I try to reply to various statements.
Hasib and abd_ar_Rahmaan:
I can give you no proof about this picture. But wouldn't you agree that a typical muslim stoning punishment could look like this?
I can give you links to various videos where stoneing scenes are shown and where the stone throwers scream "Allah", but the videos are extremly brutal and bloody and I don't know if it is allowed in this forum to link to them.
To make it clear: I'm against death penalty in all forms. I'm against execution squads in China and against the electric chair or gas chamber in the USA. But this is an Islamic forum and so I ask about stoning
Islam Forever, about scientific prooves for Allah.
Your first link was to a foum posting in which you said (I think this was the essence):
"If something is limited and finite, and does not have the power to be self-subsistent then it must have been created. "
There is no need for a creator form a scientifical point of view:
1) "Big Bang": Scientists have this theory, but they can't proove it like other scientific theories. Science assumes that the laws of nature were formed in the beginning of the BB, so there is no way for science to really show why and how the BB happened. This also means that you can't come to any scientific conclusion about a creator with the BB theory.
In short form: if we can't explain the very beginning of BB, then we can't use BB to explain the need for a creator from a scientific point of view. So you can't use science to connect the beginning of our universe with a creator.
(You are free to use other explanaitions for the need of a creator, but BB can't be used)
2) "Living things are needy and dependant and so must have been created":
Well now we come to the point where atheists usually earn hatred from all kind of religious people:
Living objects are made of matter with certain attributes, like dead objects are made of matter with certain attributes. But from a physical point of view there is no fundamental difference between the natural laws that govern dead objects like a stone and living objects like a human being.
Living objects consume matter and change their state and after a while they change to a form that we call death. During this process energy is changed from one state to another state and entropy is growing and after billions of years the entropy will be so great that living object will no longer be able to keep up their structure that makes them living regardless how hard they try, in fact the more they try the faster entropy will grow.
All life will end.
You may think that there is some kind of perfect process in which we humans are surviving, but the reality is that everything we do makes entropy bigger and will lead ultimatly to the end of not only life, but of every "ordered" structure in the universe.
Yes we are needy and dependant, and this will lead to the ultimate end of all life. There is absolutly NO evidence of a creator that stops entropy and would allow life to continue forever.
Entropy is no proof against a creator, but I would say it is a strong evidence that there is currently no higher being that controls this universe to make sure that humankind will survive forever.
You also linked to another book. I hadn't time to read it all, but I read one chapter that made me a little bit angry, I would even say that the author is dishonest. Read chapter 3, please, about physics and atoms.
First he describes how ancient greeks had a theory about atoms and that you could not split atoms. Then he describes that modern science has found out that you CAN split atoms.
But what is the truth: The greek Democritus made a theory that everything is made of small indivisible things, he called these things atoms.
Then scientists in the 18th century came and made theories and used his WORD atom to describe their theories, because they thought they had identified the smallest things. Then more research was done and it was found out that there are even smaller things than atoms, and they were called electrons, neutrons and protons and so on and today we assume that the smallest things are quarks and leptons.
Now does that mean that Democritus was wrong? No, we still assume that there are smallest particles, where there are no smaller things. That means the atomic theory of Democritus is still correct in this aspect that there are particles that are indivisible. The atomic theory of Democritus was very wrong in other aspects, but that is not the point here.
Wrong were the scientists of the 18th century who used the word atom, because they tought he had identified the smallest, indivisible things.
The author of the book now continues that in the Quran is has been written early that there are smaller things than atoms and that modern science has prooven that and that would show the divine nature of the Quran.
That is very, very wrong: at the time of writing of the Quran the meaning of the word atom was smallest indivisible thing. So it would be simply wrong if the Quran stated that there was a smaller particle than this ORIGINAL atom.
It doesn't matter that the scientists of the 18th century used the word atom in a wrong way, as the Quran was already written by that time and so it can only be compared with the original meaning of the word atom: indivisible thing.
But this theory, that there are smallest, indivisible elements, is still uphold by science. If at all then it would only show that the Quran is CONTRADICTING modern particle physics.