اتساع السماء ليس شرطا أن يكون بانفجار بيضة أو كرة
بل هو خلق عظيم

كان مبلغ الرسالة صلى الله عليه وسلم رجلا أميا لا يقرأ ولا يكتب
فمن أين له التوافق مع العلم فى حوالى 1800 قضية علمية؟
ومن أين له أن يسبق العلم الحديث بما بين 12 و 14 قرنا من أزمنة البشر
ومن أين له كتاب به
114 سورة
6236 آية جميعها خالية تماما من التعارض مع أى قانون علمى
ولا يوجد كتاب دينى آخر فى العالم كله خال من الأخطاء العلمية غير القرآن
وربما كان أكثر هذه الكتب انتشارا الكتاب المقدس صاحب الأرنب المجتر

لا علاقة لهذا الكلام بوجود الجن والملائكة

هل يمكن لأي عاقل اليوم أن ينفي وجود الجن أو الملائكة لأننا ببساطة لا نشعر بهم أو لا تدركها حواسنا ؟

أنا أتحفظ على هذه الجملة، لكن هذا لا يصنع فارقاً جوهرياً ان كنت تعتقد ما فيها ..

لقد لخصت في ردي معظم ما قد أتفق معك فيه، لكني لازلت أحرص على عدم الخوض في كل ما كتبتَه حتى لا نتفرع تفرعاً لا يخدم الموضوع أو أتكلم في نظرات فلسفية ... و قد احتوى كلامك على كثير من التلبيسات ...

بالقطع لا .. و أحسب أن هذا كان واضحاً في قولي :

Greetings my forum-mate ,
before starting , i just want to say that i feel very disappointed , seems you didnt understand my point of view , also you did many logical discrepencies .
Now lets see see how .
Let's talk first about the examples you had given and how much they match mine .
First , you mentioned the sheep behind the wall example , well , using a word like "sheep" i find that evil , somehow it has sense of ridicule , because simply you cauld have said "a man " instead and it wouldnt change in the logic of the example , but anyway , it isnt our topic ,. And ya my friend the one who says there is a man / sheep behind the wall has to prove it , but to say that it is 100% -99 if you wish - that there is nothing behind the wall , this also needs proofs , and that is what i have been trying to tell you , that there is much great difference between that to say a thing doesnt exist and to say it may be nonexistent , i.e even if all my proofs for a man behind the wall didnt convince you , still the possibility that it really exist is not denied . I will explain that later .
Concerning the box you made and threw in the desert , yes , for the very first second of researching the matter , the box has the two possibilities with equal chances , and by adding factors like its being in the desert or its shape or etc , the chances values begin to differ , and the point you missed is that ; yes , for someone who has never seen the box before , the box has 50. 50 chances , however this is not the final answer , it is rather the initial supposed value to be honest with the matter - you already can realize that begining with 80% empty box possibility just before adding any elements to the matter , this is unjustified - so , this value is susceptible to be changed by adding the surrounding elements one after one . That is why i have asked you to give yours proofs to change this initial value of the universe origin to be in your favour .
Concerning the one million boxes , you already know that the possibility is a matter and reality is an other matter , you con toss a coin for million times and dont tell me that there must be 500000 of them is heads , they simply can be all heads or all tails -very low chance , but eh still possible ! - .
Now , lets talk for the invalid examples , that you used to disprove my box example .
Invisible man , semotrone are by no means equivalents to the box example , and their use is an other mind trick -may be intended ! -
how ? .
The main and very important difference is that the box being able to contain something is a possibility that is directly derived from its very nature , i.e its being a BOX , to explain ,
what is a box for ??.
Now , let's phrase it in a mathematical logicial way , we say that just like the toss of a coin experiment , the closed box and the coin determine the possibilities of the result buy their mere nature and definition , the coin has two possible results because it is a coin - i.e it has two faces - if by any means the coin has 3 faces then the possible results must be 3 .
In general , the possible results / states of a thing are included in its very own definition/structure .
Now , i ask you , does your mere being a mere man entails / suggest / allow your being invisible ? .
Also , does -for your knowledge -the structure of the atom allow / suggests / entails / include the possibility to have the semotrone ? .
I dont think so.
In other words , you are just adding an unnecessary and unjustified possibility / result to the experiment / state of both body and atom . Just like one who came to a normal common coin and want to add a third possibility -not the margin - to the result rather than heads and tails , that is what i call unnecessary and unjustified hypothesis .
And to give you more examples on the difference between my box example and your above mentioned ones - that you wanted to take them as one , mistakingly - let me mention the dark holes of Einstein or collarsars , they were firstly mere hypothesis made by and extremist solution of his field equations , scientist took it as a mere mathematical jocke, in that example you can see that despite the bizarre nature of the hypothesis , yet it was included in the equation , derivable from it , suggeste by it , i.e a face on the coin .
Notice that scientist have made a great mistake when they - with no logical reason rather than the mere disbelief - denied it , but ,eh look , now they are a fact .
So , if you have find any equation or physical info. that -even with poor possibility - suggest the man's being able to be invisible or the semotrone existent , then and only then you can add it to the coin faces , other than that , it is unnecessary hypothesis .
------------------
you said a very nice words "when you claim a thing as a truth , it remains faith until you prove it "
so true , but we didnt speak about the proof for God existence yet , we still confirm its possibility .
My own conclusion ,
"He who claims the impossibility of a possible , is the one who have to prove that , until that , it remain as possibility- at least -"
----------
now , lets finish the delayed points ,
firstly , there is two ways to eliminate a possibility , one , to prove its contradictory possibility , the one that cant be gathered with it ever , or simply to eliminate its existence , i.e prove the impossibility of its existence .