> The existence of God is a given. Science does nothing to prove or disprove His existence and probably never will. That completely depends on what you defin

> The existence of God is a given. Science does nothing to prove or disprove His existence and probably never will. That completely depends on what you define "God" to be. If you define "God" to be the being named as such described in the Quran then scientific knowledge most definitely contradicts with that. Yes, I was referring to God as described in the Qur'an, but He's not described as a "being" and He's not really "defined" at all because He's beyond definition. The nearest thing you get to a definition is: "God is greater". The Qur'an is probably most explicit about this but the theme is current in all Abrahamic religions. The Holy Trinity, for example, is a deliberate paradox. I think part of what makes these discussions hard is that the nature of God is misunderstood. If you think that current scientific knowledge contradicts the existence of God then I think you are one of those who misunderstand. What experiment can possibly be performed to determine the existence of a presence that has no measurable attributes? I don't see how physics is going to get us there. Neuroscience might insomuch as we might determine the nature of our perception of God, but I doubt even this would resolve anything. For example, if we discovered that belief in God is due to a chemical imbalance in the brain, atheists would say that it proves that belief is just a freak of evolution, whilst monotheists would claim that freaks of evolution, like everything else, are God's creation and a part of His purpose. The problem is that the "What is it actually that the creation myth is trying to tell us?" is a textbook begging the question fallacy. The same fallacy that underlies all of the pseudoscience done under the theology umbrella. It is the wrong question to ask. Critical thinkers (which is a superset of scientists) should instead ponder the question "is the creation myth trying to tell us something in the first place?" Why not ponder both? I personally have no issue with this. Unfortunately, pondering that question is dangerous and answering it with "no" implies apostasy under nearly all religions...(and the threat of death from Islam) I take your point here. Personally I think this is more about societal control than about Islamic teaching, mostly because the verse that provides justification for death for apostasy just makes no sense when read out of context (at least I don't get it). It is important to realise that many of the Qur'anic texts are referring to specific groups of people in a particular time and place. If you try to interpret them without that context you'll find yourself at best mislead and at worst tied in a tangle of contradictions. With all that said, it's pretty obvious that this is one of the first wildcards that is reached for whenever someone wants a good slaughter. Around the world currently, Moslems are using it as a way to justify killing other Moslems. That said, you can find justification for genocide and oppression everywhere, and not just limited to the religious. You should read what Darwin had to say about Negros sometime. It makes uncomfortable reading, and it was all backed by science.