Alright,okay Let me refute them.
1)Complexity and Design exists in the universe,just saying we have a System that is complex,does not negate a creator,Math equations can be complex,but someone made those math Equations out of his mind.
I tell every atheist,to grab some sand and throw it on the ground,see if it makes a human figure
2)The Quran is preserved tho,We have the oldest copies saying the Quran is preserved. as for inconsistencies,prove it,thats an assertion.
Now not only that,most of the Qurans historical narrative has been proven true,like the person who was the leader of Constructions under Pharoah.
And the last points are arguments from Ignorance,I mean just because there are too many religious books,doesnt mean all of them are false,infact it raises a chance of one of them being true because there are so many,as for them being false is unlikely because people must've witnessed something.
3)This argument is stupid,because God cannot be physical,if God is in the physical framework then that means its not a creator anymore,and is a creation,like Spaghetti monsters and Unicorns,all these have been proven to be created,and God has never been proven to be created,infact he's most likely eternal and existing
The spaghetti monster and Unicorn claim Infact this claim is so stupid,heres a refutation by a Christian
The “Flying Spaghetti Monster” is the creation of angry atheists. They created this idea as a means to mock belief in God. The premise is that belief in the God of the Bible is really about as believable as belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. They have used this ironic and disrespectful idea as an argument against allowing for the teaching of Intelligent Design in schools. Their point is that if we are going to teach design, then we must give equal time to the Christian God and to the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
This argument is really just rhetoric. It ignores the fact that there is plenty of evidence for the God of the Bible. Jesus fulfilled dozens of messianic prophecies. Despite claims to the contrary, the Bible is the most reliable historical record from the ancient world. The evidence for the resurrection of Jesus and for the miracles of Jesus are very strong. To compare belief in the God of the Bible to belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster is to demean the millions of highly educated people who have believed in the Bible because of the evidence that it is inspired. No one believes in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. To equate these is sheer rhetoric, and you should recognize it for what it is. This argument is truly mean and disrespectful and it represents an attempt to use mere rhetoric to manipulatively move from legitimate discussion about the evidence for the reliability of the Bible, for which there is great evidence.
Should design be taught in science classes in the United States? In my opinion, no, because design is not a scientific concept. Design cannot be measured, it cannot be demonstrated by experiment, and it cannot be refuted by experiment. I am totally convinced that the evidence from science points unequivocally toward the idea that the universe is designed, but design is not a scientific theory, so it probably belongs in a philosophy class or a religion class. It can be mentioned in science classes, but it is not strictly science.
However, to invoke the Flying Spaghetti Monster as an argument against Christianity or as a reason to not teach design is mere rhetoric and really is not even an argument at all. It is an embarrassment that atheists use this argument, but I suppose they will have to speak for themselves on why they use it.
So, the reason you have trouble following this argument is that there is no argument to follow. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is a mere rhetorical tool and it is not the basis for any actual rational argument. It is evidence of bad behavior on the part of non-believers, not that you are having trouble understanding it!
5)These Subjective arguments are barely used by any Muslims,We use Probablistic reasoning to prove God,not Miracles and Prayers,and afcourse Prayer wont be proven by Science,prayer is something out of the reach of science,it depends on consciousness and the reaction of the Brain, Science cant even study the brain indepth,let alone the prayer..
