The Virgin Birth

Jesus was a good man. Mo, Sr. was a good man as was Mo, Jr. It`s all the cock n bull and poppycock show n tell stories that spinmasters came up with that dilutes their message. In the old days, if you couldn`t do magic, you were not a holy man of good repute. So that`s why the Gamora Avenue advertising sheiks came up with turning water into wine, raising the dead, parting the sea, making a scherpent out of a schtick, flyin on a white horse all over creation, blowin horns till the walls came down, and havin a baby without getting banged. Either than Gabriel dude was one omnipresent comedian or they were all smoking some bad shit.

#65, *that not than - read that Gabriel dude.

#64, hamidm2, are you totally dumb? This is the third time you have made a post that deracts from the topic. We are discussing virgin birth and you want the cure for cancer? This is totally atrocious? Do you have no sense of decency? You want to disprove Islam or religion or whatever, do it on a forum that discusses that topic~ don`t try to drag this discussion here into absurd directions.

#62 hamidm2 you say, <<< ............anyway, this `be and it is done` logic has been used by islamists and other religious swindlers to explain all kinds of superstitions and foolishness ......... in his book on `islamic science` dr hoodbhoy talks about our religious scholars who want to explain everything using this theory ......... it is a convenient and lazy way of explaining away things that are hard to fathom >>>

Since the ``be and it is`` part, is part of the discussion regarding the virgin birth, I will entertain your gibberish here. First Hoodbuoy is totally dumb when it comes to understanding religion and science- his example of science is, ``if you jump out the window, you`ll hit the ground``- that is not science, that might be the effect of gravity. Science is first and foremost, a methodology, a way to do research to get to the truth. You can use that methodology in any field, including religion.

That said, I told you to read all the posts before you make your dumb assertions, read #1 again. The ``be and it is`` part is a scientific fact, without that this world would neither have managed to become real, not would the day to day affairs of the world manage to assume any concrete reality. As a physicist, Hoodbuoy either knows this and deliberately hides it or is being totally incompetent (which would explain the sorry state of education in Pakistan).

I wrote as part of post #1, <<< Not so, according to the ``Copenhagen`` approach to quantum systems, objects are ``real`` ONLY when an act of observation by an observer ``collapses the wave function`` granting the system into one or the other of its potential states- that makes God`s function into the day to day affairs of the universe, ``the BE`` a scientific fact, unless you can find me someone else who is observing everyting and collapsing their wave functions? Find me someone who is doing that universally? There can be NO other explanation. >>>

Now hamidm2, give it up man. You come up with these missiles that you randomly fire at Islam in order to disprove it and your missiles fail like Saddam`s scuds, yet you keep firing those old, worn out, missiles one after the other. Even Saddam gave up his trust in scuds after a while shouldn`t you?

Re: # 68

sorry, call me dumb, but i have absolutely no idea what you are talking about ..... all this collapsing wave stuff is beyond me - do you mind explaining it in plain english ?......... it seems to me that this is typical of the attempts by religious zealots to obfuscate and confuse by using highfalutin scientifc jargon to diguise the hollowness of their silly arguments ......... this my friend, is real gibberish !

...... all i am saying is that it in not possible for a woman to get pregnant without having sex, even if it is with god...... and that is that .......... i will buy your argument about in-vitro fertilization if you can produce the petri dish from bethlehem ........... be and it is, indeed!

masadi #68,

``......that makes God`s function into the day to day affairs of the universe, ``the BE`` a scientific fact, unless you can find me someone else who is observing everyting and collapsing their wave functions? Find me someone who is doing that universally? There can be NO other explanation.``

Actually, this argument leads to the exact opposite conclusion. It is human observations that are collapsing all the wave functions. Humans have never found a wave function that was already collapsed because some other entity had observed it.

For potential states to become real, the act of observation by an observer is necessary. Who was doing the observing when the universe came to be or who observes today as potential states are transformed into universe-wide reality? Comprendey?

I cannot help you if you deny established scientific explanations my friend, neither can I help you if you deny the obvious

``I will turn away from My signs those who are proud in the earth without justice; and if they see every sign they (still) do not believe in it; and if they see the way of rectitude they do not take it for a way, and if they see the way of error, they take it for a way; this is because they rejected Our signs and were heedless of them.``
(Quran 7:146)

Re #71.

What becomes real by an act of observation is not only the current state of the particle but it`s entire history. It`s meaningless to talk about the existence of the particle before it is observed by anyone.

I know of no scientist who would agree with your interpretation that `someone` was observing the particle before it was currently observed.

#73, the universe has a history before humanity came to be- a fact. Just because you don`t know of any scientist does not mean they dont exist, check the references at http://www.rationalreality.com and linked articles.

oh, now i get it ! .......... it is that old tree falling in the forest thingy ........

masadi mian, unless and untill a human being observes it, verifies it and writes it down in his/her little notebook it doesn`t matter if the tree fell with or without making a noise ............ so unless god, the father, has some human witnesses who can vouch that he did not have sexual relations with that woman it is hard for us to believe that god, the son, is the result of some scientific miracle ........... look, if it hadn`t been for the blue dress all those people in the blue states would still believe that old bill clinton was a saint - if poor monica had to present evidence we cannot let mary off the hook this easy ........... it is just not fair ......

Re#74,

But the history only becomes real after human observation. There is no need to invoke a supernatural being.

#75 and #76, don`t be absurd, that ``history`` you talk about predated humanity and we are talking about a conscious act of observation not a ``supernatural``- whatever the hell you mean by that- being

Re #77,

If you think your view is such an established fact, why haven`t all the scientists become theists. Surely, they must have other interpretations.

Btw, your assertion that a particle has objective history before observation is disproved by the ``Delayed-choice double slit experiment`` . Please check it out.

masadi,

...... can you explain what all this has to do with christ`s paternity ?....... i read your post #1 and found it to be totally irrelevant ......... call me dense, but i need an explanation, not yet another obfuscation ........

......... just because mary said ``no man has touched me`` doesn`t make it true - remember zohra fauna who had presidents and sheiks fooled with a recording of the azan coming in from between her thighs !!!! ........ and that was in the late sixties ...... now imagine how stupid people must have been two thousand years ago - even you could have sold them this wave theory nonsense ........... but i still don`t get what you are trying to say and i am a pretty smart guy (god created me in his own image)