:-)

Hi Ibn Alsunnah

Again I take your message before Strangers because it is a lot shorter. I have to admit that I am quite disappointed though. I asked before what does Quran says about creation or/and evolution. I did not get the answer. Both yes and no can not be the answer. I hope you agree there. The third option is that Quran does not talk about it. If that is the case than why so many muslims (and other religious people as well) get upset when evolution is being mentioned? There are even books written about it, with poor tries to deny the evolution. 0
Another reason why I am disappointed is that you simply deny some facts. Obviously evolution is not your specialty. I mentioned to you before how species change. This is not a theory. They do change and we use it to change the species too. I will gladly explain a lot about this, but this would make the message too long maybe. So I skip the idea this time. But one thing again. You addmited that species change. Than why would this change stop at some limit? Isn't it logic that it should go on and continue... and after a time long enough, the species is changed so much that we can consider it a new species? 0
Please read the second part of my previous message again and give me some comments. Don't ignore it. It is important for our discussion. Best regards from Charlie

Hi Stranger

Hey... you should really control yourself. It is not a good way to debate to write such long messages. I read them all, but I am sure I will forget to reply something that is important to you. Take it step by step.0
However the first long message is mostly about what Ibn Alsunnah already talked about in 12 long sides, or so. I already pointed at things that are not logic or convincing, but i will repeat some things again. 0
Statement 1 sounds logic to me. From absolutely nothing, you can not get something. 0
Statment 2 sound also logic. There is a cause to everything. 0
Statement 3: and infinite chain of cause and effect is impossible. Here we are getting problems. For the first we have no experience of eternity, but not just that:Einsteins says material/energy can not be destroyed or gained... just transformed from one form to another. If that is true, than you have a problem with science. But not just that. If we look it the other way and deny this last statement, than this logic means NOTHING is eternal. How can god be eternal than? 0
Guys I understand how you think but there is a lack of logic here. If you don't see that, than at least try to see why I am thinking the way I do. Do you see why this logic is not convincing to me and many other people? And not just this. This logic, even if we close our eyes to what I said above, is still no evidence of a god - just a try to show a missing link, that could be anything, but definitively not a god that is controlling all microbes in this universe, as someone claimed here. 0
I will take your next long message in another answer. I don't want to drown this one in too many words. 0

Best regards from Charlie

Hi again Stranger

It is interesting that you say you write long messages to train your thoughts. I feel Muslims often come with same way of talk and are not good to reply when someone comes with a new point of view. Well, this is my experience at least. I am glad I can say I never did read any Atheistic site, or book. I did read some parts of Darwin's "The origin of species" and I saw a 45 minutes long movie by Dawkins. That is what I can remember so far. I did not even understand how big impact this Dawkins did (everything sounded logic to me), before I went to one Islamic website and saw how they tried to discredit him. Maybe I will buy a book by him, but so far I did not do it. I like to think by myself and not represent others ideas.0
But let's continue with the message. The BB theory is about universe that we know of today. It is not necessarily a start of time and space. There could for example have been another universe there before.... maybe that it was all "eaten" by a huge black hole, or whatever. It looks like there was a huge explosion some 15 billions of years ago from which all the universe that we know origins. This is so far just a theory and maybe impossible to ever show evidence for. Something exploded due to BB theory, but what it was, we don't know. Some scientists call this a "cosmic egg". Due to some theories the expansion of universe will stop by the gravitation and change to contraction. One day everything will again be united in a huge cosmic egg and maybe explode again in a new BB. This is a theory of pulsating universe. A problematic fact for this theory is that we so far can not see that universe is slowing down. In contrary it looks like the speed is increasing. Maybe there is not much material in universe to
You talk about sun not being eternal, and universe not being etarnal. No one says the sun is eternal. If god would create a sun, than it could be eternal, cause god obviously can do anything, even against natural laws. Since god did not create it than sun will "burn up". Same about the universe. Itr did have a start in BB, that we talked about above. But that does not mean this is the start of the time. There could have been and probably has been some universe there before, although we can not prove that scientifically. Just speculate about it, just as you speculate about god.0

Statement 4 in your last message: Your favourite one. If there is a law, than someone made it. Firs, I would change the word someone, cause it cpuld be something. But regardless of that, I will give you a completly diffrent view at the same problem. I ask you this: Can you even imagine something existing... even the most simple thing... or anything at all WITHOUT ANY LAWS? Can you? I can not. If we imagine just neutrons, or whatever you want, the first law that we maybe could mention is that they can not drop to each other. I talk about neutrons because I don't want to involve protons or electrons that has a positive and negative charge, which makes them more advanced. But however... as soon as you have anything it has to exist within some rules. Do you agree with that? No matter how the rules are created, but there are rules there. If those protons exist and they can not drop one into another, than they started to organize themselves. If we talk about something different as for example pieces of sand in the dessert, even if they look like they are there by completely randomness, we will both realize this is not the case. Even the sand peaces can not drop into each other. The wind makes them be placed in dunes... and the bigger ones will roll down more likely, which means there will be more bigger peaces at the bottoms of the dunes, than at the tops. Does it mean someone placed them like that? Of course not.. they follow the natural laws. Does it mean someone made those laws by purpose? Of course it does not mean that. Simply, if there is something, than it has to follow some rules. We call them natural laws, and as long as there is no problem with that, than why explain them as someone "wrote" them? This is another case where religions give an explanation that is not an explanation. 0

You mention something that Dawkins "comes up with" to explain universes existence, but you did not give me an explanation what it is. Do you have a link to his own website (which I suppose he has), where he is writing about it. That would be a better way for me to see what he wrote.

How earth rotates around the sun with the exact right speed and distance to the sun to contain life? Well, if it did not than we would not be here talking about it. You agree with that, I am sure. But the question back is why are so many other planets not doing that? So far we don't know any that contains life, although we know there are many more planets. Why would god create 8 planets and many more smaller planets only in our solar system if he wanted life to exist on just 1 if them? What a waste of energy and time, I would say. Not to mention many stars that probably can not contain life at any of the planets. It does not sound like a very great plan. 0

About the first cell: I did read about it a while ago. There are some very simple viruses that act like coal based crystals when outside the body. They can exist like that forever, probably. They are dead creatures. When coming inside a body they start acting like living creatures. I talked with a doctor about this not long ago and she agrees that here we probably have a connection link between life and dead material. Did you hear about that? 0 If there is something, it will just organize itself, not because someone wants it, but because it is impossible to not be like that. And once the life has started there was no way to keep it on virus level. It was just a question of time. The conditions on earth did change many times.... we know that. The only way for life to exist was to evoluate. This is logic. Otherwise we would not exist. 0
Hey, let us keep the messages shorter and clearer. There is no need to give 5 examples where one is enough. I will try my best and I hope you do the same. 0
Best regards from Charlie#

To everyone,

Someone here claimed in some previous message that no Muslim would want to continue living if there is no god. This is to me very interesting. For the first I don't think anyone can say that for all Muslims. But regardless to that, if someone feels like that, than it is not a good position to look for the truth. If one truth makes you happy, while the others wants you to become suicide, than there is no way you will look for the truth. You will look for the happiness. This confirms my theory I wrote initially. People believe in god because they want. The truth is not offering them a place in paradise and it is not easy to admit that ones whole life is based on false imagination. It takes strength to honestly look for the truth, when it is far from what parents told you and what your society tells you.0
I hope I can help at least someone to open the senses and find the truth. 0#

Best regards, Charlie

Hi Charlie,
Yes, I’m sorry I know it’s a lot and I don’t mean to drown things in too many words. I was just trying to put out as much as I could before I get busy with this month. I found out that I will unfortunately be busier than what I thought, so please do pardon me for not being able to continue our discussion in a timely manner starting tomorrow (maybe on weekends only or so).

Comments on what you wrote:

I know that because I wrote so many things, little details could be tricky to notice, but please do read this more carefully.
Statement2 says: Everything “we have seen and experienced” is based on a cause and effect.
The rule associated with this statement is: everything that “emerged into existence” (i.e. did not exist before and now existed), has to be caused (which is consistent with statement1

So statement2 does not say: there is a cause for everything. It says there is a cause for everything (that emerged into existence after it did not exist). This includes everything we experienced in this life, but not for example include our universe in totality until we establish that it emerged into existence after it did not exist.

As far as statement3, you said you have a problem with it because we have no experience of eternity. This is true, but this does not mean that we can not comprehend things related to eternity even if we didn’t experience it. For example mathematicians use infinity all the time in their equations. They have not experienced it for sure, but they can deduce things using it in their equations and come up with actual numbers. I’m sure you remember we did such things in our calculus classes.
I see my example very logical and perfectly fits the same statement. To put it differently, I would not be here if my father didn’t exist, and he the same…etc. if we keep going back in an infinite manner that would contradict my very existence. The chain should logically stop at an eternal first cause, whether we will claim that the first cause is matter, or claim it to be God.

Think about this: Science as we know it can NOT really answer what was before the Big Bang.
Remember we don’t oppose science nor have problems with it (in the sense that we will refuse it simply because it does not agree with what we believe). But scientists themselves believe that science is very limited to human experiences. It’s limited to the way the human mind thinks and deduces based on built-in brain logical principles. Science is built upon logic which is the very most basic unit of how our brains work. You realize that there are many scientific claims that contradict each other (relativity and quantum for ex). Our very basic brain function of logic tells us that two absolute facts can not contradict each other. Two opposing things can never be both true to our mind. If one is true the other has to be false. This is why we say, logic is the most basic unit and the first tool we would use in such a discussion because we can agree on things much faster than say scientific theories out there that have good evidence to them, but still can not constitute an absolute fact.

Conversation of energy is a known empirical physical law that Einstein supported with his relativity theory. This means it’s consistent for what we have observed in this universe. But notice the law says that the total amount of energy “in an isolated system or closed system” should remain the same. Can we say our universe is an isolated system? To the best of our knowledge, universe is expanding. We don’t really know if it’s isolated! Also to the best of our knowledge our universe started with the BB. So the real question is: can we apply physical laws (that are based on our experience “within” a limited area in this universe) to the universe in totality? If you say yes: this is why we say: the universe existed and has to have a cause! Based on our experience. If you say no, like most atheists, then we say such a law can not necessarily be applied on the universe in totality especially that we don’t really know that the universe is isolated. Even scientists say our physical laws don’t apply to matter when it was in the early few seconds after the BB!

I’m not sure how you deduced that statement3 necessarily states that nothing is eternal. You either misunderstood it or I misunderstood that comment. Remember statement3 is not talking about whether the first cause has to be God or not for you to ask how God would be eternal. Statement3 just states that going back infinitely can not be true logically because we would not have existed. It says that there has to be an eternal first cause to stop this logical chain. Statement3 does not confirm or negate whether this first cause is God or otherwise (matter as atheists say). So think about it once again and let me know if my clarifications helped at all. I actually don’t really see where the lack of logic is. Please clarify. This logic so far did not claim that the missing link is God. It claimed that there is a missing link that has to be there otherwise logic collapses. It is in my next posts where I establish why we believe it is God.

Regarding your last comment about how we do believe God does indeed control everything in this universe; I have mentioned that God is not limited in abilities in what we believe. I would bet that “if” you had to choose a God to believe in (assumption), you wouldn’t believe in a God that’s limited. By basic logic and intuition (for people who believe in God), God is unlimited and most powerful…etc. To me it’s very logical and makes sense. It does not seem so to you, so we can mark this as a point of difference if you wish.
Best regards,
Stranger

Dear Charlie

اقتباس:

---

When you say a fact can never contradict with Quran it means you already accepted it as a fact. This is not a good position to really look for the truth

---

I guess you misunderstood my point. I mean that if something was proven by science to be a fact, then we as muslims will accept it. We don't have any problem with that
I will just stress on our methodology
First we believe in God based on logical steps (one of them is what we discussed before and you are discussing now with stranger)
then we say ok lets prove also that Mohamed (PBUH) is a messenger
then we say lets prove that the Quran was transmitted to us with no corruption.
We have chains of narration that trace back to the prophet. So for example someone say X who memorizes quran will say I learned it from Y and Y learnt from Z and so until we reach the prophet.
If we proved these three steps, then we say that the Quran is the words of God. We then conclude that Quran cannot contradict with a fact
So say that we have this fact that the earth is round. then we go and look at the quran what we are going to see?
we are going to see that it can be interpreted in a way which is consistent with the fact that the earth is round. This is just an example which comes to my mind, but this goes for anything.
The other way is also possible, something mentioned in the quran which is against what people consider as against reality and then when science adavanced we discovered that the quran was the right
For example, in the quran it is mentioned that every animal is created from water, 800 years ago a commentator of the quran wrote while he was discussing this verse that atheists at him time say that this cannot be true.
There is another verse which talks about the sperms and ovals originates in a certain place. It was known at his time that they originates in the human brain. Then as science advances we know that germ cells originate in the place mentioned in the quran and that as it moves afterward , it still gets its blood supply, nerve impulses and ...etc from this place.
Looking back to the verse we can see that this meaning is consistent with what we know from science today. So new commentators would give a brief note to the new fact a side note.
There are many other examples
and All these examples are under 4 categories
1- A scientific fact and a statement in the quran which can have many shadows of meanings
and we always pick the meaning which is consistent with the fact
2- A scientific fact and a statement in the quran which has a unique meaning
We say they will never contradict
3- No fact and a unique meaning
we will take the unique meaning and when science advances we will see that both would agree
4- No fact, many shadows of meanings
Here we will accept the most probable meaning
You keep saying that Evolution is a fact and why we are against evolution
Well Evolutionists don't just go and say that Design and purpose were behind it but they say there is no purpose behind anything!! and this means that there is no Creator which is against what was proven (at least to us)
That is why we are against Evolution
So lets assume that 70% of Evolution is a fact, then we will accept this 70% don't worry.
Have you watched the documentary "Expelled, No intelligence allowed" ?
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/expel...igence-allowed
I don't agree with everything in the movie for sure, but it is interesting to know that some scientists are against evolution. It is also interesting to see that evolutionists are fighting those who say evolution is a myth. We didn't find any physicist for example even cares to discuss those who deny gravity, relativity, quantum mechanics. Even someone like Einstein said that QM is not right, we say he was wrong and keep it going.
I don't claim here anything, I just want you to go again and check what is scientific in evolution and what is an ideology. And again please be sure that whatever is proven in science as a fact we will accept it

Best Regards
Ibn Alsunnah

Hi again Ibn Alsunnah

I asked a simple question. Does Quran accept the evolution. or does it deny it? Or does it not know? This is important. You can not say just that if science will prove it, than Islam will accept it. I want to know the position of Quran. You can not change it afterwards, just because someone proved the evolution. Ok, you can accept it as a human being, or as a Muslim, but Quran can not be rewritten if there is mistakes in it. Than it is not a wholy book.0
But please, I am asking for the third time for your opinion about what I wrote of the term species, and why no one can ever tell how many species there are in the world. Read my second to previous message that was posted to you. 0

And finally: If someone should give even one evidence of god, than, of course I would believe. I am not stupid to want to end up in hell. But no one has ever showed even ONE evidence of that. Not even close to it, despite all tries. It is all speculations, closing eyes to the facts and picking the facts that fit... as well as wishful thinking. That is my opinion and the messages I get here often confirm what I suspected when I joined. 0

Bets regards from Charlie

Hi Charlie
I feel that it’s too difficult for you to read folllow and reply on all the messages you get in this discusions while you are alone , so I will let the others continue this discusion with you, I will pull out .You can send me any comments questions through my email.
Best of luck
From Ibahim

Hi again Stranger

We are on the good way to write shorter messages. That is good. Not just because it saves us time, but because long messages often hide illogical things. Clear thinking can often be explained short. 0

It is funny for me that religions are going back to the point where science did not find the answers yet. This has been done throughout human history by different religions, many times. I will not go to different examples, because I am sure you know some by yourself. It just reminds me of one way of talking that fits good here: Where knowledge stops, fantasy takes over. 0

The problem in explaining things with god is that this is not any explanation at all. What is god? Creator? Ok... But still what is it, or he? A writer of a book in Arab language? And how did he create the world? Does he exist at all? Science would never accept such an explanation without evidences. Religions do. Ancient romans believed in Jupiter as the top god (they had more than one). At that time it was impossible to deny it. Ok... it was still very unbelievable for someone who think logic, but nevertheless, impossible to deny it. Your logic of god could have been applied in the same way for Jupiter at that time. One day science will maybe explain what happened in the first 1/1 000 000 of a second, after BB (yes, something like that...we are not talking about "a few seconds"). When that day comes you can be sure fundamental religions will accept it, and move the "evidence" to another level (Ok, I know you did not say that part of a second is an evidence... just a problem for the science, but you know what I mean). It is a problem for religions too... 0

o " Can we say universe is an isolated system?" 0
No we can not. This is what I claimed when I said BB is not necessarily beginning of time (and most likely it is not) and the energy or material probably just transformed into BB from something. And even if the birth of our universe looks like something enormous, it still might be just a small happening in a super universe that would make the observable universe look like a drop in the sea. This is of course just speculations so far. But can we say universe is NOT an isolated system? Is the cosmic egg the egg of everything that exist, or to just a small part of it? We simply know too little so far... Religion does not give us answer either. 0

The logic of infinite chain and the causes and effects we already talked about for many pages. I did understand what you mean, but please try understanding what I talk about. You don't have to agree, but try understanding my point of views (there is more than one angle): If nothing can be eternal, than god can not exist. Ok, you raise him above natural laws and above the same logic here, but I am sure you know what I mean. It is not a convincing logic. From another point of view: If material can not not be destroyed, than it can not be created either. We don't know any way to destroy or create it. In that case material is eternal. That is what we know so far. Talking about another universe from where it comes, is just a speculation. 0

Can you understand my point of view? I pointed at this many times, but still get back the same question. Did I miss something? Don't look at it as scientific comment. Look at it as my believe, if it makes it easier to accept. 0

Best regards, Charlie

Hey Charlie, How is it going?
I’m curious by the way as to what you think about Dr. Barretts research and experiments. Did you get a chance to read the article?

Also I think that as you spend more time thinking about what we’re discussing, things will be clearer.

couple of things on your comments,

اقتباس:

---

It is interesting that you say you write long messages to train your thoughts

---

Once again please read what I wrote carefully. I did not say I’m writing my messages to train my thoughts, I said:

اقتباس:

---

Please do forgive my long posts as once I start writing, I try to maintain my train of thoughts so I don’t forget my ideas.

---

Train of thought = expression. Train as in: “bus, car or train”, not as in: “I’m trying to train my mind”. It's just an english expression. I'm basically sayin, I'm trying to organize my thoughts.

اقتباس:

---

I feel Muslims often come with same way of talk and are not good to reply when someone comes with a new point of view

---

I hope this statement is based on the previous misreading of what I wrote. Also I request that you don’t share opinionated statements like this, especially when there is no supporting evidence. We actually like to see new points of view (we really do), and are very welcoming to reply to them. We do it all the time here so, try to avoid these presumptions.

I have mentioned Dawkins because he’s very known publicly to support atheism, and was just mentioning him in the context of his inability to answer the question I asked. Feel free to disagree with him and/or not take his ideas. Let’s discuss the arguments rather than people.

About the BB. You said:

اقتباس:

---

This is so far just a theory and maybe impossible to ever show evidence for

---

I did mention the evidence that support the theory. Maybe you meant to say that the theory is not necessarily an absolute solid fact; exactly what I believe about evolution.

اقتباس:

---

Due to some theories the expansion of universe will stop by the gravitation and change to contraction. One day everything will again be united in a huge cosmic egg and maybe explode again in a new BB

---

That’s why physics theorists insist on the existence of what they call dark matter although they have yet to prove it. But this pulsating universe theory has no evidence at all that I’m aware of. Actually like you mentioned universe is behaving to the contrary of what the theory says. Have you heard of the “theory” of God? The theory says: There is a God who created the world! I see this theory more, logical, convincing, and less of a mind-stretch with better evidence than a pulsating universe. Why are you open to the possibility of a pulsating universe, but are absolutely not open to the “theory” of God?

اقتباس:

---

You talk about sun not being eternal, and universe not being eternal. No one says the sun is eternal

---

اقتباس:

---

But that does not mean this is the start of the time. There could have been and probably has been some universe there before, although we can not prove that scientifically. Just speculate about it, just as you speculate about god.0

---

Charlie, after I read your comments on this one, I think I have identified a very important distinction that we have to note; and I think you will find this interesting. We might have been using the words “matter” and “universe” to mean different things. You seem to limit matter to only this universe as we know it, although I meant for it to be all matter. Let’s take the pulsating universe idea as example to clarify. You say, before the big bang, there could have been some universe before ours. That universe has matter in it. Now that universe is included in my discussion when I discuss whether matter/energy is eternal or not. There might have been some confusion using the word with interchangeable meanings. Think about applying the reasons of why we favor God to matter as the eternal first cause again. Matter changes its attributes all the time as far as we know. Whether in this universe as we know it, or in the previous one (assuming pulsating universe), or the one before…etc. I explained to you why we view change in attributes as a contradiction to eternal matter.

Logically we have two options:
Either the universe/time/matter all started at the Big Bang;
Or something existed even before the Big Bang.
Option1 makes us naturally ask, what started the BB? Our minds completely refuse an absolute-nothing-before-it idea (per statement1). Check out the following dialogue (hope it will clarify things a bit):
The question becomes, what existed before BB?

You say: ok more matter we don’t really know what it is, just as in a pulsating theory example.
We say: God.
If we say: but what was before the previous universe in your pulsating universe example.
you say: I can turn the question on you and ask: but what was before God.
If we say: Nothing was before God because God is eternal, he existed all the time to infinity in the past.
you say: Ok well I can say the same thing then. Nothing is before matter because matter is eternal, just like your God is eternal; it existed all the time to infinity in the past as well!!!!

We stopped here at some point in time. But I wanted to clarify to you why we choose God over matter to be the eternal “first cause”; and that was in one of my last posts.

So let me know what you don’t see logical if any so far. I’ll address the rules/law discussion in a different post.
Best of luck 
Stranger

Hi Ibrahim

I am trying my best, but you are right it takes time and sometimes I miss things. Maybe I should invite another atheist to help me to answer some of the questions.0
Thanks for your participation: Charlie#

Hi again Stranger. I did read your last message, but will wait for the previous one to be replied. We did write at the same time: 0

Charlie (maybe going to sleep now) 0

Hi Charlie,
Just read your post.

It is funny for me that religions are going back to the point where science did not find the answers yet.

I truly see why you would think like that. I think I actually understand your view point. I simply disagree with it. You think that God is a fantasy; and an unknown entity that we will use anytime we feel we can’t explain things. You’re saying: We don’t know, so we claim God did it…end of story… because we don’t question God as he has unlimited abilities. I see your view point and do understand it. You give the example of previous religions in which they thought some planet was a God. You also think that God is not a scientific explanation. Science accepts evidence and religion does not. Again I think I see your view point and understand it, I don’t honestly think you understood my logic though.

You say: if nothing can be eternal, then God does not exist. You want God and matter to be the same. We believe God is not like matter and that’s why we said what we said. As you said we do raise him above natural laws; if you don’t think this is logical, I do actually.

Think about this for a second. “If” there was a God, do you think he is subject to scientific and physical laws of our universe? I’m sure you would answer no. So the question is: can science prove or disprove God. In that sense I don’t think so. I think science does prove him in a different way though. I’ll discuss that when I have time. But think about this for a second: Can you prove colors to a blind person. Blind person can develop his own “science” based on his perspective and observation of the world around him. Take it a step further. If the entire world’s population was born blind, we would live in this life, and even develop our science like we developed it now. It will be different though since there is no concept of images. Will we ever prove the existence of colors? Does it mean that colors don’t exist?
I think the rules/laws argument will clarify things a bit further. I need to find time to reply to it and clarify it through. I’ll keep it to a different post.
Just read your last post right before posting this. Sure, wait for my post on the previous one before we continue
Yours,
Stranger

Hi again Stranger (reply to the former post), 0

I did not read Dr Barrets research and never heard of him before, actually. 0

Next: I wrote something like Muslims avoiding to talk about religion and god from another point of view, than the one they are trained for. You say it is a presume. Well, I do base it on my experience. I asked the same question several times here (to Ibn Alsunnah) about the species. Why can we not know how many species are. You can read it in some of my former messages. If you are willing to answer it instead of him, than I will copy it for you again. I asked what Quran says about evolution: yes or no. No answer... just "Quran is not agains science". I tried to discuss how likely is that god would write something as Sharia law. This was avoided with the explenation it is not our topic, although the topic is (due to Ibn Alsunnah) "how come people believe in god in 21st century". It is definitivly inside the topic. I asked more than once if he would gladly accept to get his hand off, or be stoned to death, since it is a way to paradise. Or would he ask for mercy? No reply at all. But talking about a chain of causes and effects can be repeated over and over again, by him and by you. So what conclusions do you expect me to get from that? Uncomfortable angles of view are avoided, due to my experience. The examples are more. I can not remember I ignored some of your questions like that. Sometimes maybe missed in a long mail, but I never deny the answer over and over again. Do we see a lack of arguments here, or what is the reason? 0

You mentioned Dawkins and something he said. I asked for a reference on Internet and you say we should not discuss persons, but arguments. Well, I did not want to talk Dawkins as a person. I wanted to know what he said. You probably know much more about him, than I do (I really know a little, but getting curious). So if you say he said something, than show me where says so, if possible. It was quite a serious accusing of
him: "Anything to not accept god". 0

I am not positive to a pulsating universe. I just mentioned it as one theory that is not proven. Just like god. We talk about things that are very difficult for me and you to know. Here we do depend on other experts. I can not see the universe expanding, neither can you. I believe in science (and I know it can make mistakes) you believe in Quran and what other religious leaders say about it. Here we actually both believe, because none of us has the knowledge or the equipment to check this fact (about expanding universe). But I believe in science because it is much more convincing in things I can check. God is not convincing to me. For you it is the opposite. I think this is obvious. 0

About eternity of god, or material. What is not logical, you ask me and in the same time you repeat what I already said. But I can say it in another way: If material is eternal, than we don't even need a theory of god. Can you prove material is not eternal. Yes, I know you and IA tried over and over. I was not convinced. That is what I talk about initially. Why not try a completely new angle of view? Maybe I am stupid and can not understand this. So why not try something that I will understand? How many more sides will we repeat what already has been said? Is this your best evidence of god? 0

Best regards from Charlie

Hi again,

To make it short, just this reply to your latest comment. What is more likely: Something simple being eternal, or something advanced? If we did not know anything of what was written above and you see a Ferrari in a dessert. What is more likely: Ferrari being eternal, or the sand being it? Of course none of them is, because even the sand is not eternal, but if you had to choose one, not knowing better, than what would you think is more likely? Please answer straight and do not involve god. We talk about a Ferrari and the sand in the dessert, nothing else.0

Charlie