Mughal is a fantastic story teller with the patience that rivals no one.. .. glad to read your response dear Mughal., and please do not stop writing.. but here i am going to make your response in to different parts as you are clubbing entirely different subjects in to one post and and so i will separate the subjects here and respond to each of them individually in the post
1)....... Dear yeezevee, yes, I am still busy with interpretation of the quran. This is why I am trying to explain things the way I understand them. During my study of the quran I realized that there are some aspects implications of which we human beings have not yet realized for proper understanding of the quran. We have been side tracked by each other instead of taking aboard some very basic but vitally important points. This is the reason I started this thread the way I did. It is because we need to be clear about some things before we actually discuss the quran..
I was under the impression ((in fact I remember reading it in FFI)) you have your own version of Quran translation of interpretation and I agree with you ,, Quran indeed is a very unique book .. A superficial .casual reading of it will not help the reader to understand the mind set of Quran writers and composers ., the other serious problem is translators adding their own style which often add confusion to the reader , on who is saying what and to whom as the book is written in some sort of discussion/debate/drama style.. and i fully agree with those highlighted words of yours ., although it side tracks the discussion from Quran to some other topics..
2)........Atheism is having a go at the religion which I see as a good thing because it brings theists out of their depth and helps to drag them towards rationality so that they could become rational thinkers and give up the nonsense called religion. I myself am anti religion because it is very damaging for humanity in various ways. It does not bring people to God but leads them away from God into utter confusion and perplexity or puzzlement.
Religion in my view is therefore a most dangerous thing for humanity, in fact more dangerous than atheism. It is because religion keeps people foolish or worse stupid or ignorant and illiterate. This I hope will become clear as we develop this discussion and I explain more and more things.
I fully agree with you there ..indeed this God of Human brain or God of universe .. OR THE GENTLE MAN
WHO CREATED THIS UNIVERSE is different from the god described in every faith/religious book/s
and I disagree with those deleted words of yours .. because that is not true., It appears to be true in the case of those faiths whose followers WILL NOT ALLOW. and WILL NOT GIVE FREEDOM TO PEOPLE TO QUESTION WHAT IS THERE IN THEIR RESPECTIVE FAITH BOOKS/.PRECHINGS
3)..............My other point is against atheism ie to me God of the gaps is more appealing and better way to tackle this issue than no God approach till we come across God. Why? Because no God approach is also very dangerous for humanity to take as it has most serious consequences for humanity as we have been experiencing directly or indirectly all along throughout our lives ie Godless human society is a dangerous society by its very nature in my view based upon our life experiences. This is why to me there is a God unless we can prove otherwise. Why?
Well If "NO GOD " idea followers make their idea unquestionable then they are as good as faith heads ,, it is just they are "NO GOD" IDEA FAITH HEADS. and unquestionable faiths and yes the faith heads that follow these unquestionable faiths are sometimes dangerous to the society ..
and yes you are right in saying "God of the gaps is more appealing and better way"
because it gives freedom to people to explore those gaps and i tell you there are millions and millions of those gaps ...
4)........... It is because our main question to ourselves is, how did all that exists come about? Was it always there or was it brought into existence by a creator? In this regard a question arises, could non-existing things come about out of absolute nothingness? Or could zero ever equal one and vice versa? My answer is never. I mean nothing can come into existence out of absolute nothingness. This means either there is a creator or that all that exists is ever existing. Now ever existence of anything has its own implications eg whatever is ever existing remains the way it is and it cannot change in its nature because a thing can only change in its nature if some other outside force acts upon it. Since there is no other force there to begin with then ever existing thing cannot change in its nature therefore it must remain as it is or as it ever was.
that is entirely different subject from Quran/god/religions/ faiths/faith heads dear Mughal. it is best to deal with it independent of faiths and faith books as it is nothing to do with Quran/god/religions/ faiths/faith heads ...
5)..........Since whatever exists before our eyes is always changing with time that means someone is causing it to change otherwise it could not change. This means whatever exists and is changing is not ever existing rather it was created by one who does not change. This means the universe was created by a God.
Nope I completely disagree with you there.., that statement of yours "whatever exists before our eyes is always changing with time"
is very ill defined and without that time span number it is meaningless .
, .. Time and time scale is huge subject from say .............shortest time a physicist use in their calculations.. that is Planck time .... ((Planck time is the time light takes to travel one Planck length. Theoretically, this is the smallest time measurement that will ever be possible))
to Astronomical time scale say some 14 billion years or so,,
Your point on . "CHANGE in front of your eyes"
is irrelevant and meaningless with reference to vast times scales we are dealing with from (10) to the power of -24 seconds to (10) to the power of +24 seconds., please watch this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRtLXagrMHw
That i casually pulled it out of KhanAcademy
6).......Scientists say the creator has to be something simple so God is far too complex a being to be considered as a creator. I disagree. In my view the very existence of something simple is impossible. Why? Because to be simple and be ever existing both contradict each other. After all what did not exist could never come into existence. If something is ever existing then ever existence is not a simple thing. Moreover even for argument sake if we accept there is such a thing as simple then it will remain as it was forever. So it could not create the creation. To create the kind of creation we observe, it had to be at least as complex as the creation it has created by implication. Therefore It ought to be knowledgeable and it ought to be able choose and decide things etc etc. So the idea that God is far too complex being for start of creation is proven completely wrong.
This means we have a God and we have his creation because otherwise nothing could exist to begin with. So those who claim there is no God and all that exists came into being all by itself seem to be totally wrong. They have no basis to stand upon.
I have to respond to your post in parts because a flat response from me will make a looooong and and a unreadable post..
Your point 6 is drifting faraway from the book Quran.. or other faith books...... faiths ...... faith heads .. God, revelation and creation etc..., etc... that too it is filled with unproven assumptions and fallacies dear Mughal and I understand the problem that subject is very complex hence assumptions and gedanken experiments are necessary