That's wonderful. Likewise, I believe the Universe does not have a beginning, nor is dependent upon another.
So does Stephen Hawking, probably the best-respected physicist of our time, along with hundreds of other physicists.
So where does that leave us? It seems like your argument for God only works if you mis-characterize what atheists and physicists are saying about the origin of the universe and go from there.
kool, so let's get this straight. You believe that this universe is eternal, and its just by coincidence that the universe formed in harmony - with order prevailing instead of chaos (surprising isn't it?), and furthermore this order is in such a state that it is able to produce life in such a way that scientists themselves are unable to do the same, but wait - let's look at the possibility of life coming into existence without the aid of control - the concept of abiogenesis;
An average-sized protein molecule composed of 288 amino acids, and contains twelve different types of amino acids can be arranged in 10300 different ways. (This is an astronomically huge number, consisting of 1 followed by 300 zeros.) Of all these possible sequences, only one forms the desired protein molecule. The rest of them are amino-acid chains that are either totally useless or else potentially harmful to living things.
In other words, the probability of the formation of only one protein molecule is "1 in 10 to the power 300" [300 zeros after it!] . The probability of this "1" to occur is practically nil. (In practice, probabilities smaller than 1 over 10 to the power of 50 [50 zeros after it] are thought of as "zero probability"). So imagine 300 zeros after it, its more impossible than impossible itself.
Furthermore, a protein molecule of 288 amino acids is a rather modest one compared with some giant protein molecules consisting of thousands of amino acids. When we apply similar probability calculations to these giant protein molecules, we see that even the word "impossible" is insufficient to describe the true situation.
When we proceed one step further in the evolutionary scheme of life, we observe that one single protein means nothing by itself. One of the smallest bacteria ever discovered, Mycoplasma hominis H39, contains 600 "types" of proteins. In this case, we would have to repeat the probability calculations we have made above for one protein for each of these 600 different types of proteins. The result beggars even the concept of impossibility.
Please don't quote me Miller, because his own teacher says the following (Miller himself later admitted his environment was false and not accurate);
Harold Urey (an evolutionist scientist who performed the Miller Experiment together with his student Stanley Miller):
All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We all believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that its complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did.
W. R. Bird, The Origin of Species Revisited, Nashville: Thomas Nelson Co. , 1991, p. 325.
By "prove" do you mean "quote from the prophet's loyal followers"?
Because that's easy.
If you can't answer me as to why Prophet Muhammad claimed Prophethood, then maybe this question is easier; Why did his followers choose to follow him when they knew they would be expelled from their households, tortured, rejected and even killed by following him? While knowing that they have no worldly benefit in doing so?
If you say they were ignorant and therefore easily believed in him, then is someone so gullible really willing to go through so much sacrifices? And further on - be teachers for mankind, for the most advanced civilization in the world? You know that many of these companions later on became governors of the great Persia [former Sassanid empire], Syria [former byzantine power], within just a few years after Prophet Muhammad's death right? Just as he had promised them. If he was false in his Prophecies, then why did they believe his claim and actually achieve it?
No, this is not what I said.
I said it is conceivable that all prophets are just after fame and/or power.
I then asked how Muslims differentiate between such prophets and "true" prophets like their own.
So far, I haven't seen a single argument for Muhammad being a "true prophet" that could not also be applied to Joseph Smith, L. Ron Hubbard, or any other "prophet" we both accept as phony. You and your fellow Muslims continually quote from Muhammad's followers who extoll his virtue and sacrifice—as if Joseph Smith and L. Ron Hubbard don't have similar followers who similarly extoll their virtues and sacrifices.
This is really a small example of the general problem with religious apologists. Any argument you make for your religion, by the same logic, can be made for almost any other religion. Any argument you make against rival religions can usually be made against your own religion, using the same logic. The arguments "for" tend to be based on hearsay, non-objective witnesses (like the gospel and hadith authors), and poor arguments about vague prophecies and pseudoscience, and so aren't really logical at all.
As far as prophets go, almost every religious tradition is based on some guy who ran off into a cave or a desert alone and then came back claiming to have spoken to a deity, and then proceeded to round up worshipful followers and occasionally make war on his skeptics and detractors. One wonders why such people are the only ones deities ever bother to speak to.
Well if the points so simple, then why can't you tell me - what was Muhammad after by claiming Prophethood? Is that too much to ask? I don't care about the points people have made generally about 'Prophets' whether the person claiming it is true or false. Since i know that there are many lies, so since I'm a Muslim, I want you to explain to me what Muhammad (peace be upon him) was after in his claim for Prophethood?
If you can answer that, maybe we can go further in the discussion.
Just to make a few relevant points;
1) He never wanted people to overpraise him, he would tell the people to call him "the slave and Messenger of God." and not to exaggerate in his praise like the christians did to Jesus son of Mary (peace be upon him.) He also said [translation of the meaning;]
"Beware of exaggerated praise for it was only this which led those before you to destruction" (As Saheehah/Authentic of Al Albaanee #1283) So he wasn't after praise and fame.
2) He lived and died poor, even after being the leader of arabia (the arabs became Muslim willingly during his lifetime), with only a few silver coins in his house before his death. That's because he spent his wealth on the needy all the time. So he wasn't after wealth. If you say he wanted to be the leader of arabia for fame, then why didn't he accept their offer during Makkah instead of facing hardship in Medinah [for 10 long years] later anyway? Surely a person wanting kingdom wants it quick.
3) He could get married to any woman he wanted in Arabia, but he married many widows. The only one being virgin was Aisha. So he wasn't after women. Otherwise he could choose the most beautiful ones, and no-one would argue. But he still never.
What was Muhammad (peace be upon him) after by claiming Prophethood?
