Huh? I don't believe in anything that isn't proven or has an abundance of evidence for it.

If you don't understand something, let me know, don't simply say "oh you're irrational".

I'm not being remotely irrational. I said the principle you identified - causality is something that only exists within the constraints of our Universe, not before it - not outside it (if outside exists). 

Again, no evidence for 3 or 4. You are being irrational. Not me. 

I thought I explained why God is not a creation -_-. If God was a creation and the creator of God had a creator and so on we would not have existed since the Gods would be busy creating Gods so we would not exist. also if there is more than one God they would fight on who would have power over what so what would be the reason for a God to create a God? does this make sense to you?

let me know so I can explain the other point

I'm sorry, is that supposed to be evidence of a god? That's a philosphical discussion of the eternal existence of a God. Irrelevant. If you have any evidence to support the existence of a God, I'll hear it. I have yet to read any on your end. Not a single shred of evidence. Just endless nonsense and suppositions. Do you have evidence or no?

Do you believe in unicorns? Oh, you don't? Well, then you're arrogant.

If a baby is born in a room without gravity, is it fair for the baby to conclude that gravity does not exist outside that room?

well the evidence is in my text which is the creation of the universe

there is a difference between human made fantasy and the the existence of a creator. there are also human made Gods should I believe in them because they call them Gods? of course not!

Good example with the baby so what makes you believe that God does not exist because you haven't seen him?

Your evidence is a book. Okay...got it. Finally you admit to having no evidence.

I agree, big difference. You seem to be arguing for the former more than the latter. But, even arguing for a Creator - I have shown that causality only applies within the Universe - meaning a Creator is not necessary (or, we cannot logically conclude one is necessary).

The baby I was trying to describe why causality doesn't apply outside/before the universe, but it proved to be a bad example. I just want you to take note that certain things that exist in the room with the baby may or may not exist outside the room. Vice versa works as well, but doesn't really fit the point I was trying to make.

I have no evidence that would lead me to believe in a Creator, that's the only reason. Without evidence, I will not believe in something. I'm not saying it can't be true, just that I do not believe it is true - same with ghosts.

edit: nevermind forget it

let's just agree to disagree

According to whom does the book have things written in it that were not possible to know? And which things in particular?

Like I said, there isn't anything to suggest the need for a creator of the Universe. And I don't have cemented views in regard to how it came to be, they change based upon more reading/hypothesizing.

I do believe in different dimensions because of physical things like black holes for which we've little to no information.

lol you quoted me before I edited it

anyway here is one of the miracles besides the miracle that it has remained the same since it's creation 1400 years ago.

The World would be a better Place without religion.. i am thankfull i live in western europe were you cant get away with being a nutjob defending humanitarian crimes because some ancient book allows them to interpret a message however they want.

what i dont understand is how americans can call their country the land of the free when it is frowned upon to even mention homosexual marriage... yes you all have freedom in the most basic sense (like 95 percent of every freaking country on the planet), but some people have more freedom than others depending on their orientation. but these people then use the biggest scam ever created to suppress those who do not think alike them.. the caucasian christian male still reigns supreme.. in 3rd world countries you can just use : african and muslim instead and you have the same building stones for opression.. good work.

lol. I do that occasionally.

Anyway, I need to do some research before I make a definitive statement in regard to Embryology. But a simple google search turned up Greek physician Galen from AD 150. 

"But let us take the account back again to the first conformation of the animal, and in order to make our account orderly and clear, let us divide the creation of the foetus overall into four periods of time. The first is that in which. as is seen both in abortions and in dissection, the form of the semen prevails (Arabic nutfah). At this time, Hippocrates too, the all-marvelous, does not yet call the conformation of the animal a foetus; as we heard just now in the case of semen voided in the sixth day, he still calls it semen. But when it has been filled with blood (Arabic alaqa), and heart, brain and liver are still unarticulated and unshaped yet have by now a certain solidarity and considerable size, this is the second period; the substance of the foetus has the form of flesh and no longer the form of semen. Accordingly you would find that Hippocrates too no longer calls such a form semen but, as was said, foetus. The third period follows on this, when, as was said, it is possible to see the three ruling parts clearly and a kind of outline, a silhouette, as it were, of all the other parts (Arabic mudghah). You will see the conformation of the three ruling parts more clearly, that of the parts of the stomach more dimly, and much more still, that of the limbs. Later on they form "twigs", as Hippocrates expressed it, indicating by the term their similarity to branches. The fourth and final period is at the stage when all the parts in the limbs have been differentiated; and at this part Hippocrates the marvelous no longer calls the foetus an embryo only, but already a child, too when he says that it jerks and moves as an animal now fully formed (Arabic ‘a new creation’) ...

... The time has come for nature to articulate the organs precisely and to bring all the parts to completion. Thus it caused flesh to grow on and around all the bones, and at the same time ... it made at the ends of the bones ligaments that bind them to each other, and along their entire length it placed around them on all sides thin membranes, called periosteal, on which it caused flesh to grow [19]."

Seems as though this type of embryology already existed, and isn't at all much different from the Qur'an. Like I said though, I need to do more research.