I am sure even you consult books before preparing for a debate to prove your points merely logic doesn't work without study and research have you done your home work? Have you done you credible research/publications? I find your statements contradictory and there is no reason why someone without publications can't go for a debate I am sure that person would always do a research.
You are taking me completely out of context. First of all unlike our self proclaimed know it all (Tuahaa) I don't claim to be scientist or know all the answers. When I do post something related to Science it will be backed by legitimate professional references (not by me) but which more or less everyone will agree to because they will be done by someone who will be an expert in that specific field of study with sound and credible resources & I have done that numerous times on these boards.
Tuahaa
Also listen to Zakir Naik's lectures. He always explains Qur'an through science
Don't worry man, I got answers
These words are what I have a grudge against, when someone claims that he for sure,
knows all the answers, to all questions, that person is outright lying because he does not, and for anyone to actually believe him would be nothing more than intellectual dishonesty on his/her part.
It would depend on the subject of science, there are many scientific answers to scientific questions The Religious Book that you're asking others to to refrain from and that would again be a plain stupid if the question is answered right from The Book but the negativity towards it is keeping someone away from believing in that scientific answer/solution.
Lastly the copy paste argument. Please even atheists, scientists keep the copy paste or written stuff for their debates its no big deal and it is a part of research even researchers keep copies of thesis research thesis do you want them to throw it.
If someone doesn't hold the religious books and scriptures as the highest standard of education than to prove your point and the message your trying to explain will fall on deaf ears. You need to rationally, logically and academically counter his arguments. Atheists and Scientists prove their points by copy pasting from sources that are based on factual research which go through multiple phases of -generating idea, -research, -theory, -hypothesis, -extensive testing, -Implementation followed by the ongoing process of -monitoring and updating
These publications, News and journals are than available for anyone be it other scientists, atheists, religious people or anyone with a rational brain who would more or less agree that these sources are credible, sound and the appropriate way of learning, getting knowledge and Passing on that knowledge. Now if your arguing against me that you don't hold academic journals as the highest form of education than we are simply going to end this conversation here, because it would than seem to me, that you have no respect for scholarly work and hold religious scriptures as the primary source of all scientific discoveries.
Religious arguments can be presented only to those who already possess faith, of what use is it to cite a particular chapter of the Quran to refute an idea held by someone who does not accept the authority of the Quran to start with? Many of the works written by the Ulema in this field can be easily be criticized precisely because they address themselves to deaf ears and present arguments that are of no eiffciency in the context of the question.
Fact is, if your smart, you would refer to the works of some excellent Islamic Scholars since Islamic Tradition already possess richness and depth that is perfectly capable of answering, on an intellectual level, almost any argument drawn from the modern European philosophy. You just need to stop using Zaki Naik as the primary source of information.
PS: i would be interested in having a debate with you off this forum perhaps on YM! would you agree.
Sure choose a topic of Conversation that you and I differ in.