You fail to understand the argument. It's about weighing the evidence fairly, and modern science doesn't do that.
Ironic, really, coming from someone who makes up his own evidence and misrepresents modern science. Let's see where you've "weighed the evidence fairly", shall we? First, you claim that it's a prevalent theory in science that the universe is a computer simulation, for which you have produced in evidence
one scientist who has addressed the question, not of whether such a theory is correct, but how one might address determining whether it's correct. Second, you've asserted that Mohammed conquered the entire Middle East within his lifetime; by any conventional definition of "the Middle East" this is simply untrue. Third, you've claimed that the above constitutes "evidence for Islam," whatever that means; you've clearly stated that you don't mean that this is evidence for Islamic scientific theories (again, whatever the hell
those are) yet at the same time claimed that this evidence suggests that Islam should be taken more seriously than multiverse and computer simulation theories as a Theory of Everything, thus contradicting your own premise. So your evidence, in these three instances, is respectively insignificant, false and, according to your own assertion, irrelevant.
Quite clearly, your claim that modern science doesn't weigh the evidence fairly is no more than a petulant whine that people don't accept everything you say and choose you as their master, as you've specifically suggested they should. But with a showing like this, it's hard to imagine anything you could be a master
of; certainly not of the fair weighing of evidence.
Dave
