atheist, agnostic or religious?

[QUOTE="DeeJayInphinity"] :lol: Your saying that it is not evidence does not change facts. GS User generally =/= scientist. ;)battlefront23

Facts of what? I've seen no facts from any links I've ever seen... just hypothesis's and assumptions (plural).

[QUOTE="OptimusLupus"]

bout 5 pages ago I asked you to prove that your mind exists using only physical evidence. The intellegent design argument used by that other kid is trying to answer that question - you have seen that it doesn't work. Things in the physical world can only be noticed by physical means, the mind only exists in the mind (Decartes famous "I think therefore I am") and the soul can only be felt.

You can't prove that your body exist with only your mind either - I mean go on and try it. Humans have accepted the 2, it is time they moved ont the 3.

DeeJayInphinity

Looks like you have already beaten me to that whole beat your head against the wall method. On another note, direct me to a quote where you or someone else tried to and succeeded in proving that the mind exist physically - You yourself have en arguing against that being possible for the whole thread. This guy was arguing intellegent design this whole time - if you don't accept intellegent design then you cannot accept that you have physcial evidence for your own mind. You have done nothing but dodge every issue at hand while sticking to old ignorant thought.

I am a strong supporter of evolution, but I am finding it hard to believe now. I know monkeys more insightful and more open to knowledge than you.

There have been many links posted on this forum.. :roll: How about you start disproving all of the evidence posted in CptJSparrow's list of evidence for evolution?
I recently helped him update it so you have a long road ahead of you.DeeJayInphinity

I don't recall saying anything about evolution... I may have, but I don't remember doing so in this thread. I'm a skeptic by nature... if I can't see it and/or I can't see the effects of it (on humans mainly), why should I believe all forms of it? Evolution with animals is fine and logical, but from all the supposed "evidence" I've seen about humans changing, I still think it doesn't prove anything. 

[QUOTE="DeeJayInphinity"][QUOTE="OptimusLupus"]

bout 5 pages ago I asked you to prove that your mind exists using only physical evidence. The intellegent design argument used by that other kid is trying to answer that question - you have seen that it doesn't work. Things in the physical world can only be noticed by physical means, the mind only exists in the mind (Decartes famous "I think therefore I am") and the soul can only be felt.

You can't prove that your body exist with only your mind either - I mean go on and try it. Humans have accepted the 2, it is time they moved ont the 3.

OptimusLupus

Looks like you have already beaten me to that whole beat your head against the wall method. On another note, direct me to a quote where you or someone else tried to and succeeded in proving that the mind exist physically - You yourself have en arguing against that being possible for the whole thread. This guy was arguing intellegent design this whole time - if you don't accept intellegent design then you cannot accept that you have physcial evidence for your own mind. You have done nothing but dodge every issue at hand while sticking to old ignorant thought.

I am a strong supporter of evolution, but I am finding it hard to believe now. I know monkeys more insightful and more open to knowledge than you.

[QUOTE="DeeJayInphinity"][QUOTE="OptimusLupus"]

bout 5 pages ago I asked you to prove that your mind exists using only physical evidence. The intellegent design argument used by that other kid is trying to answer that question - you have seen that it doesn't work. Things in the physical world can only be noticed by physical means, the mind only exists in the mind (Decartes famous "I think therefore I am") and the soul can only be felt.

You can't prove that your body exist with only your mind either - I mean go on and try it. Humans have accepted the 2, it is time they moved ont the 3.

OptimusLupus

Looks like you have already beaten me to that whole beat your head against the wall method. On another note, direct me to a quote where you or someone else tried to and succeeded in proving that the mind exist physically - You yourself have en arguing against that being possible for the whole thread. This guy was arguing intellegent design this whole time - if you don't accept intellegent design then you cannot accept that you have physcial evidence for your own mind. You have done nothing but dodge every issue at hand while sticking to old ignorant thought.

I am a strong supporter of evolution, but I am finding it hard to believe now. I know monkeys more insightful and more open to knowledge than you.

Really? You converse with monkeys? What do they call you in the asylum, the monkey whisperer?

[QUOTE="DeeJayInphinity"] There have been many links posted on this forum.. :roll: How about you start disproving all of the evidence posted in CptJSparrow's list of evidence for evolution?
I recently helped him update it so you have a long road ahead of you.battlefront23

I don't recall saying anything about evolution... I may have, but I don't remember doing so in this thread. I'm a skeptic by nature... if I can't see it and/or I can't see the effects of it (on humans mainly), why should I believe all forms of it? Evolution with animals is fine and logical, but from all the supposed "evidence" I've seen about humans changing, I still think it doesn't prove anything. 

You have been implying that scientists rely on the popularity of a theory and do not put forth any evidence.. I gave you an example of a time when they present evidence and now you have to tell me why it does not count as evidence. Unless you're changing your mind. :o Nah.DeeJayInphinity

The monkeys I am refering to are you and your friends, at least you have ignored the arguments. This particular monkey has been told the triangle square fits in the triangle hole, and yet he still thinks the square does.

I grew agitated because of your insults towards me. It must feel bad for those who take authority as the truth instead of the other way around.

battlefront23: Like my good friend Funky_Llama once told me, popularity *does not equal* correctness.

It is accepted because it is the best explanation any of them can come up with. If you can come up with new evidence or a better explanation given the evidence, you would end up being quite the famous scientist.

This isn't a case about opinion, it's about facts and evidence. Big difference.

battlefront23: If you say so. I find that remarkably hard to believe... I'm not naive enough to believe anything that a "well respected" scientist thinks. Who's respecting him anyway? Other scientists who share his opinions?

Science uses facts to form explanations, not assumptions and hearsay. You need to understand this difference if you are to understand what science is.

battlefront23: Facts of what? I've seen no facts from any links I've ever seen... just hypothesis's and assumptions (plural). 

Go to an accredited university and see a biology professor. Ask them to explain evolution to you and show you examples from the fossil record. If after that you don't accept evolution as a fact then you are just pulling the wool down over your eyes.

OptimusLupus: Looks like you have already beaten me to that whole beat your head against the wall method. On another note, direct me to a quote where you or someone else tried to and succeeded in proving that the mind exist physically - You yourself have en arguing against that being possible for the whole thread.

There is no evidence to suggest the mind exists non-physically... from what we understand about the mind currently, it is a series of chemical and electronic interactions and signals working together to form the consciousness. You need to prove that isn't the case.

~

Glitchspot is being a pain...

Glitchspot is being a pain...

foxhound_fox

I sitll don't get how they managed to screw up the forums to the point where the beta forums were more stable than this crap.

[QUOTE="DeeJayInphinity"]You have been implying that scientists rely on the popularity of a theory and do not put forth any evidence.. I gave you an example of a time when they present evidence and now you have to tell me why it does not count as evidence. Unless you're changing your mind. :o Nah.battlefront23

The monkeys I am refering to are you and your friends, at least you have ignored the arguments. This particular monkey has been told the triangle square fits in the triangle hole, and yet he still thinks the square does.

I grew agitated because of your insults towards me. It must feel bad for those who take authority as the truth instead of the other way around.

OptimusLupus

I have a better evidence.

"He created you (all) from a single person: then created, of like nature, his mate; and he sent down for you eight head of cattle in pairs: He creates you, in the wombs of your mothers, in stages, one after another, in three veils of darkness. such is Allah, your Lord and Cherisher: to Him belongs (all) dominion. There is no god but He: then how are ye turned away (from your true Centre)?" 6, Zumar ( the crowds )

"in three veils of darkness", the exact interpretation of this sentence is this.

• first veil of darkness: Abdominal wall.
• second veil of darkness: Uterine wall.
• third veil of darkness: Placental membranes.

That was written in a book 1400 years ago, tell me this is not enough proof of god's existence, no human could figure out something like this at the time.

I have a better evidence.

"He created you (all) from a single person: then created, of like nature, his mate; and he sent down for you eight head of cattle in pairs: He creates you, in the wombs of your mothers, in stages, one after another, in three veils of darkness. such is Allah, your Lord and Cherisher: to Him belongs (all) dominion. There is no god but He: then how are ye turned away (from your true Centre)?" 6, Zumar ( the crowds )

"in three veils of darkness", the exact interpretation of this sentence is this.

• first veil of darkness: Abdominal wall.
• second veil of darkness: Uterine wall.
• third veil of darkness: Placental membranes.

That was written in a book 1400 years ago, tell me this is not enough proof of god's existence, no human could figure out something like this at the time.

HAZE-Unit

battlefront23: I don't recall saying anything about evolution... I may have, but I don't remember doing so in this thread. I'm a skeptic by nature... if I can't see it and/or I can't see the effects of it (on humans mainly), why should I believe all forms of it? Evolution with animals is fine and logical, but from all the supposed "evidence" I've seen about humans changing, I still think it doesn't prove anything.

7000 years ago our bodies couldn't process dairy products. We evolved the ability to consume and process it over time.

Linkfoxhound_fox

[QUOTE="HAZE-Unit"]

I have a better evidence.

"He created you (all) from a single person: then created, of like nature, his mate; and he sent down for you eight head of cattle in pairs: He creates you, in the wombs of your mothers, in stages, one after another, in three veils of darkness. such is Allah, your Lord and Cherisher: to Him belongs (all) dominion. There is no god but He: then how are ye turned away (from your true Centre)?" 6, Zumar ( the crowds )

"in three veils of darkness", the exact interpretation of this sentence is this.

• first veil of darkness: Abdominal wall.
• second veil of darkness: Uterine wall.
• third veil of darkness: Placental membranes.

That was written in a book 1400 years ago, tell me this is not enough proof of god's existence, no human could figure out something like this at the time.

DeeJayInphinity

Give me a definitive proof of Egypt and Greek, I gave you a book, strong source, not wikipedia weak sources.

I could change alot of things from wiki for the sake of arguments, don't rely on them, nice try though.

EDIT: the irony on this one is instant classic, believing in wiki :lol:

Give me a definitive proof of Egypt and Greek, I gave you a book, strong source, not wikipedia weak sources.

I could change alot of things from wiki for the sake of arguments, don't rely on them, nice try though.

HAZE-Unit

[QUOTE="HAZE-Unit"]

Give me a definitive proof of Egypt and Greek, I gave you a book, strong source, not wikipedia weak sources.

I could change alot of things from wiki for the sake of arguments, don't rely on them, nice try though.

DeeJayInphinity

[QUOTE="DeeJayInphinity"][QUOTE="HAZE-Unit"]

Give me a definitive proof of Egypt and Greek, I gave you a book, strong source, not wikipedia weak sources.

I could change alot of things from wiki for the sake of arguments, don't rely on them, nice try though.

Funky_Llama

Give me a definitive proof of Egypt and Greek, I gave you a book, strong source, not wikipedia weak sources.

HAZE-Unit

you gave the phrase "a book."

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="DeeJayInphinity"] :lol: I guess you have no idea how wikipedia--or even academic writing--works. There's 19 citations at the bottom of the article. ;)zakkro

Give me a definitive proof of Egypt and Greek, I gave you a book, strong source, not wikipedia weak sources.

I could change alot of things from wiki for the sake of arguments, don't rely on them, nice try though.

EDIT: the irony on this one is instant classic, believing in wiki :lol:

HAZE-Unit

Foxhound, the enzymes and chemicals in the brain are physical. They are not of the mind, I think you have confused the two. Of course it is the body of the mind that set these off, but there is no physical evidence of that. There is no physical evidence that the mind set these things off. These things are merely happening physically. Likewise, there is no physical evidence that a God is controlling functions of the universe.

I think the reason we are more familiar with the mind is because is more like the middleman between the body and soul. The soul knows fact, the body attempts to represent these things, and the mind calculates and transmits messages between them.

Wikipeia is never a credible source, you may realize this when you get an F on a paper in college because you cited wikipedia. Not that I assumed any of you are educated above middle school.

Wikipeia is never a credible source, you may realize this when you get an F on a paper in college because you cited wikipedia. Not that I assumed any of you are educated above middle school.

OptimusLupus

[QUOTE="DeeJayInphinity"] Probably because they rely on more than popularity to form their opinions..battlefront23

Foxhound, the enzymes and chemicals in the brain are physical. They are not of the mind, I think you have confused the two. Of course it is the body of the mind that set these off, but there is no physical evidence of that. There is no physical evidence that the mind set these things off. These things are merely happening physically. Likewise, there is no physical evidence that a God is controlling functions of the universe.

I think the reason we are more familiar with the mind is because is more like the middleman between the body and soul. The soul knows fact, the body attempts to represent these things, and the mind calculates and transmits messages between them.

Wikipeia is never a credible source, you may realize this when you get an F on a paper in college because you cited wikipedia. Not that I assumed any of you are educated above middle school.

OptimusLupus

Foxhound, the enzymes and chemicals in the brain are physical. They are not of the mind, I think you have confused the two. Of course it is the body of the mind that set these off, but there is no physical evidence of that. There is no physical evidence that the mind set these things off. These things are merely happening physically. Likewise, there is no physical evidence that a God is controlling functions of the universe.

I think the reason we are more familiar with the mind is because is more like the middleman between the body and soul. The soul knows fact, the body attempts to represent these things, and the mind calculates and transmits messages between them.

Wikipeia is never a credible source, you may realize this when you get an F on a paper in college because you cited wikipedia. Not that I assumed any of you are educated above middle school.

OptimusLupus

First off, current understanding of the human mind is very limited, and therefore it would be dubious to assert any 'truths' regarding the mind; you can only assert theories of how you think it works.

Also, Wikipedia is a very useful website, backed fully (most of the time) by a comprehensive list of references. I suppose it wouldn't be wise to cite Wikipedia in an assignment, as you should really be citing the primary sources.

Oh dear.

First off, current understanding of the human mind is very limited, and therefore it would be dubious to assert any 'truths' regarding the mind; you can only assert theories of how you think it works.

Also, Wikipedia is a very useful website, backed fully (most of the time) by a comprehensive list of references. I suppose it wouldn't be wise to cite Wikipedia in an assignment, as you should really be citing the primary sources.

MetalGear_Ninty

Foxhound, the enzymes and chemicals in the brain are physical. They are not of the mind, I think you have confused the two. Of course it is the body of the mind that set these off, but there is no physical evidence of that. There is no physical evidence that the mind set these things off. These things are merely happening physically. Likewise, there is no physical evidence that a God is controlling functions of the universe.

I think the reason we are more familiar with the mind is because is more like the middleman between the body and soul. The soul knows fact, the body attempts to represent these things, and the mind calculates and transmits messages between them.

Wikipeia is never a credible source, you may realize this when you get an F on a paper in college because you cited wikipedia. Not that I assumed any of you are educated above middle school.

OptimusLupus

[QUOTE="HAZE-Unit"]Give me a definitive proof of Egypt and Greek, I gave you a book, strong source, not wikipedia weak sources.

I could change alot of things from wiki for the sake of arguments, don't rely on them, nice try though.

EDIT: the irony on this one is instant classic, believing in wiki :lol:

foxhound_fox

Im done studying and reading long time ago heh but this debate is great, Im searching for clues and alot of things I studied in the past, it's great to refresh my memory.

Ok how about the Ariadaeus Rille in the moon? It is written in the Holy Quran about the moon cut in half.

"The Hour (of Judgment) is nigh, and the moon was cut." 1, The moon.

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]

Oh dear.

First off, current understanding of the human mind is very limited, and therefore it would be dubious to assert any 'truths' regarding the mind; you can only assert theories of how you think it works.

Also, Wikipedia is a very useful website, backed fully (most of the time) by a comprehensive list of references. I suppose it wouldn't be wise to cite Wikipedia in an assignment, as you should really be citing the primary sources.

DeeJayInphinity

Great!

It'll be interesting to see where our understanding is at in say 50 years or so!

[QUOTE="OptimusLupus"]

Foxhound, the enzymes and chemicals in the brain are physical. They are not of the mind, I think you have confused the two. Of course it is the body of the mind that set these off, but there is no physical evidence of that. There is no physical evidence that the mind set these things off. These things are merely happening physically. Likewise, there is no physical evidence that a God is controlling functions of the universe.

I think the reason we are more familiar with the mind is because is more like the middleman between the body and soul. The soul knows fact, the body attempts to represent these things, and the mind calculates and transmits messages between them.

Wikipeia is never a credible source, you may realize this when you get an F on a paper in college because you cited wikipedia. Not that I assumed any of you are educated above middle school.

foxhound_fox

It is not entirely external, but there is nothing that connects these enzymes and biological mechanisms with intellegence....physically at least. Which is of course why this argument started - because i was asked to physically prove the soul if we had already forgotton that.

References come from people who already share your beliefs - change and progression does not come from references. In the future I will be referenced. I have made a couple quotes of people that brushed on some of these beliefs if you havent noticed. Decartes and Thomas Paine.

What you are asking, is like asking Plato to cite his sources.

I'll also have you know that in my childhood I was an atheist, I understand the mindset and the ignorance that is coupled with it.

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"][QUOTE="HAZE-Unit"]Give me a definitive proof of Egypt and Greek, I gave you a book, strong source, not wikipedia weak sources.

I could change alot of things from wiki for the sake of arguments, don't rely on them, nice try though.

EDIT: the irony on this one is instant classic, believing in wiki :lol:

HAZE-Unit

Im done studying and reading long time ago heh but this debate is great, Im searching for clues and alot of things I studied in the past, it's great to refresh my memory.

Ok how about the Ariadaeus Rille in the moon? It is written in the Holy Quran about the moon cut in half.

"The Hour (of Judgment) is nigh, and the moon was cut." 1, The moon.

And assuming for the purposes of argument that it's not... prove that that line refers to the Ariadaeus Rille.

It is not entirely external, but there is nothing that connects these enzymes and biological mechanisms with intellegence....physically at least. Which is of course why this argument started - because i was asked to physically prove the soul if we had already forgotton that.OptimusLupus

I'll also have you know that in my childhood I was an atheist, I understand the mindset and the ignorance that is coupled with it.OptimusLupus

[QUOTE="HAZE-Unit"]

Give me a definitive proof of Egypt and Greek, I gave you a book, strong source, not wikipedia weak sources.

I could change alot of things from wiki for the sake of arguments, don't rely on them, nice try though.

DeeJayInphinity

Ok, so perhaps the greek or the egyptians did find this out before. But does this imply that this was copied from them? 

As far as I know, there were many wrong assumptions made by the greek and the egyptians. If a person is copying another person's work (without knowledge on the subject), he will copy the correct and the wrong things both. How is it then, that only the correct stuff is present in the Quran? If only the correct stuff is present, it automatically implies that the author knew what was right and what was wrong. Hence bringing us back to the original question, that if Prophet Muhammad wrote the Quran, then how did he obtain such knowledge?

[QUOTE="HAZE-Unit"][QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]
Read a modern biology textbook.Funky_Llama

Im done studying and reading long time ago heh but this debate is great, Im searching for clues and alot of things I studied in the past, it's great to refresh my memory.

Ok how about the Ariadaeus Rille in the moon? It is written in the Holy Quran about the moon cut in half.

"The Hour (of Judgment) is nigh, and the moon was cut." 1, The moon.

And assuming for the purposes of argument that it's not... prove that that line refers to the Ariadaeus Rille.

No no no, it is not possible by eyesight only and there wasn't equipment for that.

I'll explain to you, long story short.

Mohammad was challenged by non-believers to prove that god exists, so he was telling them about alot of things and convinced them but they said to him you are liar, if God really is there up in the sky, I want the moon in half now, then we will believe you.

The prophet pleaded to god to prove them wrong, then god granted his wish and cut the moon in half.

After that they didn't believe him and said that he was using magic but then he said magic cannot be used for all people, so after a while some visitors from another city came and the non-believers asked them about the incident and the visitors said "we saw what you saw, the moon was cut into half"

Then these words came from angel Gabrial ( the messenger of god ) to tell the prophet to say the god's words infront of his people.

You can read the story also in the Holy Quran if you wish, just search for "the moon, the holy quran"

Now, here is the describition of the Rille.

Ariadeus Rille, created by tectonic deformations of unknown nature and origin.
(Apollo 10, NASA, apod)

Ok, so perhaps the greek or the egyptians did find this out before. But does this imply that this was copied from them? 

As far as I know, there were many wrong assumptions made by the greek and the egyptians. If a person is copying another person's work (without knowledge on the subject), he will copy the correct and the wrong things both. How is it then, that only the correct stuff is present in the Quran? If only the correct stuff is present, it automatically implies that the author knew what was right and what was wrong. Hence bringing us back to the original question, that if Prophet Muhammad wrote the Quran, then how did he obtain such knowledge?

MFaraz_Hayat

[QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"]

Ok, so perhaps the greek or the egyptians did find this out before. But does this imply that this was copied from them? 

As far as I know, there were many wrong assumptions made by the greek and the egyptians. If a person is copying another person's work (without knowledge on the subject), he will copy the correct and the wrong things both. How is it then, that only the correct stuff is present in the Quran? If only the correct stuff is present, it automatically implies that the author knew what was right and what was wrong. Hence bringing us back to the original question, that if Prophet Muhammad wrote the Quran, then how did he obtain such knowledge?

DeeJayInphinity

If things that could not have been proved, were mentioned in a Holy Scripture, would you believe them? As in the case with the facts mentioned in Quran, you have to accept them because they have been proved by modern science (such as the continuous expansion of universe). If facts which we cannot prove were revealed, then it couldnot have been confirmed that whether those facts were true or not......

If things that could not have been proved, were mentioned in a Holy Scripture, would you believe them? As in the case with the facts mentioned in Quran, you have to accept them because they have been proved by modern science (such as the continuous expansion of universe). If facts which we cannot prove were revealed, then it couldnot have been confirmed that whether those facts were true or not......

MFaraz_Hayat

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

[QUOTE="HAZE-Unit"]

Im done studying and reading long time ago heh but this debate is great, Im searching for clues and alot of things I studied in the past, it's great to refresh my memory.

Ok how about the Ariadaeus Rille in the moon? It is written in the Holy Quran about the moon cut in half.

"The Hour (of Judgment) is nigh, and the moon was cut." 1, The moon.

 

HAZE-Unit

And assuming for the purposes of argument that it's not... prove that that line refers to the Ariadaeus Rille.

No no no, it is not possible by eyesight only and there wasn't equipment for that.

I'll explain to you, long story short.

Mohammad was challenged by non-believers to prove that god exists, so he was telling them about alot of things and convinced them but they said to him you are liar, if God really is there up in the sky, I want the moon in half now, then we will believe you.

The prophet pleaded to god to prove them wrong, then god granted his wish and cut the moon in half.

After that they didn't believe him and said that he was using magic but then he said magic cannot be used for all people, so after a while some visitors from another city came and the non-believers asked them about the incident and the visitors said "we saw what you saw, the moon was cut into half"

Then these words came from angel Gabrial ( the messenger of god ) to tell the prophet to say the god's words infront of his people.

You can read the story also in the Holy Quran if you wish, just search for "the moon, the holy quran"

Now, here is the describition of the Rille.

Ariadeus Rille, created by tectonic deformations of unknown nature and origin.
(Apollo 10, NASA, apod)

[QUOTE="HAZE-Unit"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]It might well be visible from earth. ;)

And assuming for the purposes of argument that it's not... prove that that line refers to the Ariadaeus Rille.

Funky_Llama

No no no, it is not possible by eyesight only and there wasn't equipment for that.

I'll explain to you, long story short.

Mohammad was challenged by non-believers to prove that god exists, so he was telling them about alot of things and convinced them but they said to him you are liar, if God really is there up in the sky, I want the moon in half now, then we will believe you.

The prophet pleaded to god to prove them wrong, then god granted his wish and cut the moon in half.

After that they didn't believe him and said that he was using magic but then he said magic cannot be used for all people, so after a while some visitors from another city came and the non-believers asked them about the incident and the visitors said "we saw what you saw, the moon was cut into half"

Then these words came from angel Gabrial ( the messenger of god ) to tell the prophet to say the god's words infront of his people.

You can read the story also in the Holy Quran if you wish, just search for "the moon, the holy quran"

Now, here is the describition of the Rille.

Ariadeus Rille, created by tectonic deformations of unknown nature and origin.
(Apollo 10, NASA, apod)

Ofcourse I can't, this is no 100% proof of the line, however it is all about signs, if God wanted to show himself, he could from the day people asked to see him, but that is the challenge, that is the test and thats also the belief.

EDIT: and even when he did show his might, people called the prophet a magician.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="HAZE-Unit"]

 

No no no, it is not possible by eyesight only and there wasn't equipment for that.

I'll explain to you, long story short.

Mohammad was challenged by non-believers to prove that god exists, so he was telling them about alot of things and convinced them but they said to him you are liar, if God really is there up in the sky, I want the moon in half now, then we will believe you.

The prophet pleaded to god to prove them wrong, then god granted his wish and cut the moon in half.

After that they didn't believe him and said that he was using magic but then he said magic cannot be used for all people, so after a while some visitors from another city came and the non-believers asked them about the incident and the visitors said "we saw what you saw, the moon was cut into half"

Then these words came from angel Gabrial ( the messenger of god ) to tell the prophet to say the god's words infront of his people.

You can read the story also in the Holy Quran if you wish, just search for "the moon, the holy quran"

Now, here is the describition of the Rille.

Ariadeus Rille, created by tectonic deformations of unknown nature and origin.
(Apollo 10, NASA, apod)

HAZE-Unit

Ofcourse I can't, this is no 100% proof of the line, however it is all about signs, if God wanted to show himself, he could from the day people asked to see him, but that is the challenge, that is the test and thats also the belief.

EDIT: and even when he did show his might, people called the prophet a magician.

HAZE-Unit

are you talking about Moses or Jesus?

[QUOTE="HAZE-Unit"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]Since you seem to have ignored it... prove that that line refers to the Ariadaeus Rille. Funky_Llama

Ofcourse I can't, this is no 100% proof of the line, however it is all about signs, if God wanted to show himself, he could from the day people asked to see him, but that is the challenge, that is the test and thats also the belief.

I gave you evidence which maybe is 80% true because it is the only Rille discovered that is too long ( 300 kilometres ), so far it is an evidence and a big sign of the line in the Holy Quran, the last 20% is for you to believe in it or not and if they could find another one.

Look, I just brought two recent studies found in the Quran, there are lines in the Holy book that are proven 100% to be right and facts.