedly used evolution in his process of creation, then death, struggle and suffering were his chosen means to achieving a 'good' earth, and places the origin for evil in the hands of God. Yet God is the judge of evil, and the restorer of all things good. If the fossil layers supposedly represent millions of years, then death, including human, was present long before Eden's rebellion, which falsifies the biblical narrative.

There was a time within the modern scientific period when most, similar to today's creationists, viewed the record of death within fossils and rock layers as reminders of the Great Flood and a testimony to God's worldwide judgement. That this outlook fell away is due to the changing philosophical perspectives following the Enlightenment rather than anything in the rocks themselves.

As to your investigative questions: from where did the water arise, and recede; limited gene pools; dinosaur sizes; etc., such questions have often been successfully addressed by creationists. And it's largely a matter of perspective. The pre-flood mountain ranges and ocean canyons would have been radically different. For instance, you mention Mt Everest, whose limestone peaks were formed under the sea, as evidenced by the fossils of ocean-bottom dwelling creatures they contain.