Atheism and Islam

It means therefore that the challenge is unmet and its claim therefore stands extremely firm.

Nope. Not meeting up the challenge doesn't prove the claim to be true.

unrealdummy wrote:

It means therefore that the challenge is unmet and its claim therefore stands extremely firm.

Nope. Not meeting up the challenge doesn't prove the claim to be true.

It is because the challenge includes the promise that you would never do it because you can never do it, and since you would never do it, then what it says is true. In fact, you just proved it to be true because you don't wanna do the challenge.

Al-Baqara

And if ye are in doubt concerning that which We reveal unto Our slave (Muhammad), then produce a surah of the like thereof, and call your witness beside Allah if ye are truthful. (23) And if ye do it not - and ye can never do it - then guard yourselves against the Fire prepared for disbelievers, whose fuel is of men and stones. (24)



Thanks

It is because the challenge includes the promise that you would never do it, and since you would never do it, then what it says is true. In fact, you just proved it to be true because you don't wanna do the challenge.

Nope, again, not meeting up the challenge doesn't prove anything. The only thing you can prove is that the challenge remains unchallenged and nothing else.

Parang ganto yan, pag hinamon ka ng boxing ng isang bata at hindi mo pinatulan, ano ibig sabihin nun?

You see, it doesn't connect.

If a weird book says you cannot find anything like it, it doesn't prove that all of its content is true. In fact, if no one wants to create false books, then the challenge will really remains unchallenged.

I hope you get the point.

Again, diverting this into some kind of a non-sense challenge doesn't prove god exists. It only proves that no one is willing to go down to that level.

unrealdummy wrote:

It is because the challenge includes the promise that you would never do it, and since you would never do it, then what it says is true. In fact, you just proved it to be true because you don't wanna do the challenge.

Nope, again, not meeting up the challenge doesn't prove anything. The only thing you can prove is that the challenge remains unchallenged and nothing else.

Parang ganto yan, pag hinamon ka ng boxing ng isang bata at hindi mo pinatulan, ano ibig sabihin nun?

You see, it doesn't connect.

If a weird book says you cannot find anything like it, it doesn't prove that all of its content is true. In fact, if no one wants to create false books, then the challenge will really remains unchallenged.

I hope you get the point.

Again, diverting this into some kind of a non-sense challenge doesn't prove god exists. It only proves that no one is willing to go down to that level.

This response seems weird now.


Theists are asked to prove the existence of God, and I as a Muslim presented at least two evidences for the existence of God. I have an evidence and this evidence is so powerful because it challenges the atheist to disprove itself ( there is a falsification test built-in). Now, my evidence is NOT and CAN NOT be proven to be false, therefore my evidence is strong.

Since the evidence cant be proven to be false, then it is therefore valid to conclude that the belief of the existence of God is plausible and stronger.


How about you, do you have any strong evidence that there is no God?

I have an evidence and this evidence is so powerful because it challenges the atheist to disprove itself ( there is a falsification test built-in).

It's like saying that the only way to disprove your claim is by proving your very claim. Of course that's a suicide and no atheist who is in the right mind will do that. That is illogical. That is like asking god to create stone that he cannot lift.

Now, my evidence is NOT and CAN NOT be proven to be false,

Because there's no evidence to begin with.

How about you, do you have any strong evidence that there is no God?

I don't make such claim, I'm open to possibility that god might be existing but of course that needs proofs. Unfortunately your challenge is not a proof. But I still lack the belief in god hence I'm still an atheist.

unrealdummy wrote:It's like saying that the only way to disprove your claim is by proving your very claim. Of course that's a suicide and no atheist who is in the right mind will do that. That is illogical. That is like asking god to create stone that he cannot lift.

No it is not my claim, it is the evidence's claim that there is God because its (the evidence) existence is only possible if there is God because nothing can create it except God and I find it to be true so I believe in it and its claim.

Not unless the evidence's claim is proven wrong, it is very logical and rational to believe in God rather than disbelieves in Him.

Because there's no evidence to begin with.

Hello, the Qur'an was the evidence my friend, what's the matter with you?

I don't make such claim, I'm open to possibility that god might exists. No one knows. But I still lack the belief in god hence I'm still an atheist.

So no evidence that God doesnt exist. Okay fine. So which stand is stronger than the other, (A) the one which has an evidence tho you consider it a weak evidence or (B) the one which has no evidence at all? A, or B ?


Thanks

Jewel wrote:No it is not my claim, it is the evidence's claim that there is God because its (the evidence) existence is only possible if there is God because nothing can create it except God and I find it to be true so I believe in it and its claim.

I'll rephrase it for you then:

It's like saying that the only way to disprove Quran's claim is by proving Quran's very claim. Your Quran is asking me to make a book that claims that god exists? Of course that's a suicide and no atheist who is in the right mind will do that. That is illogical. That is like asking god to create stone that he cannot lift.

Jewel wrote:
Not unless the evidence's claim is proven wrong, it is very logical and rational to believe in God rather than disbelieves in Him.

Again, the Quran's challenge doesn't count as evidence. As I said, Quran's challenge doesn't prove anything other than prove that no one is willing to write such book.

Hello, the Qur'an was the evidence my friend, what's the matter with you?

I think that's my line. I don't know where you got the idea that because no one wants to write a book like Quran therefore it is true. It simply doesn't follow.

So no evidence that God doesnt exist. Okay fine. So which stand is stronger than the other, (A) the one which has an evidence tho you consider it a weak evidence or (B) the one which has no evidence at all? A, or B ?

My answer is C, it depends. If B is the negative position, it stands as the default position until A finally gives a strong evidence. You know my point, even if I can't certainly be sure and have no evidence that unicorns really do not exist, my life will continue as if they don't exist. Because the default position is unicorns don't exist until they are proven to exist.

Sorry but these days I can't afford to be gullible.

unrealdummy wrote:

I'll rephrase it for you then:

It's like saying that the only way to disprove Quran's claim is by proving Quran's very claim. Your Quran is asking me to make a book that claims that god exists? Of course that's a suicide and no atheist who is in the right mind will do that. That is illogical. That is like asking god to create stone that he cannot lift.

again you are wrong. The way to disprove the Quran is to belie its claim that it cant be made by anyone other than God. If it is true that no book on earth past and present and probably future because no one can meet its challenge, then it true that God must have made it exist as it claims it to be.

Again, the Quran's challenge doesn't count as evidence. As I said, Quran's challenge doesn't prove anything other than prove that no one is willing to write such book.

No one is willing because they cant make any book like the Quran because only God can make a book, actually a revelation like the Quran. The Quran itself has already said that you cant make a book like it nor you would even make a book like it because you cant. And here you are proving the quran to be right.

I think that's my line. I don't know where you got the idea that because no one wants to write a book like Quran therefore it is true. It simply doesn't follow.

you got it wrong. it is not because no one wants to write a book like it. It is that NO one can MAKE a book like it. You just think that you can but the truth is you cant.

So no evidence that God doesnt exist. Okay fine. So which stand is stronger than the other, (A) the one which has an evidence tho you consider it a weak evidence or (B) the one which has no evidence at all? A, or B ?

My answer is C, it depends. If B is the negative position, it stands as the default position until A finally gives a strong evidence. You know my point, even if I can't certainly be sure and have no evidence that unicorns really do not exist, my life will continue as if they don't exist. Because the default position is unicorns don't exist until they are proven to exist.

Sorry but these days I can't afford to be gullible.

I thought that this would be an intellectual dialogue, however it turns out to be emotional. We are comparing here my argument against your argument, therefore there are only two choices, so WHERE does the third (C) choice come from?

You are just shy to admit that the theist's position is stronger than the atheist's position in this dialogue, that is why you tried to create a third choice when there are only two sides to weigh in

That's sounds like this:

Question: Who won between A and B match?

Answer: Sad answer for the B corner. C, C, C !!!

Reactions; was it a RAMBLE fight, where did C come from?



Thanks

Jewel wrote:

again you are wrong. The way to disprove the Quran is to belie its claim that it cant be made by anyone other than God. If it is true that no book on earth past and present and probably future because no one can meet its challenge, then it true that God must have made it exist as it claims it to be.

You don't get it. I don't need to disprove something that hasn't been proven yet. Prove it first then I'll disprove it. And nope, making up such illogical challenge doesn't prove anything. No one is willing to create stone they cannot lift.

No one is willing because they cant make any book like the Quran because only God can make a book, actually a revelation like the Quran. The Quran itself has already said that you cant make a book like it nor you would even make a book like it because you cant. And here you are proving the quran to be right.

This is like saying I'm gonna create a book titled "The three little pigs" and if you cannot create anything like it then the three little pigs truly exist. And if anyone dares to make such book, they first need to make a claim that there are three little pigs to be even classified as "something like it". You see, whether you meet up the challenge or not, you'll still lose. You already had conceded that the three little pigs truly exists before you were able to even beat the challenge. That challenge doesn't make any sense. Obviously it is a trap and not a challenge.

you got it wrong. it is not because no one wants to write a book like it. It is that NO one can MAKE a book like it. You just think that you can but the truth is you cant.

And why would I make a book that claims there's a god? Just to prove you wrong? I don't even need to prove you wrong, you are the one who needs to prove something and not me. I won't fall for that trap.

I thought that this would be an intellectual dialogue, however it turns out to be emotional. We are comparing here my argument against your argument, therefore there are only two choices, so WHERE does the third (C) choice come from?

Obviously not all questions are answerable by only straight answers without conditions, some are even not limited to only two choices. Nope, I'm not trying to appeal to my emotions. As you can see, my responses are without any insults, only smiling emoticons such as this ->

You might feel that I'm too cold. But that's what pure logic really feels. Cold. At least you won't hear me cursing you or anyone here, at least in this new forum address

You are just shy to admit that the theist's position is stronger than the atheist's position in this dialogue, that is why you tried to create a third choice when there are only two sides to weigh in

I believe I reasoned out why my answer is "it depends". Why don't you make an argument to that instead.

Question: Who won between A and B match?

Answer: Sad answer for the B corner. C, C, C !!!

Hehehe you've got a point there. But nope, your analogy doesn't apply. Why? Because I can answer that question in this form:

It depends, A corner is the winner if all the majority of judges' scores favor the A corner otherwise B corner is the winner.

By the way, why did you take out the possibility that the match could be draw?

I didn't say C corner is the winner. I said negative position stands by default until positive position is proven. I didn't say missionary position is better than the two.

So why I needed to include conditions in my answer? Because the condition you provided is either incomplete or doesn't apply. But I still answered your question either way.

I hope that made this clear.

unrealdummy wrote:

You don't get it. I don't need to disprove something that hasn't been proven yet. Prove it first then I'll disprove it. And nope, making up such illogical challenge doesn't prove anything. No one is willing to create stone they cannot lift.

I think you really miss the point. The Quran is a physical evidence, available for scrutiny and its history is well documented. Prove that it claim is false because it doesnt need a God to have a book like the Quran because an atheist or any man can produce a book like the Quran - that's it.

This is like saying I'm gonna create a book titled "The three little pigs" and if you cannot create anything like it then the three little pigs truly exist. And if anyone dares to make such book, they first need to make a claim that there are three little pigs to be even classified as "something like it". You see, whether you meet up the challenge or not, you'll still lose. That challenge doesn't make any sense. Obviously it is a trap and not a challenge.

Well, make a book entitled "The three little pigs" or any book for that matter, and tell us what makes it miraculous or inimitable, and we'll see if your book is really like the Quran. The problem is that all your counter argument are mere hypothetical, and not physical. The Quran is a physical evidence, so how is it logical to equate a hypothetical evidence to a physical one? - You always fall in to a fallacy called false comparison, why is that?

And why would I make a book that claims there's a god? Just to prove you wrong? I don't even need to prove you wrong, you are the one who needs to prove something and not me. I won't fall for that trap.

Exactly, to prove me wrong because I am the one who presented an evidence. If you cant prove my evidence to be false, then my evidence's testimony is a proof in and of itself. So there is no trick/trap there. It is purely a matter of who has the evidence and was the evidence proven to be wrong. That is how a court proceeding goes. It is between the two opposing parties.


Obviously not all questions are answerable by only straight answers without conditions, some are even not limited to only two choices. Nope, I'm not trying to appeal to my emotions. As you can see, my responses are without any insults, only smiling emoticons such as this ->

Yes I agree, not all questions are answerable by only by yes or no. But in this question, who is the third party when there are only two opposing sides, yours and mine? It is really a better way of saying that party-A has a stronger argument than party-B because party-A has presented an evidence while party-B has no evidence whatsoever. So party-B prefers to shout C, C, C !!! in order to deny its defeat.

What can party-A say, except like these

You might feel that I'm too cold. But that's what pure logic really feels. Cold. At least you won't hear me cursing you or anyone here

.

It's not really like that. What I feel and see is that party-B doesnt have any evidence at all. So if i compare the two sides alone, it is obvious that party-A has the upper hand against party-B.

Cursing? Whether one curses anyone or not, it will not matter. What matters is that whose stand has an evidence, physical evidence that is. So it doesnt mean that since you are not cursing anyone then your stand is true. Moreover, how would you curse someone logically when you dont believe in God in the first place? That sounds weird.

I believe I reasoned out why my answer is "it depends". Why don't you make an argument to that instead.

Yeah you gave your reason, however your reason is unacceptable because it is out of bounds because you included a third party choice when there are only two opposing sides to weigh in. It is a matter of deciding what has been presented by the two opposing sides, and NOT on what they were supposed to present.

Question: Who won between A and B match?

Answer: Sad answer from the B corner. C, C, C !!!

Hehehe you've got a point there. But nope, your analogy doesn't apply. Why? Because I can answer that question in this form:

It depends, A corner is the winner if all the majority of judges' scores favor the A corner otherwise B corner is the winner.

By the way, why did you take out the possibility that the fight could be draw?

I didn't say C corner is the winner. I said negative position stands by default until positive position is proven. I didn't say missionary position is better than the two.

I hope that made this clear.

I think you said it's C, tho you said it depends - so that what made me "SMILE"

Draw could be a possibility instead of your answer C. However, how could the one with evidence and unmatched challenge be declared equal and the same with the one without any evidence at all? That's sound so unfair right?

My time's over. I'll be making my response maybe next weekend

Quick response though:

However, how could the one with evidence and unmatched challenge be declared equal and the same with the one without any evidence at all? That's sound so unfair right?

Yep it sounds really unfair but that's the nature of the negative position. They stand in the absence of the positive.

Till next weekends

unrealdummy wrote:My time's over. I'll be making my response maybe next weekend

Quick response though:

However, how could the one with evidence and unmatched challenge be declared equal and the same with the one without any evidence at all? That's sound so unfair right?

Yep it sounds really unfair but that's the nature of the negative position. They stand in the absence of the positive.

Till next weekends

I dont think so that the negative should be equated to the positive position simply because the negative feels that the positive's evidence is not convincing to him even if the negative didnt offer any evidence whatsoever while the positive did. That's a bias conclusion indeed.

Anyway, thanks for sharing your ideas. I hope that you would have the correct feelings now that Muslims belief is not based on BLIND faith but based on logic and reasons.


Thank you and may God guide us all.


Happy weekend to you and your family.




Jewel

Upon reading your discussion with @unrealdummy, i feel not compelled anymore to push through with our previous points, since it seems it's become much convoluted and trite already, with a lot of points seemingly having branched off to numerous directions. So i think i'd just ask you a simple hypothetical question for now, that being:

What will happen to the Islamic belief if the Earth is hit by an asteroid, for example, and all life on Earth (and all the written books as well) are extinguished?

Thanks.

element_115x wrote:Upon reading your discussion with @unrealdummy, i feel not compelled anymore to push through with our previous points, since it seems it's become much convoluted and trite already, with a lot of points seemingly having branched off to numerous directions. So i think i'd just ask you a simple hypothetical question for now, that being:

Okay, no problem, as you wish buddy.

What will happen to the Islamic belief if the Earth is hit by an asteroid, for example, and all life on Earth is extinguished?

Thanks.

It would prove that Islam is true and God does exist because God's word is found to be true.

The Calamity! (1) What is the Calamity? (2) Ah, what will convey unto
thee what the Calamity is! (3) A day wherein mankind will be as
thickly-scattered moths (4) And the mountains will become as carded
wool. (5) Then,
as for him whose scales are heavy (with good works), (6) He will live a pleasant
life. (7) But
as for him whose scales are light, ( The bereft and Hungry One
will be his mother, (9) Ah, what will convey unto thee what she is! - (10) Raging Fire. (11)

Chapter 78: (36) Lord of the heavens and the earth, and (all) that is
between them, the Beneficent; with Whom none can converse. (37) On the day when the angels
and the Spirit stand arrayed, they speak not, saving him whom the
Beneficent alloweth and who speaketh right. (38) That is the True Day. So
whoso will should seek recourse unto his Lord. (39) Lo! We warn you of a doom
at hand, a day whereon a man will look on that which his own hands have
sent before, and the disbeliever will cry: "Would that I were dust!"
(40)


"Blessed be He in Whose hands is Dominion: and He
over all things
hath Power; He Who created Death and Life the may try which of you is
best
in deed: and he is the Exalted in Might, Oft-Forgiving;.... (Surah
Al-Mulkhat -67:1-2)

"Every soul shall have taste of death; In the end
to us shall ye be
brought back

.(Surah Al-'Ankabut The Spider 29:57)

Islam is not limited on earth alone but to everything that exists, had existed, and yet to exist in this planet earth and the whole universe because God is the Lord of everything in all the worlds:




Everything will perish except God:


and never call upon any other deity
side by side with God. There is no deity save Him. Everything is bound
to perish, save His [eternal] self. With Him rests all judgment; and
unto Him shall you all be brought back. 29:1 28:87


Thanks.

Jewel wrote:

I dont think so that the negative should be equated to the positive position simply because the negative feels that the positive's evidence is not convincing to him even if the negative didnt offer any evidence whatsoever while the positive did. That's a bias conclusion indeed.

Anyway, thanks for sharing your ideas. I hope that you would have the correct feelings now that Muslims belief is not based on BLIND faith but based on logic and reasons.


Thank you and may God guide us all.


Happy weekend to you and your family.

I’m lucky today that I’ve got some spare and the internet is on!

Ok. Let's start from why the negative position is the default position to take in the absence of the positive and why does the negative position don't need any evidence at all.

Let's say we don't assume the negative position (although this is the case, any court rulings always assumes negative position, but for the sake of the argument, let's assume it is not the case).

Let's say neither of the negative and the positive stands until one of them finally gives strong evidence. Therefore we should make another position; we call it the "neutral position".

As weird as it might seem, the negative position and the neutral position are almost alike.

If I say I don't believe in god but I don't also believe they don't exist, sort of 50/50, do you still think I'm going to attend a church? It will be only a waste of time because I don't have genuine faith. There's almost no difference at all. No effect at all.

If we take it to the court, do you think it is just to sentence someone to death row if you are only 50% convinced as a judge? No, it is not just. The safest and just judgment is to be 100% sure that the crime was really committed before making such judgment. Until then, there should be no punishment. Why?? Because we cannot afford to punish anyone by mistake. But we can afford not to take action. Why? Because it is just not to take action if the evidence is not enough. Otherwise the world will be in chaos, it would be very easy for somebody to frame-up someone. It is mandatory to be very very skeptical because this is not a simple matter. Otherwise, the accused will be guilty even if the evidence against him is very very weak because he simply doesn't have any evidence that he did not do anything wrong. That's just unjust.

Not paying skepticism to any claim is disrespect to that claim. The burden of proof is on the positive side because they need to convince the judge 100%. What about the negative side? No need. Why? Because even if they've proven themselves, there's no difference, there will be no action to take. That's the whole point.

You can compare negative position to darkness. In the absence of light, there is darkness. Darkness there is in the absence of light. You see, in this case, the darkness don't even need to exert effort to give darkness to the universe, but the light needs to exert effort, it needs energy to create light.

I really hope you get the point I'm trying to illustrate. So no, I'm not being bias, it is just the way it is. Sorry but when it comes to proving god; I must pay my greatest amount of skepticism because that is a very important matter. I hope you understand.

unrealdummy wrote: I’m lucky today that I’ve got some spare and the internet is on!

Ok. Let's start from why the negative position is the default position to take in the absence of the positive and why does the negative position don't need any evidence at all.

Let's say we don't assume the negative position (although this is the case, any court rulings always assumes negative position, but for the sake of the argument, let's assume it is not the case).

Let's say neither of the negative and the positive stands until one of them finally gives strong evidence. Therefore we should make another position; we call it the "neutral position".

As weird as it might seem, the negative position and the neutral position are almost alike.

If I say I don't believe in god but I don't also believe they don't exist, sort of 50/50, do you still think I'm going to attend a church? It will be only a waste of time because I don't have genuine faith. There's almost no difference at all. No effect at all.

If we take it to the court, do you think it is just to sentence someone to death row if you are only 50% convinced as a judge? No, it is not just. The safest and just judgment is to be 100% sure that the crime was really committed before making such judgment. Until then, there should be no punishment. Why?? Because we cannot afford to punish anyone by mistake. But we can afford not to take action. Why? Because it is just not to take action if the evidence is not enough. Otherwise the world will be in chaos, it would be very easy for somebody to frame-up someone. It is mandatory to be very very skeptical because this is not a simple matter.

Not paying skepticism to any claim is disrespect to that claim. The burden of proof is on the positive side because they need to convince the judge 100%. What about the negative side? No need. Why? Because even if they've proven themselves, there's no difference, there will be no action to take. That's the whole point.

You can compare negative position to darkness. In the absence of light, there is darkness. Darkness there is in the absence of light. You see, in this case, the darkness don't even need to exert effort to give darkness to the universe, but the light needs to exert effort, it needs energy to create light.

I really hope you get the point I'm trying to illustrate. So no, I'm not being bias, it is just the way it is. Sorry but when it comes to proving god; I must pay my greatest amount of skepticism because that is a very important matter. I hope you understand.

Well, you are very much welcome! Welcome back if that's the right way of greeting you.


I feel that you enjoyed our converstion here, that's nice, tho my feelings may be wrong

Anyway, I agree with what you said above but i think you didnt really get the point.


The neutral side would be the judge right? So the judge should only decide what has been presented by the opposing parties.

Who are the opposing parties here? Jewel's side versus dummy's side - just the two of us right?

Now, Jewels side has presented evidences for his case against dummy's side - of course dummy wont surrender to Jewel's evidence otherwise he will lose his case. Nevertheless, Jewel has his evidence anyway, while dummy has nothing.

So What would be a neutral judge's decision, a draw??? That's bias right?

The problem becomes worse when Dummy assumes as the judge so he will give his verdict DRAW because he wanted to assume that his side is correct by default unless proven otherwise.

It is like playing basketball; The time limit for each game is 20 minutes running time.

Dummy assumes as the defending champion. after the end of 20 minutes, Jewel has got 2 points only while dummy has nothing. Now dummy doesnt want to accept the defeat because he is not satisfied that the 2 points of Jewel would make him a game loser; he requires a big big gap before he could accept that he was really defeated - so dummy offers a draw.

However, the question is this; Is 2 - 0 score a draw???

ewww

Jewel wrote:
Dummy assumes as the defending champion. after the end of 20 minutes, Jewel has got 2 points only while dummy has nothing. Now dummy doesnt want to accept the defeat because he is not satisfied that the 2 points of Jewel would make him a game loser; he requires a big big gap before he could accept that he was really defeated - so dummy offers a draw.

However, the question is this; Is 2 - 0 score a draw???

ewww

You really have a good a good point. But this is not a contest where there is no default winner. You should compare it to a court ruling where there is a claim and that the claim is presumed as not proven until proven. Otherwise, the accused will be guilty even if the evidence against him is very very weak because he simply doesn't have any evidence that he did not do anything wrong. That's just unjust.

unrealdummy wrote:You really have a good a good point. But this is not a contest where there is no default winner. You should compare it to a court ruling where there is a claim and that the claim is presumed as not proven until proven. Otherwise, the accused will be guilty even if the evidence against him is very very weak because he simply doesn't have any evidence that he did not do anything wrong. That's just unjust.

I beg to differ friend dummy because that is only applicable in criminal cases whereby the accused must be proven beyond reasonable doubt because the principle behind is that " It is better to set 100 criminals free, than to put in to prison 1 innocent person"

An acquitted person in a criminal case is not necessarily 100% innocent.

But this is not a criminal case, this is more nearer to a civil case in which the case is judged based upon the so-called preponderance of evidence. Whoever has presented an evidence is to be favored by the judge over the one which no evidence at all.

Rules of court huh


Thanks.

Jewel wrote: Whoever has presented an evidence is to be favored by the judge over the one which no evidence at all.
Thanks.

You are right, only if the evidence is strong, then that's the only time the judge will convict the accused. Otherwise, the accused shall be acquitted without requiring the accused to present his evidence.

unrealdummy wrote:You are right, only if the evidence is strong, then that's the only time the judge will convict the accused. Otherwise, the accused shall be acquitted without requiring the accused to present his evidence.

It seems that you didnt read my entire response:

Jewel wrote:

But this is not a criminal case, this is
more nearer to a civil case in which the case is judged based upon
the so-called preponderance of evidence. Whoever has presented
an evidence is to be favored by the judge over the one which no evidence
at all.

Rules of court huh


Thanks.

No cutting/tailoring of statements please


Thanks

Jewel wrote:

unrealdummy wrote:You are right, only if the evidence is strong, then that's the only time the judge will convict the accused. Otherwise, the accused shall be acquitted without requiring the accused to present his evidence.

It seems that you didnt read my entire response:

Jewel wrote:

But this is not a criminal case, this is
more nearer to a civil case in which the case is judged based upon
the so-called preponderance of evidence. Whoever has presented
an evidence is to be favored by the judge over the one which no evidence
at all.

Rules of court huh


Thanks.

No cutting/tailoring of statements please


Thanks

Can you give me an example?

unrealdummy wrote:

Jewel wrote:

unrealdummy wrote:You are right, only if the evidence is strong, then that's the only time the judge will convict the accused. Otherwise, the accused shall be acquitted without requiring the accused to present his evidence.

It seems that you didnt read my entire response:

Jewel wrote:

But this is not a criminal case, this is
more nearer to a civil case in which the case is judged based upon
the so-called preponderance of evidence. Whoever has presented
an evidence is to be favored by the judge over the one which no evidence
at all.

Rules of court huh


Thanks.

No cutting/tailoring of statements please


Thanks

Can you give me an example?

What example?

Jewel wrote:

What example?

Example of a civil case you're talking about and let's see if it's applicable and just.

Thanks for the answer. So it really would seem for you that the evidence for God's existence is the 'far advanced beyond it's time' content of the Qur'an, and the Prophet who said/claimed he received the Qur'an from God.

May i now ask why you are not open to the possibility that the writings in the Qur'an may have originated from sources other than a 'God' as told by a certain Prophet? Basically you're just taking the words of the Prophet here, correct? That being said Prophet even further reinforced this by the fact that he demonstrated wisdom far beyond his time as well.

How impossible is it to consider that said 'knowledge' (about the guidelines to proper living, ethics, morals, behaviours, etc.) may have come from a previous society who improved upon these mores as they existed and interacted with nature and each other?

Thanks.

unrealdummy wrote:

Jewel wrote:

What example?

Example of a civil case you're talking about and let's see if it's applicable and just.

What I said is that our situation is more nearer to a civil case rather than a criminal case. In a criminal case, the accused must be proven beyond reasonable doubt otherwise he is presumed innocent, tho in reality he may really be guilty.

In civil litigation, the plaintiff wins if the preponderance of the
evidence
favors the plaintiff.

In our case, i have presented my evidence/s while you presented nothing; (2-0) so what does that telling us?

It tells us that my side should be favored over your side.


That's it.


Thanks