It was a question of interpretation i believe: "Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet"
Four legs, plus legs above the feet (interpretated as not helping propel, therefore the difference between feet and leg).
Insects were also visible at that time. So people could count aswell.

In one of the gospels, don`t know where exactly, it says to follow the path that only points to God. Why were some books not included? Probably because they stayed away from talking about Jesus and what His message was. Not to forget that some were recently discovered.

See, you got proof in front of you yet you dismiss them. What if 50.000 people witnessed a miracle in the sky? Would that change things for you?

The temptation only serves one purpose: to take people away from God. Whatever the shape or form, that`s the sole purpose.
It was not God´s words that started anything, it was the devil`s desire to destroy Job`s faith and hurt God, that started it all. As in real life.

jesus christ

1. OK. 

2.  You're making that up.  There was one all about Jesus' childhood.  They got left out due to the opinions of the people in power in the church at that time ... fallible men. 

3.  You have a very different standard of "proof".  If 50,000 people saw it, surely one of them recorded it on a camera so we can all see the evidence.  I would give it more weight with the testimony AND the video. 

4.  Clearly I'm not going to sway you to the evident fact that God as described in Job is needlessly cruel. 

I hadn't heard of it, but I know the concept already. I don't quite see how you're inferring your third statement, though. How is an axiom true if it cannot be proven to be so (okay, I just contradicted the definition of an axiom, but whatever)? It's just an assumption if it can't be proven, isn't it? Also, doesn't saying that rather destroy this thread? That something is true when it can't be proven... I think you can see the contradiction between that statement and the OP. I personally agree that taking the existence of a God or gods as an axiom is utterly ridiculous, but that's just an opinion. Also, while this is irrelevant, I'd argue that maths is actually more secure than physics. Physics, in most cases, has more to do with the real world (like your example of gravity), which just throws plenty more assumptions into the mix. You do realize, though, that we're sitting on a useless argument if we discuss what's "more true"? If I just want to be rotten, I can ask you how things are said to be more proven than others and who decides this based on what reasoning which has what qualifications to play a role like this in deciding such important matters. And then I can throw you a few more whys and wherefores until you get sick of arguing.

Also, when I was talking about math, I meant the completely nonsensical abstract stuff (like the fourth spatial dimension, an obsession of mine). It doesn't matter whether it can be proven as long as it's confined within the logic concocted by my mind and owes no explanation to any questioning soul.

I'm not seeing a whole lot of substantiated proof here people. just a lot of arguing about physics and the validity of modern Science. Talk about epic redirect.

Anyone have any proof of a god?

Well I did basically ask you how someone with no education or literacy like Mohammad was able to create  the koran but you basically dismissed historical documents, text books, college education, etc. basically just to say "hey histroy is wrong, don't believe it, I am right." So I guess most of us won't really know how to argue with that "No Matter what you say, I am right" attitude. At least Kantor admitted he did not know how to argue againt my point but actually dismissing another entire educational division just to try to prove your own point???

No, you made claims but failed to back it up, which I took to mean you were getting your 'proof' from heresay.  Nowhere in any of your posts do I recall seeing a link to proof.  I didn't see any citations, no references, and nothing to back up your claim.  

I can claim my IQ is 224, and SAY that I have all the proof in the world, but that doesn't mean a thing if I don't provide documentation to support that fact.  (Note: I do not have an IQ of 224, if I did I'd have much better things to do than argue a moot point on a forum).  

http://www.cyberistan.org/islamic/muhammad.html

i guess this is a decent source. The part where it says "On this first appearance, Gabriel (as) said to Muhammad: "Iqraa," meaning Read or Recite. Muhammad replied, "I cannot read," as he had not received any formal education and did not know how to read or write."

My history textbook also touched on the matter but I no longer possess since I graduated the class last year.

I happily concede that you have provided documentation, but I'm not even remotely sure how that proves anything.  So one dude was able to do something extraordinary that by all means he shouldn't have been able to do...I've seen videos of people using Telekinesis on psywheels...I've seen a lot of situations where people did things they couldn't, but that doesn't prove god's existence, all it 'proves' is that something happened that we cannot understand. We can't just start filling in the blanks with the most conveneient answers, that's not how the scientific method works.  

Additionally, literacy was not as basic to education back then as it is today. You could be somewhat educated without being literate, and also he could have been able to read a little but not enough to read the kind of thing the angel was asking him to, etc.