“To say nothing requires the involvement of an intelligent designer is a complete denial of sane reasoning.”

On the contrary, Solomon, implying that there is something WITHOUT ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE is a complete denial of ANY reasoning, sane or otherwise.

“And you can’t even answer what form of entity nature is.”

This question is nonsense. Nature is nature. Nature does not possess “intelligence” in a sentient sense. There is no “intention” in Nature – it is completely indifferent. You have a hard time accepting that there is no evidence to support your claim for intelligent design, and this is understandable. But wishing otherwise does not make it so.

“Its only some form of escapism to deny the well accepted human thoughts of creationism doctrine.”

Creationism is ONLY well-accepted by those who hold dearly to a religious ideology. And even then there are many Christians and Muslims who do not agree with the doctrine of Creationism. Why? Because it has been repeatedly and thoroughly discredited in every way, shape and form. Both in court and outside. There is absolutely not ONE SHRED of evidence to support the claims of creationism. All of your “evidence” comes directly from religious dogma. To continue to insist that it is well-accepted or “true” is a complete denial of reality.

“How can one proove god if he’s comparable to nothing.”

How can one disprove Santa? Ra? Zeus? The Tooth Fairy? Unicorns? Please disprove them, Solomon, and I will believe in your God.

“And who creates the First design? Is it evolution or nature???”

Again, you are hung up on the fact that there MUST be a first designer. Ok, who creates the first designer? What created God? If your answer is that God has always been and will always be, then that is my answer as well. Nature has been and always will be. The only difference is that you are desperate to instill intelligence into your God because you refuse to accept the evidence that points to the fact that there is no intelligent designer and that processes such as evolution can be shown to be responsible for the development of life on Earth.

Maybe your typing error…I thought youre gonne write…It was satan!

To say nothing requires the involvement of an intelligent designer is a complete denial of sane reasoning. And you can’t even answer what form of entity nature is.Its only some form of escapism to deny the well accepted human thoughts of creationism doctrine.Its just a saying “nature” made up by unbelievers. How can one proove god if he’s comparable to nothing. You won’t recognise him even if he sits in front of your nose.

None of the things you are talking about require the existance of an intelligent designer.

You mistakenly believe complexity in the universe requires an intelligent force to design it. Evolution is not magic, but is natural and fully explains the life forms we see around us today – and in the past.

Your statement “Its only a reserved way of saying that it should be God” is very telling. You WANT it to be God. To you it SHOULD be God. The problem is, thinking that it is God does not MAKE it God.

I am agnostic and don’t rule out the existance of a “god”. But to this point in my life there has not been any evidence presented to me to support that claim. And so, I remain, agnostic.

Sincerely
Mohammed. Praise be to me, etc.

I mention ‘something’ not because I’am not sure, obviously I’am very sure after all this while what I have been sponsoring about. Its only a reserved way of saying that it should be God.
The proof is in the Qoran or the hadith, all being told by god clearly in detail & with proofs & reasoning.
You said your “something” is nature. What actually if someone think of nature? A some sort of being that can muticulously create things?An intelligent brain that could planned any systems that have been going on since eternity?Something that could provide the power that drives massive heavenly bodies?Our brains or our hearts & our senses will surely point out that this something is a very intelligent & very powerfull being, not just something called nature that can planned on its own.

My favourite quote: “I can still disagree completely with you, but I don’t deny your humanity.”

Another interesting snippet from the article: “In its deepest sense you can only understand real scripture when you need something, when you need truth of a certain kind and you need help.” This is a fascinating statement and speaks volumes, to me, of the essence of “truth” found in the Bible. It is a “certain kind” of truth, very narrow and very specific. It is not all-encompassing.

One final statement which I whole-heartedly disagree with, however, comes at the end of the article: “Real scripture, though it might on the surface seem contradictory or violent, these things are often symbolic and can only be understood with the heart and the head together. Not just with the head.”

This would be based on how the scripture is interpreted, and I find it arrogant of him to insist that if you interpret it in any other way you are not reading the “real” scripture or interpreting it correctly. This is his personal opinion and bias, perhaps, but not fact. The bible is interpreted in MANY, MANY different ways by MANY, MANY people. Why? Because it was not written clearly enough to be interpreted in one way only.

You wrote “Even if you think its through evolution, there must be some processes governing it.Something governing how the process should be & should have been.”

You seem unsure of what this “something” is, but seem satisfied that it’s definitely not natural and not evolution. But if I can assume that you equate “something” with God (as defined in your holy book) then I have one very simple question for you: How can you prove that it is not something else? How do you prove it is not Zeus? Ra? Santa? Ghandalf? The Tooth Fairy? You may think I’m being silly, but this is a serious question.

What you will find is that we both believe in “something”. The only difference is that my “something” can be easily explained using the natural world and your “something” relies exclusively on the supernatural.

You got the wrong version of hadith.There are true and false hadiths. One should learn the discipline of citing hadith from experts, not simply copy it from some sites.