I will accept any evidence that is coherent, objectively and scientifically verifiable. When I talked about God wrestling I was referring to Bible (old testament) but I guess you are only concerned about Quran. The incidence of Jacaob wrestling with God is mentioned in (Genisis)"  "It is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared." The sun rose above him as he passed Peniel, and he was limping because of his hip. (Genesis 32:24-31).

 

Here is another instance where Abraham was supposedly talking to God and even then was not fully convinced of his powers. I would be more than satisfied if God talks to me but Abraham was not. Was he a skeptic?

 

So prophet Abraham thought how this man will be resurrected, because the substance of his body became part of the bodies of those animals and dispersed. So he asked God as in the Quran 2: 260

 

I don't know what to say if you are still into childish stories of angels, heaven and hell. May be I can try to make it simple for you. May be Russell's celestial teapot would help.

 

Russell wrote:

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

 

Statements about Gods, angels, heaven and hell, all fall in the above category.

 

Now coming to you argument from design. Our design is better explained through evolution. I admit there are some gaps in our understanding but still it explains a lot. Again, its wrong to point to god anytime we don't have any natural explanation. A supernatural explanation is no explanation at all.

 

First of all the (cause-effect) only occurs in time and since time itself was a product of Big Bang, its meaningless in scientific terms to talk about cause at all. That's where scientific inquiry ends .Since its the most reliable method available, any explanation has to be scientific to be meaningful.

 

Now metaphysically we can argue about "Agent causation". Let me begin by admitting that metaphysics creates more questions than answers and I don't see any good coming out of it. Its good only for linguistics. People employ the first cause argument and use it as a Taxi to get to the desired end but do not care what happen to the Taxi after that. If this universe has a cause, because its so amazingly tuned, so complicated then it follows that the cause has to be at least as complex and complicated as the effect (universe) or how can it be the creator of the effect it produce. Right?

How can this all powerful, all-good, all -knowing, cause (God)  came into existence.? It was the original premise that complexity and design requires a creator therefore now we need a creator for this creator(god) or how can be explain the existence of his all powerful and complex mind AND if this creator(God)  do not need a creator and is his own cause then why cannot the universe which is less complex than this creator (God) has its own cause, at least we know that the universe exist. If God doesn’t need a designer, you are exempting from the premise that all things that show evidence of functional complexity need a designer and God certainly needs functional complexity, or he could not design anything. That’s called circular reasoning. What you’re doing is simply assuming what you wish to be true by saying, "Well God is off the hook before I start my argument proving that there’s a God." That’s begging the question and that’s bad logic. Where do you decide to draw your line?

 

Another from of arguments know as "incoherent arguments". I remember Ms Farzana bringing it up sometimes back and this sort of reasoning was not welcomed so I will keep it brief.

 

1.  We need to define God to be sure what we are talking about. If we define God, what we are actually doing, is putting limits. When we define something we put limits on it. A God with limits is no god at all. Its a self-contradictory concept, no matter how you define it.

 

2. A God, somehow exist out the time (atemporal) and at the same time can think and do things which require time (temporal). Logically he cannot do both.

 

I can go on and on as there are many self-contradictory attributes of God but i guess its of no use to a believer who has already made up his mind.

 

At the end let me assure you that I am not trying to ridicule anyones faith. Pursuit of knowledge is very dear to me and I would never make fun out of it. The best I can do is show you the right path, I cannot force you to walk on it. PLEASE PROVIDE YOUR EVIDENCE.

Be well

Zafar