Solomon, I think that we have difficulties in this conversation due to your lack of understanding of basic scientific principles, particularly what is often referred to as scientific method.

AbÅ« Ê¿AlÄ« al-Ḥasan ibn al-Ḥasan ibn al-Haytham (ابÙ? عÙ?Ù?Ø? حسÙ? بÙ? حسÙ? بÙ? اÙ?Ù?Ù?Ø«Ù?), frequently called Alhazen, developed a scientific method nearly one thousand years ago (similar to the modern scientific method) which used these procedures:

1. Explicit statement of a problem, tied to observation and to proof by experiment
2. Testing and/or criticism of a hypothesis using experimentation
3. Interpretation of data and formulation of a conclusion using mathematics
4. The publication of the findings

The method you seem to be proposing again and again is more along the lines of “The Koran says X, so that is what must be true.”

Do you see why we seem to be getting nowhere in our discussion?

But this time answer this….If you cannot disprove hell, then you must admit that hell exist!

This argument does not mean what you apparently think it means. The point of saying “you can’t disprove pink unicorns” means that, despite the fact that we know there probably have never been pink unicorns, we can’t 100% disprove it because you can’t “disprove”, or prove a negative assertion, about anything. At all. Ever. It is up to the person who makes the POSITIVE assertion, to provide proof that their assertion is correct. If you say there are pink unicorns, show me one. If you say there is a “hot place your soul goes to when you die”, you’re making two claims: show me that hot place, and show me that we have souls.

And no, saying “you’re alive” is not proof that you have a soul / Rokh / whatever else. You being alive proves only that you are alive. Showing me HOW you’re alive involves much more than assuming that it is so because some higher power willed it. And since our explanation, that chemistry is how we’re alive, seems to fit all the information we already have, and makes testable, correct predictions, we have a lot of proof on our side that you absolutely have to “do better” than, in order to overrule the evidence we have now.

Which inconsistencies you are refering & lets start a debate on it.

I am not interested in debating specific problems that the Qoran has in its consistency — I was merely making the point that EVERY holy book has inconsistencies, and EVERY religious adherent to each of these books is more than capable of explaining away the inconsistencies in their own religions, but incapable of understanding the inconsistencies in anyone else’s.

If you want to know where there are inconsistencies in the Qoran, here is a good place to start: http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/

If you want any further discussion of what contradictions exist in your own religion, you have merely to go to another religious person of another faith. As I am not one, I am not interested in debating these facts.

Tell me which part of the holy book that was written so long ago that it’s full of silliness that doesn’t hold up to the real world if youre the man of truth.

Every time we gain a new piece of knowledge about how the universe works, like for instance how far away certain stars are, or how we orbit the sun, or how the orbits of the planets work, or how down on Earth there was once a great diversity of life and 99% of the species that have lived at one time are now extinct, and how the fossil record pretty well proves Darwin’s theory, or how genetics was totally unknown when Darwin MADE that theory, etc., your book, and every other religious person’s books, get a little more wrong.

As a result of human temperament a lot of inhuman acts came about…jealousy,hatred,cruel,murder, mutiny and many other.They are left with two options,to forgive & forget or to seek revenge.If they forgive & forget ,then they are the kind hearted & patient one and if they seek revenge this is when SATAN plays his role.

The only part I disagree with in this, is the existence a priori of an evil entity that causes people to be intemperate in the face of injustice. We as humans all have a choice, to either be good and treat one another with respect (and therefore be “moral”), or to do those things that are part of our nature and act selfishly and evilly (and therefore be “immoral”). This is independent of any greater god or demon that probably does not exist. You do not need to postulate a god or demon to explain any of this. The “good” people act in the best interest of the survival and improvement of all humankind, and the “evil” people act selfishly and engage in those acts that you consider to have been classified as “sins” by your fictional “god”. That’s not to say that being proud, being jealous, being gluttonous, etc., does NOT have bad consequences, but those bad consequences happen here, on Earth, in real life.

All this while you don’t realize that my effort or religion have’nt prove what is right & not convincing others realizing they are wrong or fail to make an uphill climb & refuse to undertake it.

There is no other reason than an attempt to convince someone else you’re right, to walk into a place of learned science and tell everyone they’re going to hell if they continue to disbelieve. Have you ever noticed that scientists don’t walk into your temple and tell everyone that the world works differently than you think? This is because one has to WANT to learn the real way the world works, in order to BECOME a scientist. One cannot impose science on people who do not want to believe. Those people who do not believe, however, have proof all around them that science works, when they use electrical appliances or communicate on the internet or medicine to improve their lives, yet they refuse to understand that “life” is chemistry or else medicine wouldn’t work, that physics works the way science says otherwise electricity and the internet wouldn’t exist, etc., etc.

The Earth & the heavens(planets,sun,stars,galaxies etc) are initially are all in one.

Yes, the current thinking is that before the Big Bang, the whole universe, all of space, was a singularity containing all the matter within it in an infinitessimally “small” point, before that point started expanding really fast. There was no “explosion”, just a really fast “expansion”.

With Gods power he seperates it,leaving 7 layers of the Earth & 7 layers of heaven.The stars that you see with your naked eye is the nearest havens layer to earth.Thats why traces of earths materials are found on other planets.

This is provably wrong — the Earth has an inner core, an outer core, a mantle, and a crust. And I’ll even spot you the atmosphere. That means, the Earth has either four or five layers. Meanwhile, the entire universe is visible if you have instruments that can look hard enough. What says that our ability to see with our naked eye constitutes a “layer” of the universe? This is egotistical of us, believing that those things which are within the scope of what we can see, hear and taste are more “natural” and therefore “unique”.

Therefore, what you think God did, didn’t happen. And since it didn’t happen the way you think it did, does God not exist either? This is likely. But it is not the ONLY reason God probably doesn’t exist.

Theories have claim that a Big Bang is not only the expansion of the universe process.It initially starts with an explosion.

Whose theories? The computer generated graphics that are often used to explain it, are wrong. Ask any scientist if the Big Bang was an actual explosion. Think of it more like someone taking a deflated balloon, then inflating it. Therefore, all your questions are invalid. I agree that explosions in space work much differently than they do in an atmosphere, but that’s neither here nor there, since that’s not how the theory explains it. You are attacking a strawman, and assuming that an “excluded middle” proves God must exist, and that is wrong. The choice is not “EITHER A || B” here. Even if you knock down a small piece of science, that doesn’t mean all of science is wrong and therefore God exists — it just means that small piece of science needs to be replaced with something that works and is more accurate and actually explains things and makes testable predictions that don’t get proven wrong. This is how science improves itself as the study of how the universe actually works.

Now does all these sounds like I’am doing a very poor job of convincing you by refusing to offer any kind of proof other than tautologies?

I’m sorry, but yes, you are doing a poor job. You’ve made an effort here, but it is not sufficient, because you do not have an understanding of how the science presently attempts to explain the theory to begin with, so you are attacking but a caricature of it. And this caricature of science was given to you either by other religious adherents, or by lazy journalists or bad television shows that get the science wrong.

Please, keep trying, though. And you’d be well advised to watch some of the video links in this discussion so that you understand what it is we’re ACTUALLY saying about the Big Bang, about evolution, about just about everything that goes against your beliefs, that way you can argue with us about the actual evidence and what brought us to believe what we believe.

Remember, science is *all* about evidence. Anything you say must be proven or else it is considered worthless. Because religions consist mostly of big books of unprovable assertions, that is why scientists generally ignore them until their adherents get up in our faces.