Truth

[Supreme]

Hiya;

From my experience and individual research, I have come to the conclusion that no single religion is 'the truth'. Why on Earth do I have Christian as my way of life as opposed to agnosticism, then? Well, from my experience, Christianity may not be the truth, but it is, in my opinion the closest thing to truth. Nevertheless, I do believe that other religions posit some degree of truth (albeit not on the same degree as Christianity), and I view these religions as an equally valid way of life- I appreciate the concept of monotheism as seen in other religions such as Islam, Judaism and Zoroastrianism; I admire the obsession to defend all things sacred that is present in Islam; and I believe there is a lot of truth as found in the teachings of Buddhism, as well.

Now, my point is this: do you believe that Islam (or whatever faith you're a part of) is the total truth? If so, how can you explain the division within your faith? The numerous interpretations of holy texts which may mean something is compulsory or may make it acceptable under certain circumstances? I know Islam places a lot of trust in scholars to make interpretations of the Quran for them, much like Catholics believe the Pope recieves divine instructions from the One and Only. And even then, lots of religions place a great deal of emphasis on authoritarianism- submission to a divine authority and the authority's instructions, irregardless of how inane those instructions may sound in a rational context. How can so many authoritarian religions, all claiming to be the truth, reflect the decisions of a supreme diety? If one religion tells you to submit to God by eating meat and the other asks you to refrain from eating meat to gain God's favour, then something has gone wrong with regard to that truth.

[Hugo]

From my experience and individual research, I have come to the conclusion that no single religion is 'the truth'. Why on Earth do I have Christian as my way of life as opposed to agnosticism, then? Well, from my experience, Christianity may not be the truth, but it is, in my opinion the closest thing to truth. Nevertheless, I do believe that other religions posit some degree of truth (albeit not on the same degree as Christianity), and I view these religions as an equally valid way of life- I appreciate the concept of monotheism as seen in other religions such as Islam, Judaism and Zoroastrianism; I admire the obsession to defend all things sacred that is present in Islam; and I believe there is a lot of truth as found in the teachings of Buddhism, as well.

Now, my point is this: do you believe that Islam (or whatever faith you're a part of) is the total truth? If so, how can you explain the division within your faith? The numerous interpretations of holy texts which may mean something is compulsory or may make it acceptable under certain circumstances? I know Islam places a lot of trust in scholars to make interpretations of the Quran for them, much like Catholics believe the Pope recieves divine instructions from the One and Only. And even then, lots of religions place a great deal of emphasis on authoritarianism- submission to a divine authority and the authority's instructions, irregardless of how inane those instructions may sound in a rational context. How can so many authoritarian religions, all claiming to be the truth, reflect the decisions of a supreme diety? If one religion tells you to submit to God by eating meat and the other asks you to refrain from eating meat to gain God's favour, then something has gone wrong with regard to that truth.

I see this account is disabled but the idea of truth is worth pursuing. We know there is a difficulty with faith and reason because in the one case there can be no material evidence, no test we can make and in the other the opposite. For example, if someone tells me there are BEARS and EVIL SPIRITS in the forest overlooking my home then my reason tells me that I will know it when I see a bear and so if I see a bear the conjecture is confirmed and no one in the world would suggest that I am a bit loony for accepting that there may be bears in the forest near me. On the other hand I have no idea what an evil spirit looks like and no one can tell either so I have no way of testing the premiss that there are evil spirits there - I cannot show it not to be true and I cannot show it to be false and neither can anyone else. Many would laugh at me for even considering the conjecture but others would be upset that I don't accept a tenet of their faith even though they cannot provide material proofs either.

That is in a way is the dilemma over truth and it's an issue over faith and reason

[muslim787]

The truth is out there and plain for us Muslims to see. Any religion which states it is the truth should show its scripture can be traced all the way back to the prophet who relayed the message. In my opinion The Noble Qur'an and authentic Hadiths show Islam is the only religion to be able to do this.

All the prophets were given Miracles by Allah's leave- Moses pbuh was given the ability to part the sea, obtaining water from a rock, powerful magic etc. Jesus pbuh- the ability to raise the dead, speak as an infant etca. Muhammad pbuh performed miracles with food & water, but his most important miracle was the Qur'an itself and unlike the other miracles given to the prophets, we can actually marvel at this miracle to this very day.

Thousands of Christians each year revert to Islam after examining the truth for themselves.

[Hugo]

The truth is out there and plain for us Muslims to see. Any religion which states it is the truth should show its scripture can be traced all the way back to the prophet who relayed the message. In my opinion The Noble Qur'an and authentic Hadiths show Islam is the only religion to be able to do this.

I am glad you said your opinion. Anyone can claim that what they have is a religion and argue it is therefore the truth but any such argument cannot be rational since it appeals to the supernatural and that is beyond any test we might make. Of course one can invent a test as you have done to show it is true but I can invent another test and show it is false. From a rational point of view tracing a message/book back to its source only proves that person was its author. The book of Mormon can be traced to Joseph Smith so on you criteria its also must be the truth. Similarly, many Biblical books can be traced to an author so ipso facto they also are truth. If I write a book and claim it is a revelation that must also be truth.

All the prophets were given Miracles by Allah's leave- Moses pbuh was given the ability to part the sea, obtaining water from a rock, powerful magic etc. Jesus pbuh- the ability to raise the dead, speak as an infant etca. Muhammad pbuh performed miracles with food & water, but his most important miracle was the Qur'an itself and unlike the other miracles given to the prophets, we can actually marvel at this miracle to this very day.

Again you are claiming the supernatural and it is not possible to test any of these claims - we can collect eye witness reports of course as in the Biblical cases but because such events are not 'normal' we can choose to ignore them. You can of course regard the Qu'ran as a miracle but there is no reason why I must and just as you might invent test or reasons to prove your conjecture I can find test and reasons to reject it.

Thousands of Christians each year revert to Islam after examining the truth for themselves.

You may well be right but I don't know any but by the same token there are thousands of Muslims who have come to reject Islam absolutely and there are plenty of books that record their stories and numerous website created by them to record their testimonials.

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[جوري]

you can only invalidate your personal persuasions of the above.. Indeed it all comes down to which set of beliefs are more believable .. those that cater both to the heart and mind, transcend time and place, offer spiritual guidance as well a complete foolproof system. Only Islam has so offered and continues to do so and as such, there is no question as to why it is the fastest growing religion in spite of desperate attempts of the naysayers.. whereas surprisingly Christianity continues to experience a yearly drop in its adherents. The more people are able to search, reason and understand, the more they see Christianity as a failing collection of fairy tales that defy logic.. which again takes us to the original point, of which set of beliefs are more believable!

8:8 That He might justify Truth and prove Falsehood false, distasteful though it be to those in guilt.

17:81] And say: "Truth has (now) arrived, and Falsehood perished: for Falsehood is (by its nature) bound to perish."

[Hugo]

you can only invalidate your personal persuasions of the above.. Indeed it all comes down to which set of beliefs are more believable .. those that cater both to the heart and mind, transcend time and place, offer spiritual guidance as well a complete foolproof system. Only Islam has so offered and continues to do so and as such, there is no question as to why it is the fastest growing religion in spite of desperate attempts of the naysayers.. whereas surprisingly Christianity continues to experience a yearly drop in its adherents. The more people are able to search, reason and understand, the more they see Christianity as a failing collection of fairy tales that defy logic.. which again takes us to the original point, of which set of beliefs are more believable!

One cannot validate or invalidate what many people believe, that is what this thread is saying because such things cannot be falsified. One can rationally try to decide if one faith offers a better package but nothing more. All that you can say is that you think Islam is better and I can decide it is nonsense on stilts though we may very well agree on some moral principles and it does not require supernatural intervention to do that.

One might look at beliefs for reasonableness so let us look at some: Mohammed has his heart removed and washed with snow, a women in Heaven brings light and perfume to such an extent it is better than the whole world, in Sura 2 we have Allah striking Moses with lightening and then reviving him just so that Moses would thank him for it, asking God what colour a cow should be then slaughtering it and striking a dead body with it, Ja'far bin Abi Talib was said to be generous and to prove it we have a story of him giving an empty container for someone to lick etc.

Job 21:34 "So how can you [convince] me with your nonsense? Nothing is left of your answers but falsehood!

[جوري]

One cannot validate or invalidate what many people believe, that is what this thread is saying because such things cannot be falsified. One can rationally try to decide if one faith offers a better package but nothing more. All that you can say is that you think Islam is better and I can decide it is nonsense on stilts though we may very well agree on some moral principles and it does not require supernatural intervention to do that.

Sure one can merely say so and so is better, but to make the better manifest one merely needs to see a full implementation and decide.. which is better-- you can definitely argue that the dark ages of Christianity are better the same way a shady dealer sells you damaged goods. The ignorant have much to say and much to require but the people of knowledge know of truth when it is manifest to them in clear signs!

2:118 Say those without knowledge: "Why speaketh not Allah unto us? Or why cometh not unto us a Sign?" So said the people before them words of similar import. Their hearts are alike. We have indeed made clear the Signs unto any people who hold firmly to Faith (in their hearts).

One might look at beliefs for reasonableness so let us look at some: Mohammed has his heart removed and washed with snow, a women in Heaven brings light and perfume to such an extent it is better than the whole world, in Sura 2 we have Allah striking Moses with lightening and then reviving him just so that Moses would thank him for it, asking God what colour a cow should be then slaughtering it and striking a dead body with it, Ja'far bin Abi Talib was said to be generous and to prove it we have a story of him giving an empty container for someone to lick etc.

None of those descriptions are where the tenet of the religion lies or what Islam is about-- that differs completely from the religion being based on the death of god and his manifestation unto his nemesis to abrogate his commandments that is if we can actually trace said things as having been said by this god considering the discrepancies of passages, chronological and illogical errors, that if imposed upon itself for witness fails to exonerate itself from the falsehood that has consumed it .. again, most reflective folks are able to pick out what speaks to their heart without having them draw a complete shade over their mind-- that which is manifest from God, and that which your forefathers concocted or concealed!

6:91 No just estimate of Allah do they make when they say: "Nothing doth Allah send down to man (by way of revelation)": say: "Who then sent down the Book which Musa brought? a light and guidance to man: but ye make it into (separate) sheets for show, while ye conceal much (of its contents): therein were ye taught that which ye knew not, neither ye nor your fathers." Say: "Allah (sent it down)": then leave them to plunge in vain discourse and trifling.

Job 21:34 "So how can you [convince] me with your nonsense? Nothing is left of your answers but falsehood!

6:68 When thou seest men engaged in vain discourse about Our Signs, turn away from them unless they turn to a different theme. If Satan ever makes thee forget, then after recollection, sit not thou in the company of those who do wrong.



good luck with all of that!

[Hugo]

2:118 Say those without knowledge: "Why speaketh not Allah unto us? Or why cometh not unto us a Sign?" So said the people before them words of similar import. Their hearts are alike. We have indeed made clear the Signs unto any people who hold firmly to Faith (in their hearts).

But surely if Islam is true it would have no flaws anywhere - it would be like a chain where if one link fails then the whole things collapses. You speak of knowledge but you only accept what is in Islam and do that blindly, well you cannot do anything else because nothing can be proved. I gave examples of what to most rational minds would be utter nonsense but you ignored all of them so are you interested in truth or not?

[Zafran]

It confuses me when a christian is telling a muslim that he or she is using blind faith?

[جوري]

But surely if Islam is true it would have no flaws anywhere - it would be like a chain where if one link fails then the whole things collapses. You speak of knowledge but you only accept what is in Islam and do that blindly, well you cannot do anything else because nothing can be proved. I gave examples of what to most rational minds would be utter nonsense but you ignored all of them so are you interested in truth or not?

I have found no flaws in the Quran, and no else has, so I don't see how any of us can be considered to be following blindly?-- what you consider a 'flaw' it no more than putting full faith in the divine writ equally for the parts that we can't prove as to the parts that are beyond the human scope!

all the best

[Hugo]

It confuses me when a christian is telling a muslim that he or she is using blind faith?

If one talks about the supernatural then one is blind. But the point about being blind is not that we cannot use our intellect and consider a given case and in that sense lend our faith support but its when we without question accept everything no matter what it is - do you see the difference and why you and I differ in our outlook?

[Zafran]

If one talks about the supernatural then one is blind. But the point about being blind is not that we cannot use our intellect and consider a given case and in that sense lend our faith support but its when we without question accept everything no matter what it is - do you see the difference and why you and I differ in our outlook?

what do you mean the difference? whats the different outlook. All knowledge has foundations in belief or trust anyway - if that is rigrously tested and still stands then its a very sound/ rational belief.

[Hugo]

I have found no flaws in the Quran, and no else has, so I don't see how any of us can be considered to be following blindly?-- what you consider a 'flaw' it no more than putting full faith in the divine writ equally for the parts that we can't prove as to the parts that are beyond the human scope!

I have no issue with you saying this but can you even accept that others have found flaws so you assertion is not based on fact? For example, I find it a flaw that the Qu'ran does not match the Biblical accounts, the impossibility of God writing in eternity that one can marry your adopted sons ex wife. You may not see them as flaws but the fact is others do and that is why we differ, you cannot even let yourself see the possibility, you don't have to accept it but you cannot even contemplate it - like the chain, you fear that the whole things will collapse around your ears.

[Zafran]

I find it a flaw that the Qu'ran does not match the Biblical accounts, the impossibility of God writing in eternity that one can marry your adopted sons ex wife.

I find this a very odd criteria indeed - because it wont work - in your own biblical accounts you have seriously immoral things taking place (by great men). Marrying the sons ex wife is not immoral - if she is divorced and wants to marry then there realy is nothing wrong with it unlike Lot and the daughters or Jesus pbuh and suicide. Even in christain theology thats immoral yet you accept it as gracious.

[Hugo]

what do you mean the difference? whats the different outlook. All knowledge has foundations in belief or trust anyway - if that is rigrously tested and still stands then its a very sound/ rational belief.

No it does not. I don't have to trust or believe the law of gravity because it does not matter at all what I think it will still apply to me. On the other hand if you say Mohammed's heart was removed and washed with snow I can take it or leave it and oblivious it cannot be rigorously tested in any way I can think of. Similarly, if you say the Qu'ran is the very word of God I can totally ignore it and there is no laboratory in the world who can rigorously test that claim because in technical terms it cannot be falsified and it is outside of rationality.

[aadil77]

I have no issue with you saying this but can you even accept that others have found flaws so you assertion is not based on fact? For example, I find it a flaw that the Qu'ran does not match the Biblical accounts, the impossibility of God writing in eternity that one can marry your adopted sons ex wife. You may not see them as flaws but the fact is others do and that is why we differ, you cannot even let yourself see the possibility, you don't have to accept it but you cannot even contemplate it - like the chain, you fear that the whole things will collapse around your ears.

LOL thats a first,

Can you not see how desperate your attempts at finding 'flaws' in the Quran have become? Now you've resulting to spouting out pure nonsense - nonsense that not even the stupidest people would come out with, your little crusades against islam are going no where

there comes a time that when you're in a hole you stop digging

[Zafran]

No it does not. I don't have to trust or believe the law of gravity because it does not matter at all what I think it will still apply to me. On the other hand if you say Mohammed's heart was removed and washed with snow I can take it or leave it and oblivious it cannot be rigorously tested in any way I can think of. Similarly, if you say the Qu'ran is the very word of God I can totally ignore it and there is no laboratory in the world who can rigorously test that claim because in technical terms it cannot be falsified and it is outside of rationality.

It can be rigrously tested by simply asking who actually wrote it - are the people trustworthy or are they not. If its Muttawir or ahad - if it has abroken chain or not - its like history. Unless the person is an extreme sceptic and doesnt believe in anything at all.

the law of gravity also requires belief as well. There is a problem of induction - so its the best guess work we have. Doesnt mean that its an absolute.

[Hugo]

I find this a very odd criteria indeed - because it wont work - in your own biblical accounts you have seriously immoral things taking place (by great men). Marrying the sons ex wife is not immoral - if she is divorced and wants to marry then there realy is nothing wrong with it unlike Lot and the daughters or Jesus pbuh and suicide. Even in christain theology thats immoral yet you accept it as gracious.

Excellent you just prove my point by inventing other criteria and so we can go on ad infinitum because there will never be a test we can agree on. You also miss the point, I am not arguing that marrying your adopted sons ex wide is immoral but arguing that it is a very very odd command for God to have made before time began if you see the Qu'ran as eternal. Again you invent a criteria that say the biblical accounts are corrupted because great men are shown in a bad light but I argue that those stories are a proof that the Bible is true because if anyone wanted to fiddle with the record they would not put those in. Can you see this there is no way to show whose criteria are right

[Hugo]

It can be rigrously tested by simply asking who actually wrote it - are the people trustworthy or are they not. If its Muttawir or ahad - if it has abroken chain or not - its like history. Unless the person is an extreme sceptic and doesnt eblieve in anything at all. the law of gravity also requires belief as well.

Gravity does NOT require belief because if you walk off a cliff you will fall down no matter what you belief or how sceptical you are - laws of nature are like that you cannot avoid them. If there is an unbroken chain all it proves is that some person said something it does not make what they said true or from God.

[Zafran]

Gravity does NOT require belief because if you walk off a cliff you will fall down no matter what you belief or how sceptical you are - laws of nature are like that you cannot avoid them. If there is an unbroken chain all it proves is that some person said something it does not make what they said true or from God.

It Does require belief how do we know the same test that we did in the past is going to give us the same results in the future - here you have the law of gravity? Its guess work. Read the problem of induction, David Hume talks about it.

The unbroken chain does tell us alot if you can actually link it to the prophet muhammad pbuh and his miracles or meeting angles, then if the transmission is trustworthy then there is a high probabilty of being true expecially if its mashur or muttawatir. Its hows that many people actually saw it.

[Zafran]

Excellent you just prove my point by inventing other criteria and so we can go on ad infinitum because there will never be a test we can agree on. You also miss the point, I am not arguing that marrying your adopted sons ex wide is immoral but arguing that it is a very very odd command for God to have made before time began if you see the Qu'ran as eternal. Again you invent a criteria that say the biblical accounts are corrupted because great men are shown in a bad light but I argue that those stories are a proof that the Bible is true because if anyone wanted to fiddle with the record they would not put those in. Can you see this there is no way to show whose criteria are right

No there is a difference the Quran is not a speech that came down in one time but a speech that can down throughout Muhammad pbuh prophetic life which was actually talking about issues that were happening in the best of generations life time.

I wasnt making an agrument why the biblical accounts were corrupted - but its odd how a christain can decide what is odd in the Quran and not when god inspired the OT writers to write about immoarl acts in great detail or the suicide of christ or God for that matter?

There is if we take isand of the biblical account and see how far it goes? and how strong it actually is?

[جوري]

I have no issue with you saying this but can you even accept that others have found flaws so you assertion is not based on fact? For example, I find it a flaw that the Qu'ran does not match the Biblical accounts, the impossibility of God writing in eternity that one can marry your adopted sons ex wife. You may not see them as flaws but the fact is others do and that is why we differ, you cannot even let yourself see the possibility, you don't have to accept it but you cannot even contemplate it - like the chain, you fear that the whole things will collapse around your ears.

Well the bible doesn't match itself, so if I were going purely on that Quran doesn't match the bible, you'd still defeat your purpose for your passages are at odds with one another, and your prophecies have failed, as if God couldn't predict accurately, you'll be in a real dilemma. The bible also doesn't match the previous scriptures either, for instance Jews don't believe in men gods that die, so Christianity is monolithic in such a regard, and this further invalidates the other arguments you have on the side, that being that the Quran copied from the bible, you can't really copy another book and have it come out so different? I don't accept words at face value..'others have found flaws' sounds like a failing student telling the teacher, I really studied!

your house is made of straws, you'll always find yourself struggling against the most basic common sense!

all the best

[M.I.A.]

Hiya;

From my experience and individual research, I have come to the conclusion that no single religion is 'the truth'. Why on Earth do I have Christian as my way of life as opposed to agnosticism, then? Well, from my experience, Christianity may not be the truth, but it is, in my opinion the closest thing to truth. Nevertheless, I do believe that other religions posit some degree of truth (albeit not on the same degree as Christianity), and I view these religions as an equally valid way of life- I appreciate the concept of monotheism as seen in other religions such as Islam, Judaism and Zoroastrianism; I admire the obsession to defend all things sacred that is present in Islam; and I believe there is a lot of truth as found in the teachings of Buddhism, as well.

Now, my point is this: do you believe that Islam (or whatever faith you're a part of) is the total truth? If so, how can you explain the division within your faith? The numerous interpretations of holy texts which may mean something is compulsory or may make it acceptable under certain circumstances? I know Islam places a lot of trust in scholars to make interpretations of the Quran for them, much like Catholics believe the Pope recieves divine instructions from the One and Only. And even then, lots of religions place a great deal of emphasis on authoritarianism- submission to a divine authority and the authority's instructions, irregardless of how inane those instructions may sound in a rational context. How can so many authoritarian religions, all claiming to be the truth, reflect the decisions of a supreme diety? If one religion tells you to submit to God by eating meat and the other asks you to refrain from eating meat to gain God's favour, then something has gone wrong with regard to that truth.

islam is the complete truth, if people have different interpretations of it than that is due to the differences in individuals, there knowlage, understanding, motives and ultimately the paths on which they have been set by god.

i believe its been said that there have been no people that have not had guidance sent to them and in this way you can probably justify most of the religions in existance today, although the message and ways they convey today are probably not the same as when the first person started out on there jurney.
i cant justify the following of any other religion other than islam due to my understanding of people, although i agree there is probably truth in all religions although the words that are perfectly preserved and unchanged can only be attributed to the quran.
unfortunately you are lucky to have the divinly inspired pope to look towards for guidance and leadership and we as muslims only have the divine words of the quran to lead us.

in a rational context i couldnt understand most of the things i read, i often have to think about them constantly and when i have formed an oppinion on a matter it only takes a moment for me to reconsider and ponder even more carefully...understanding and knowlage are not a perfected art.
everybody claims to be the truth and correct in there religion, it is the only way to success...after all would you follow somebody with nothing to show for there actions? nothing to show for there beliefs? would you follow somebody that can show you no measurable reward? but as you said there is a supreme diety and we can all agree that his will is always done.

[Grace Seeker]

islam is the complete truth, if people have different interpretations of it than that is due to the differences in individuals, there knowlage, understanding, motives and ultimately the paths on which they have been set by god.

Thanks MIA for getting us back on topic. As I read the OP, the thread is NOT a discussion of the Qur'an, but the manner by which we adopt the view that certain things are in fact to be accepted as being true (or not true).

The key question for me was: "Do you believe that Islam (or whatever faith you're a part of) is the total truth? If so, how can you explain the division within your faith?"

Since I am not a follower of Islam, I'm going to address the "whatever faith you're a part of" part of the question as regarding Christianity (which we all recognize as having many divisions).

With MIA I agree that primarily divisions are simply due to the differences in individuals, their knowledge and understanding. But I don't think that this means that just because there are divisions that it follows that they imply the absence of truth in one or more of those divisions. Some divisions can indeed be differentiated based on the categories of True and False. But not all. Some divisions are based on preferences that have nothing to do with what is or is not true. For instance, I was asked a question about baptism in my church the other day. The questioner prefers baptism by immersion. I happen to prefer it as well, but I (along with my particular denomination) still recognize the validity of other forms of baptism. I reject the idea that there is one and only one true or valid form of baptism. This does not mean that I would agree that all baptisms would be valid, but the "trueness" (if that is a word) of baptism is not so narrowly defined as to be limited to one and only one proscribed form or formula.

If I might use an analogy. Purple is a color. The grass is definitely not purple. Nor is milk. But while normally I would say the sky is blue, there are times right around sunset when it turns purple, and not just one shade but many different shades. So, as purple is a color. Some might suggest that it is particular color, such as I have set for the background color for the skin of this forum. But purple is also a whole range of shades of color. Is there one and only one color purple? Some might say YES. They define it using some spectral guide and try to call all the other shades by different names: lavender, violet, or indigo. But in my book they are all purple. And while I think that there are some things that are definitely not Christian, that there are divisions within Christianity does not necessarily mean that those division prove anything to be not true anymore than spectral analysis can prove something to be not purple -- sometimes it isn't purple and sometimes it isn't Christian, but often we are just dealing with shades that all properly fit under the same larger umbrella.

[Seeker1066]

Excellent you just prove my point by inventing other criteria and so we can go on ad infinitum because there will never be a test we can agree on. You also miss the point, I am not arguing that marrying your adopted sons ex wide is immoral but arguing that it is a very very odd command for God to have made before time began if you see the Qu'ran as eternal. Again you invent a criteria that say the biblical accounts are corrupted because great men are shown in a bad light but I argue that those stories are a proof that the Bible is true because if anyone wanted to fiddle with the record they would not put those in. Can you see this there is no way to show whose criteria are right

Your own Logic could be thus used to validate the Qu'ran. Why send forth parts of the Qu'ran that man does not fully understand if it wasn't indeed the truth. You seem to imply a scientific test for scripture. No scripture can withstand such a test because the Divine is not repeatable in a test tube. Man indeed must use reason that was given him by God. He must search the truth and he than makes a decision of faith. There is a reson that none of the Big three religions advocate forced conversion. Man was intended by God to hear search and decide. His faith is just that a usage of his faith.

Peace to all

[M.I.A.]

Thanks MIA for getting us back on topic. As I read the OP, the thread is NOT a discussion of the Qur'an, but the manner by which we adopt the view that certain things are in fact to be accepted as being true (or not true).

The key question for me was: "Do you believe that Islam (or whatever faith you're a part of) is the total truth? If so, how can you explain the division within your faith?"

Since I am not a follower of Islam, I'm going to address the "whatever faith you're a part of" part of the question as regarding Christianity (which we all recognize as having many divisions).

With MIA I agree that primarily divisions are simply due to the differences in individuals, their knowledge and understanding. But I don't think that this means that just because there are divisions that it follows that they imply the absence of truth in one or more of those divisions. Some divisions can indeed be differentiated based on the categories of True and False. But not all. Some divisions are based on preferences that have nothing to do with what is or is not true. For instance, I was asked a question about baptism in my church the other day. The questioner prefers baptism by immersion. I happen to prefer it as well, but I (along with my particular denomination) still recognize the validity of other forms of baptism. I reject the idea that there is one and only one true or valid form of baptism. This does not mean that I would agree that all baptisms would be valid, but the "trueness" (if that is a word) of baptism is not so narrowly defined as to be limited to one and only one proscribed form or formula.

If I might use an analogy. Purple is a color. The grass is definitely not purple. Nor is milk. But while normally I would say the sky is blue, there are times right around sunset when it turns purple, and not just one shade but many different shades. So, as purple is a color. Some might suggest that it is particular color, such as I have set for the background color for the skin of this forum. But purple is also a whole range of shades of color. Is there one and only one color purple? Some might say YES. They define it using some spectral guide and try to call all the other shades by different names: lavender, violet, or indigo. But in my book they are all purple. And while I think that there are some things that are definitely not Christian, that there are divisions within Christianity does not necessarily mean that those division prove anything to be not true anymore than spectral analysis can prove something to be not purple -- sometimes it isn't purple and sometimes it isn't Christian, but often we are just dealing with shades that all properly fit under the same larger umbrella.

on division, its not implied that something is false because it is different from something else but what was the importance of the thing in the first place!(dont lose sight of that)
lets take your example of baptism which i do not know the background of but i am assuming you know. when baptisms were first carried out i suppose the conditions were not always constant and even if they were as soon as another person is appointed to preform them there are changes unless every manner is copied to the exact....and even then there are changes as no matter how hard we try to emulate something perfectly we cannot. the only time they become constant is when an orgonisational structure is achieved within the religion...established places of worship....anything that happens after that are just the vanities of the people and dilution of a message....not on purpose but it just happens that way.

sure i like your purple analogy its like how the inuit have about 400 words for snow and green in zulu lol(wikipedia may not be the most accurate source) its not devision is it its more like the importance of a thing to a people. hardly anything can be put into black or white simply because those that could make such a distinction were sent by god! peace and blessings be upon them, the best we can do is try to emulate them in there teachings, messages sent to everyman for everyman.

[Grace Seeker]

Speaking of divisions, are there any divisions in Islam in which Muslims hold that the other person is a true Muslim, but that nonetheless they have some incorrect beliefs?

[Sister Unknown]

Speaking of divisions, are there any divisions in Islam in which Muslims hold that the other person is a true Muslim, but that nonetheless they have some incorrect beliefs?

That's for Allah to decide. None of us know who is a "true" Muslim. Do you know your future. About divisions anyways, scholars agreed on 70% of Islam. They differed in minor 30% it is permitted to differ in (like how to turn a pan when you're cooking). But teh consensus of scholars agreed on the basics (doctrine) and fundamentals everyone msut adopt. In general, all Muslims belong to the fold of Islam, all sects. But their believs do not. ANd theier disbelief is examined depending on their individual case.

[Grace Seeker]

In general, all Muslims belong to the fold of Islam, all sects. But their believs do not.

I'm confused by these two statements, especially the highlighted part. Please, can you say it again a different way?

[جوري]

I'm confused by these two statements, especially the highlighted part. Please, can you say it again a different way?

who is astray and who isn't, only God knows the heart of his creation!

all the best

[Sister Unknown]

Disregard them please. It's a long topic.

[Hugo]

It Does require belief how do we know the same test that we did in the past is going to give us the same results in the future - here you have the law of gravity? Its guess work. Read the problem of induction, David Hume talks about it. The unbroken chain does tell us alot if you can actually link it to the prophet muhammad pbuh and his miracles or meeting angles, then if the transmission is trustworthy then there is a high probabilty of being true expecially if its mashur or muttawatir. Its hows that many people actually saw it.

We know we get the same results in the future because we can do the tests again and get the same result and gravity applies to everything there are not exceptions. You are muddled over induction because with gravity we have a solid theory that can be tested time and time again in any laboratory anywhere.

I see you are agreeing that the Qu'ran is only probably true. This thing you miss is that any test you suggest for the authority of the Qu'ran we must be able to apply it to any book any revelation. So if you say as you do here that Mohammed was truthful then I must be able to apply the same rule to any one, so according to your theory if someone is known to be truthful and they say that God spoke to them then we MUST believe it - you would not accept that about any book other than the Qu'ran would you - ipso facto it is not an acceptable test?

[Zafran]

We know we get the same results in the future because we can do the tests again and get the same result and gravity applies to everything there are not exceptions. You are muddled over induction because with gravity we have a solid theory that can be tested time and time again in any laboratory anywhere.

I see you are agreeing that the Qu'ran is only probably true. This thing you miss is that any test you suggest for the authority of the Qu'ran we must be able to apply it to any book any revelation. So if you say as you do here that Mohammed was truthful then I must be able to apply the same rule to any one, so according to your theory if someone is known to be truthful and they say that God spoke to them then we MUST believe it - you would not accept that about any book other than the Qu'ran would you - ipso facto it is not an acceptable test?

How do you know that the results are going to be the same in the future - its like asking how do you know if the sun will rise tommorrow just because the sun has risen in the past? we just dont know that it will rise tommorrow - its high probablity that it will rise but not absolute. This applies with any law including the law of gravity. Its the best guess work we have at this moment in time, as there is always a chance that the law of gravity just might not work in the future. It still a belief as humans we dont know the future.

If you can prove it at muttawttair chain then lets see the results with the other religions. Why dont you give an examples if the others can live up to it? If they can not live up to it then its a sound basis to reject it.

[syed_z]

The key question for me was: "Do you believe that Islam (or whatever faith you're a part of) is the total truth? If so, how can you explain the division within your faith?"

Since I am not a follower of Islam, I'm going to address the "whatever faith you're a part of" part of the question as regarding Christianity (which we all recognize as having many divisions).

@Sister Unknown ... Salaam hope your doing fine...

That's for Allah to decide. None of us know who is a "true" Muslim. Do you know your future. About divisions anyways, scholars agreed on 70% of Islam. They differed in minor 30% it is permitted to differ in (like how to turn a pan when you're cooking). But teh consensus of scholars agreed on the basics (doctrine) and fundamentals everyone msut adopt. In general, all Muslims belong to the fold of Islam, all sects. But their believs do not. ANd theier disbelief is examined depending on their individual case.

Actually Sister the difference in Islam is much much lesser than 30%.... the differences among the Muslims are like almost 5%...

Most of the Knowledge of Islam to be found in the Quran and Sunnah, all the Verses and Injunctions in the 2 Prime sources of Knowledge in Islam, 95% of them relate to the Social, Political, Legal, Economic principles..... only the rest 5% relate to other matters, such as Ritual Worship.... and it is THIS 5% which Muslim Schools of Thoughts have differences on, and these are Highlighted in the Media or by Politicians as Huge Differences, so to achieve their own aims ....



@Grace Seeker...

Differences within Christianity and Islam are completely different... In Islam our Unchanged word of God, i.e Quran is a central Unifying Instrument, that Unites us Muslims even though there might be some minor differences in regards to rituals or words of Prophet Muhammad.... but in Christianity, your Unifying Instrument could be the Bible, but unfortunately there is NOT 1... The Bible is not as it was.....There are Hundreds of Bibles and not one, Whose Bible ? Whose Translation ? Whose Interpretation ? Infact this was one of the Prime Reason what caused the Separation of the Church from the State in Modern Europe and USA.....

Since the Bible did not have One Interpretions and many experts interpretating in their own ways , which was also the reason of theocracy in Christian Europe, i.e Priestly Class making decisions and interpreting words of Bible and giving edicts as if they were Divine Words of God, is what made the West run away and seek refuge in Secularism.... the Instrument which is supposed to Unify, became the Major cause of Division in Europe and if it would not have been for Secularism, Europe would have ended up in fighting and wars even up till today....


Like you said about Baptism...

For instance, I was asked a question about baptism in my church the other day. The questioner prefers baptism by immersion. I happen to prefer it as well, but I (along with my particular denomination) still recognize the validity of other forms of baptism. I reject the idea that there is one and only one true or valid form of baptism. This does not mean that I would agree that all baptisms would be valid, but the "trueness" (if that is a word) of baptism is not so narrowly defined as to be limited to one and only one proscribed form or formula.

Let me ask whose way of Baptism would you follow ? Jesus ? John ? how could you have the minute details of their Life when even your own bible is not preserved up till today in the Orginial Language it was revealed ? There are Hundreds of them.... if you were to make your own way of practicing Baptism, then wouldn't this be an Innovation ? Something being added to something which was not meant to be part of... such leads towards misguidance...

For us our Orders are in Quran, which is still preserved and Prophet Muhammad's Sunnah (Way , Practice) is saved even up till today , through the Science of Hadith, to the minutest details... the Only person in the History, whose life practices are saved by his nation in such a way, that such example is not to be found of any other person in the History of Mankind...

The Agreed points of Muslims are ignored, while the minor rituals on which they differ, are highlighted...

[Sister Unknown]

Actually Sister the difference in Islam is much much lesser than 30%.... the differences among the Muslims are like almost 5%...

Most of the Knowledge of Islam to be found in the Quran and Sunnah, all the Verses and Injunctions in the 2 Prime sources of Knowledge in Islam, 95% of them relate to the Social, Political, Legal, Economic principles..... only the rest 5% relate to other matters, such as Ritual Worship.... and it is THIS 5% which Muslim Schools of Thoughts have differences on, and these are Highlighted in the Media or by Politicians as Huge Differences, so to achieve their own aims ....

Brother, allow me to make something clear to you.

T=you read the following verse and open your eyes wide open: “Never will the Jews nor the Christians be pleased with you (O Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم) till you follow their religion. Say: ‘Verily, the Guidance of Allaah (i.e. Islamic Monotheism) that is the (only) Guidance. And if you (O Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم) were to follow their (Jews and Christians) desires after what you have received of Knowledge (i.e. the Qur’aan), then you would have against Allaah neither any Wali (protector or guardian) nor any helper’”

[al-Baqarah 2:120].

It teaches such a lesson to me, brother. What makes you think that I would listen to any smart alec over the computer? Althought I am to be gentle with the believers, but I am firm on my belief (SALAFIYYAH). Go find other doubters to argue with.


According to who? Whose lecture, brother?

[syed_z]

Brother, allow me to make something clear to you.

T=you read the following verse and open your eyes wide open: “Never will the Jews nor the Christians be pleased with you (O Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم) till you follow their religion. Say: ‘Verily, the Guidance of Allaah (i.e. Islamic Monotheism) that is the (only) Guidance. And if you (O Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم) were to follow their (Jews and Christians) desires after what you have received of Knowledge (i.e. the Qur’aan), then you would have against Allaah neither any Wali (protector or guardian) nor any helper’”

[al-Baqarah 2:120].

It teaches such a lesson to me, brother. What makes you think that I would listen to any smart alec over the computer? Althought I am to be gentle with the believers, but I am firm on my belief (SALAFIYYAH). Go find other doubters to argue with.


According to who? Whose lecture, brother?

I thought we were all Muslims Sister... Believe in Allah and His Messenger (saw) :) ... but thats ok if you want to follow which ever school of thought you may, up to you... a Salafi will come and say I am the right one.... while in Hanafis, the followers of Imam Abu Hanifa , who can be further divided in to two more groups in Indo Pak Sub continent, South Asia, the Deobandis and Barelavis.... the Deobandis would say We are the right ones... the Barelawis will say 'Its us who are right' ... while both quote from the same Quran and Same Books of Sunnah, i.e BUkhari and Muslim and other Authentic Hadith Collections.... its funny sister why would you even try to stear the flow of coversation to the divisive 5% , by claiming Salafiyya, while ignoring the 95% part of commin ground among the Muslims.... ....If a Muslim corrects the other brother/sister, and tries to help them does NOT mean that they are arguing... and when did i say that you are a Doubter ? Could you please point out in my conversation where did i say such ?

So you asked me...

According to who? Whose lecture, brother?

Lets see whether the 5% is more important or the 95% is more important .... Quran and Sunnah is not the Private Property of ONLY the Ulemas and the Muslims are also allowed by the Quran, rather are encouraged to ponder and study Islam, and NOT form their own opinion unless they have learned most of Islamic Sciences, so i don't have just one lecture that i can show you to prove my point.... but throughout the course of my research on Islam i have come across many articles and lectures given by scholars of Islam, which show how the division part is so less and so little, that it isn't even worth speaking of....


We can take the example of the 4 Schools of Thought Among the Majority of Muslims and see whether their Differences are exaggerated or are of no value to be raised as issues... ? The 4 Schools of Thought are Hanafi, Shahafi, Maliki and Hanbali... Is there any differences among them in regards to ...

Articles of Faith ? Pillars of Islam ? Women Role in the Society ? Moral Values ? Sources of Law ? The Role of Government ? The Relationship between the Individual and the Society ? The meaning of Good and Evil ? The definition of Right and Wrong ?

Are there any differences among the above ? If there are please prove.... i am sure that there is not even any difference Salafiyya would have with the above mentioned articles , with the 4 School of Thoughts or their Sub groups... ?

The above Are Central Issues when comes to play part in establishing an Islamic Society or Islamic State... yet it has always been the minor issues of the way of Worship or movements of the body while worshipping or the Red or Green Color being worn by the Sheikhs of these groups and sub groups which has become the major 'issues' and has become the bases of all causes of division, which has led towards the failure to establish an Islamic Society on Earth among the billion strong Muslim Ummah....

They are ignored while the petty issues are raised ! Lets see fruther....

The Education system with Quran as the Centre of all learning, which builts the God Consciousness inside a Child, the Historical facts studied and learned in the Society should be used as not only to learn and know Historical facts, but also learn the Way of Allah in making rise and fall of nations....

Reformation of Media so as to be used to inform people of facts and truth and not be used as Instrument by some members of the Society for their means of making money only, there should be Islamic Morality..... An Economic System based on Justice and pure from all kinds of exploitation, specially the Riba (Interest) based economic System....


Which 4 school of Thought would have differences in implementation of the above mentioned all ? Or would Salfiyya have ? I am Pretty Sure Praise be to Allah, no knowledgeable Muslim, whether Ulema or no would have any disagreement with the implementation of the above....EXCEPT the Corrupt Muslim Regimes and so called "Islamic" Governments who use differences to achieve Political aims in Middle East and throughout the Muslim World....





Now About the Insignificant amount of Differences which do exist among the Schools of Thought in Muslim World



There is an Authentic Hadith ... Muhammad (saw) said "The differences of opinion (ikhtilaf) among the learned men of my community are an (outcome of) Divine Grace (Rahma)."

And so the Divine Grace can be clearly seen in the differences of Opinion, if we analyse just by looking at one ruling on break up of Wudu (Ablution before Prayer) because of bleeding. The Shahafi School of Thought say that bleeding has not nullified the ablution while Hanafi School of thought say the person must perform Wudu again as it is nullified. And so the fruit of difference of opinion can be seen, by A Muslim choosing which ruling is better and easy for him/her, without being forced the other. And the Ijtihad (Ruling) of Imam Shahafi CANNOT be said to be wrong by a follower of Imam Abu Hanifa (Hanafi) as Imam Shahafi (R.a) was also a great Mujtahid and his Ijtihad is as valid as Imam Abu Hanifa's. So the differences are also a Mercy, HOWEVER they turn in to fighting and blood sheds when the Ijtihad of Imam Shahafi becomes not only unacceptable but also declared 'Haraam (Illegal)' by a group or sub group of another Muslim School of Thought... the Problem occurs when the differences are over stated...this intolerance, then leads towards dissensions and eventually blood shed among the Muslims.... this is what we MUST avoid on our personal level...


Whenever there is an Intellect and Honesty there will always be differences of Opinion. Complete consensus can never be because it is our Human nature to have differences as time goes by we Muslims will also according to our Human Nature have differences of opinion, and so we can understand that it was actually a Mercy of Allah (Swt) to make us known in the Words of His Messenger (saw), that He made permissible the differences and called them Mercy, so we would have flexibility BUT at the same time, without crossing Limits (Hudood) of Allah , of Haraam (illegal) and Halaal (legal).

Salaam..

[Hugo]

How do you know that the results are going to be the same in the future - its like asking how do you know if the sun will rise tommorrow just because the sun has risen in the past? we just dont know that it will rise tommorrow - its high probablity that it will rise but not absolute. This applies with any law including the law of gravity. Its the best guess work we have at this moment in time, as there is always a chance that the law of gravity just might not work in the future. It still a belief as humans we dont know the future.

This is just nonsense, we know about gravity and the way planets and suns work and we have this knowledge through observation and experiment. As Scotty in Star Trek used to say "captain, you canna change the laws of nature". The very idea that say Ohms law or Archimedes principle will stop working is preposterous rubbish. You are confusing induction with deduction. With induction the idea is that we argue "more of the same" so if we toss a fair coin 30 times and it comes down heads each time in your mind the next one is bound to be heads also or a high probability. But the point is that previous occurrences do not assure us of the next or even increase our confidence.

So if we take the so called proofs for the Qu'ran then they are all inductive and like all inductive arguments circular. So you say the Qu'ran is syntactically perfect so must have been written by God because if God writes anything it will be syntactically perfect. This is just induction so no amount of such proofs of conjectures will make the idea that the Qu'ran is God word true and worse than that you cherry pick; ONLY consider inductive arguments that move in one direction. You CANNOT even consider negative arguments but logically they are just as valid. For example, I could argue that if God wrote something it would be entirely new, nothing in it would or could be found elsewhere or argue that since Mohammed's revelation was an entirely private affair it is hearsay and I can go on like this with dozens of other conjectures that prove the Qu'ran is not the word of God.

If you can prove it at muttawttair chain then lets see the results with the other religions. Why dont you give an examples if the others can live up to it? If they can not live up to it then its a sound basis to reject it.

Again you are just missing the point as no one is arguing that one cannot find a chain back to a source and you can regard that chain or several chains as proof of the source. But all it does is confirm what someone said or did and that might be interesting or not. However, when you turn it into absolute truth then you are into blind acceptance propped up by a nonsensical idea that a certain group of people at a certain time were perfect. It seem to me you do not even bother to consider how the end of the chain knows something or whether what is said makes any sense. For example, in another thread we have a hadith where we are told that someone said the woman in heaven wear veils and and cast their perfume over all the world. How could the writer know this and the idea itself is so obviously fable.

[Sister Unknown]

I thought we were all Muslims Sister... Believe in Allah and His Messenger (saw) :) ... but thats ok if you want to follow which ever school of thought you may, up to you... a Salafi will come and say I am the right one.... while in Hanafis, the followers of Imam Abu Hanifa , who can be further divided in to two more groups in Indo Pak Sub continent, South Asia, the Deobandis and Barelavis.... the Deobandis would say We are the right ones... the Barelawis will say 'Its us who are right' ... while both quote from the same Quran and Same Books of Sunnah, i.e BUkhari and Muslim and other Authentic Hadith Collections.... its funny sister why would you even try to stear the flow of coversation to the divisive 5% , by claiming Salafiyya, while ignoring the 95% part of commin ground among the Muslims.... ....If a Muslim corrects the other brother/sister, and tries to help them does NOT mean that they are arguing... and when did i say that you are a Doubter ? Could you please point out in my conversation where did i say such ?

So you asked me...Lets see whether the 5% is more important or the 95% is more important .... Quran and Sunnah is not the Private Property of ONLY the Ulemas and the Muslims are also allowed by the Quran, rather are encouraged to ponder and study Islam, and NOT form their own opinion unless they have learned most of Islamic Sciences, so i don't have just one lecture that i can show you to prove my point.... but throughout the course of my research on Islam i have come across many articles and lectures given by scholars of Islam, which show how the division part is so less and so little, that it isn't even worth speaking of....


We can take the example of the 4 Schools of Thought Among the Majority of Muslims and see whether their Differences are exaggerated or are of no value to be raised as issues... ? The 4 Schools of Thought are Hanafi, Shahafi, Maliki and Hanbali... Is there any differences among them in regards to ...

Articles of Faith ? Pillars of Islam ? Women Role in the Society ? Moral Values ? Sources of Law ? The Role of Government ? The Relationship between the Individual and the Society ? The meaning of Good and Evil ? The definition of Right and Wrong ?

Are there any differences among the above ? If there are please prove.... i am sure that there is not even any difference Salafiyya would have with the above mentioned articles , with the 4 School of Thoughts or their Sub groups... ?

The above Are Central Issues when comes to play part in establishing an Islamic Society or Islamic State... yet it has always been the minor issues of the way of Worship or movements of the body while worshipping or the Red or Green Color being worn by the Sheikhs of these groups and sub groups which has become the major 'issues' and has become the bases of all causes of division, which has led towards the failure to establish an Islamic Society on Earth among the billion strong Muslim Ummah....

They are ignored while the petty issues are raised ! Lets see fruther....

The Education system with Quran as the Centre of all learning, which builts the God Consciousness inside a Child, the Historical facts studied and learned in the Society should be used as not only to learn and know Historical facts, but also learn the Way of Allah in making rise and fall of nations....

Reformation of Media so as to be used to inform people of facts and truth and not be used as Instrument by some members of the Society for their means of making money only, there should be Islamic Morality..... An Economic System based on Justice and pure from all kinds of exploitation, specially the Riba (Interest) based economic System....


Which 4 school of Thought would have differences in implementation of the above mentioned all ? Or would Salfiyya have ? I am Pretty Sure Praise be to Allah, no knowledgeable Muslim, whether Ulema or no would have any disagreement with the implementation of the above....EXCEPT the Corrupt Muslim Regimes and so called "Islamic" Governments who use differences to achieve Political aims in Middle East and throughout the Muslim World....





Now About the Insignificant amount of Differences which do exist among the Schools of Thought in Muslim World



There is an Authentic Hadith ... Muhammad (saw) said "The differences of opinion (ikhtilaf) among the learned men of my community are an (outcome of) Divine Grace (Rahma)."

And so the Divine Grace can be clearly seen in the differences of Opinion, if we analyse just by looking at one ruling on break up of Wudu (Ablution before Prayer) because of bleeding. The Shahafi School of Thought say that bleeding has not nullified the ablution while Hanafi School of thought say the person must perform Wudu again as it is nullified. And so the fruit of difference of opinion can be seen, by A Muslim choosing which ruling is better and easy for him/her, without being forced the other. And the Ijtihad (Ruling) of Imam Shahafi CANNOT be said to be wrong by a follower of Imam Abu Hanifa (Hanafi) as Imam Shahafi (R.a) was also a great Mujtahid and his Ijtihad is as valid as Imam Abu Hanifa's. So the differences are also a Mercy, HOWEVER they turn in to fighting and blood sheds when the Ijtihad of Imam Shahafi becomes not only unacceptable but also declared 'Haraam (Illegal)' by a group or sub group of another Muslim School of Thought... the Problem occurs when the differences are over stated...this intolerance, then leads towards dissensions and eventually blood shed among the Muslims.... this is what we MUST avoid on our personal level...


Whenever there is an Intellect and Honesty there will always be differences of Opinion. Complete consensus can never be because it is our Human nature to have differences as time goes by we Muslims will also according to our Human Nature have differences of opinion, and so we can understand that it was actually a Mercy of Allah (Swt) to make us known in the Words of His Messenger (saw), that He made permissible the differences and called them Mercy, so we would have flexibility BUT at the same time, without crossing Limits (Hudood) of Allah , of Haraam (illegal) and Halaal (legal).

Salaam..

Ay, brother, of course we are all Muslims. I'm not ht eone causing division here by telling everyone the views of all the scholars. I have not read what you have written. But what you have said is wrong. The ulma says that they have differed in 30% only, alhamdullillah.

Not preserve your time as well as mine, and busy yourself with what will benefit you in the hereafet. As for the verse, I quotewd it so you realize that non-Muslims will not be pleased with you even though you tell them false claims.

[syed_z]

So if we take the so called proofs for the Qu'ran then they are all inductive and like all inductive arguments circular. So you say the Qu'ran is syntactically perfect so must have been written by God because if God writes anything it will be syntactically perfect. This is just induction so no amount of such proofs of conjectures will make the idea that the Qu'ran is God word true and worse than that you cherry pick; ONLY consider inductive arguments that move in one direction. You CANNOT even consider negative arguments but logically they are just as valid. For example, I could argue that if God wrote something it would be entirely new, nothing in it would or could be found elsewhere or argue that since Mohammed's revelation was an entirely private affair it is hearsay and I can go on like this with dozens of other conjectures that prove the Qu'ran is not the word of God.

please prove Quran is not the Word of God... prove it... since you cannot , and you WILL fail in doing so... i see that you are just here to make nonsensical arguments with the Muslims and do nothing more, and wasting your time... so prove if you can... however, Bible is NOT the word of God any more... would like me to Prove it , if your not able to prove that Quran is the Word of God ?

[Hugo]

please prove Quran is not the Word of God... prove it... since you cannot , and you WILL fail in doing so... i see that you are just here to make nonsensical arguments with the Muslims and do nothing more, and wasting your time... so prove if you can... however, Bible is NOT the word of God any more... would like me to Prove it , if your not able to prove that Quran is the Word of God ?

I wish you would read the posts and not offer this kind of stuff. I cannot prove that the Qu'ran is or is not the word of God - no one can. Perhaps you know how to do it so can tell me how it might be falsified, I do not know of such a test and neither does anyone else. If you cannot think up a falsification test then it is beyond science and remains so and you can believe it if you wish and I can reject the idea. To begin with you have to prove that God exists and no one has done that yet so we cannot even start. Try to understand that if I say there are fairies at the bottom of my garden then YOU cannot falsify it can you and the so the truth cannot be established.

You have to understand what proof is and it does not look like you do. For example, I could take 1000 different electrical circuits and in every one ohms law would apply without exception so any test you think of must be able to be used in any circuit and will always verify Ohms law. So if you say a proof that the Qu'ran is the word of God is that it is syntactically perfect then I must be able to apply that same test to ANY book and if I find that book syntactically perfect then it also must be the word of God - ispso facto the test is obviously useless.

[Zafran]

This is just nonsense, we know about gravity and the way planets and suns work and we have this knowledge through observation and experiment. As Scotty in Star Trek used to say "captain, you canna change the laws of nature". The very idea that say Ohms law or Archimedes principle will stop working is preposterous rubbish. You are confusing induction with deduction. With induction the idea is that we argue "more of the same" so if we toss a fair coin 30 times and it comes down heads each time in your mind the next one is bound to be heads also or a high probability. But the point is that previous occurrences do not assure us of the next or even increase our confidence.

but how do we know that it will also work in the future - how do you know that the same experiment we did in the past be it a million times is going to give us the same results tommorrow? - we dont - its a high probablity and thats it - its not absolute as there is always a chance that it might not work in the future - it requires belief that all the observations, experiments of the past are going to give us the same results the nex day.

Your calling it rubbish that the "law gravity wont work" thats your belief - which i believe is sound.

So if we take the so called proofs for the Qu'ran then they are all inductive and like all inductive arguments circular. So you say the Qu'ran is syntactically perfect so must have been written by God because if God writes anything it will be syntactically perfect. This is just induction so no amount of such proofs of conjectures will make the idea that the Qu'ran is God word true and worse than that you cherry pick; ONLY consider inductive arguments that move in one direction. You CANNOT even consider negative arguments but logically they are just as valid. For example, I could argue that if God wrote something it would be entirely new, nothing in it would or could be found elsewhere or argue that since Mohammed's revelation was an entirely private affair it is hearsay and I can go on like this with dozens of other conjectures that prove the Qu'ran is not the word of God.

I would say the Quran is the word God and is as clear as night and day - if you cant see that then its your problem. I can consider arguments against the Quran but thats like considering a negative argument against the law of gravity or the archmedes prinicple.

[Hugo]

but how do we know that it will also work in the future - how do you know that the same experiment we did in the past be it a million times is going to give us the same results tommorrow? - we dont - its a high probablity and thats it - its not absolute as there is always a chance that it might not work in the future - it requires belief that all the observations, experiments of the past are going to give us the same results the next day. Your calling it rubbish that the "law gravity wont work" thats your belief - which i believe is sound.

It will work in the future because it is a law of nature there is no probability about it, its is absolute. There is zero evidence for your conjecture that "gravity" might change or might not work and its been around for billions of years. If you take the line that laws of nature can change then there is no common ground on which to demonstrate anything but what is very very odd here is that you are sceptical about laws of nature yet you have no doubts that a man was given revelations is a cave in the Arabian desert.

I would say the Quran is the word God and is as clear as night and day - if you cant see that then its your problem. I can consider arguments against the Quran but thats like considering a negative argument against the law of gravity or the archmedes principle.

This is no argument - 300 years ago there were plenty of people who thought blood letting was a clear as night and day and before that people thought the earth was the centre of everything. That is why we have rational powers and scepticism otherwise we would still be in the dark ages and never move forward. You betray yourself here because you consider arguments for the Qu'ran to be as strong as for gravity yet you are sceptical about the one but not the other - how can that be if one is a honest observer? Any conjecture about gravity can be considered if it can in principles be falsified but I do not know of a single way to falsify the conjecture that the Qu'ran is the word of God so we simply cannot know if it is true or false. You can cook up any number of tests to show it is true and I can invent any number that show it is false. We could even have a pointless competition where we trade conjectures and I show yours don't cut it and you show mine are poor also so we end knowing that no proof is possible.

With faith its not a matter of proof because it will always rest on unprovable conjectures about God and who or what he is. Faith is then a matter of being convinced in some way that what you hear is God speaking and as such you implicitly trust that he exists.

[Zafran]

It will work in the future because it is a law of nature there is no probability about it, its is absolute. There is zero evidence for your conjecture that "gravity" might change or might not work and its been around for billions of years. If you take the line that laws of nature can change then there is no common ground on which to demonstrate anything but what is very very odd here is that you are sceptical about laws of nature yet you have no doubts that a man was given revelations is a cave in the Arabian desert.



This is no argument - 300 years ago there were plenty of people who thought blood letting was a clear as night and day and before that people thought the earth was the centre of everything. That is why we have rational powers and scepticism otherwise we would still be in the dark ages and never move forward. You betray yourself here because you consider arguments for the Qu'ran to be as strong as for gravity yet you are sceptical about the one but not the other - how can that be if one is a honest observer? Any conjecture about gravity can be considered if it can in principles be falsified but I do not know of a single way to falsify the conjecture that the Qu'ran is the word of God so we simply cannot know if it is true or false. You can cook up any number of tests to show it is true and I can invent any number that show it is false. We could even have a pointless competition where we trade conjectures and I show yours don't cut it and you show mine are poor also so we end knowing that no proof is possible.

With faith its not a matter of proof because it will always rest on unprovable conjectures about God and who or what he is. Faith is then a matter of being convinced in some way that what you hear is God speaking and as such you implicitly trust that he exists.

There are a few problems here - I never said I was sceptical about the laws of nature - I just said that they suffer from the problem of induction which shows that they are not absolute. Just because you test them in the past does not make them any more true or false in the future - or even absolute. the job of science has never been to give us absolute answers but the best answers possible. I have no idea where you get the idea of laws of nature are absolute.

As You cannot seem to consider the opposite view that the law of gravity is not absolute how in God's earth do you expect somebody else to consider a negative argument against the Quran! You preach one thing but you do the opposite.

I would like you to re read my post and actually see what I am saying rather then writing things which you believe that I am saying. Like the below

it requires belief that all the observations, experiments of the past are going to give us the same results the next day. Your calling it rubbish that the "law gravity wont work" thats your belief - which i believe is sound.

falsifying something doesnt mean its true or false - Even it suffers from the problem of induction. We need to define what true and false actually is.

With faith its not a matter of proof because it will always rest on unprovable conjectures about God and who or what he is. Faith is then a matter of being convinced in some way that what you hear is God speaking and as such you implicitly trust that he exists.

the same way we have to have faith if the law of gravity is going to work tomorrow.

[M.I.A.]

i would say id rather argue against gravity than the quran... and in all ways it is easier to do so.

i was just talking to somebody about string theory the other day. i guess that the theory of gravity has been made so infallable that string theory cant accomodate, i found this oddly funny.

[syed_z]

I wish you would read the posts and not offer this kind of stuff. I cannot prove that the Qu'ran is or is not the word of God - no one can. Perhaps you know how to do it so can tell me how it might be falsified, I do not know of such a test and neither does anyone else. If you cannot think up a falsification test then it is beyond science and remains so and you can believe it if you wish and I can reject the idea. To begin with you have to prove that God exists and no one has done that yet so we cannot even start. Try to understand that if I say there are fairies at the bottom of my garden then YOU cannot falsify it can you and the so the truth cannot be established.

You have to understand what proof is and it does not look like you do. For example, I could take 1000 different electrical circuits and in every one ohms law would apply without exception so any test you think of must be able to be used in any circuit and will always verify Ohms law. So if you say a proof that the Qu'ran is the word of God is that it is syntactically perfect then I must be able to apply that same test to ANY book and if I find that book syntactically perfect then it also must be the word of God - ispso facto the test is obviously useless.

Since you cannot which i knew you couldn't... why are you trying to argue at the forums about Islam... many times on different threads, have you left off and never replied, to many questions i posed you... either you try to change the subject... and last time i told you to prove me whether all the Norms and Laws Quran gives came to exist after the Revelation of Quran and did not exist Pre Islamic revelation, you gave me the example of Ancient Greek full of errors and ignorant Law, which allowed baby girls to be buried.... and you talk about Revelation of Quran, while ignoring the fact, that you DONT even have any proof that Quran is NOT the word of God... even though there are many Scientific Facts discovered by Muslims which were not discovered by the Medieval West living In Dark Ages, which Muslims came to know from Quran, which i can provide tons of proof.... but there is no point of you playing the Flute in front of a Cow... it wont even Move! Why do you even Challenge the Verses without having any proof to show that there is error in them.... find errors.... then come and reason.... other wise your example is of a person who is of no use to himself niether to others....

btw i think you should go for a check up, for you have Islamophobia...

[Hugo]

There are a few problems here as you show I never said I was sceptical about the laws of nature - I just said that they suffer from the problem of induction which shows that they are not absolute. Just beacsue you test them in the past does not make them any more true or false in the future - or even absolute. the job of science has never been to give us absolute answers but the best answers possible. I have no idea where you get the idea of laws of nature are absolute. As You cannot seem to consider the opposite view that the law of gravity is not absolute how in God's earth do you expect somebody else to consider a negative argument against the Quran! You preach one thing but you do the opposite. I would like you to re read my post and actually see what I am saying rather then writing things which you believe that I am saying. Like the below.falsifying something doesnt mean its true or false - Even it suffers from the problem of induction. We need to define what true and false actually is. the same way we have to have faith if the law of gravity is going to work tomorrow.

Have you never heard of 'deduction' and the scientific method? The problem of induction is that it is always circular but when we say talk about Ohms law we are NOT using induction but deduction. So I don't have to wait until the circuit operates before I know the parameters, I can work all of them out beforehand with absolute certainty. If I design an aeroplane I don't say aeroplanes with wings usually fly (induction) because I have worked it all out from known and proved scientific principles and mathematics. Can't you see that if I for example have an equation x + 1 = 4 that it cannot give me a different answer tomorrow and I am not using induction and I don't need faith. The same goes for say Newtons laws of motion they are a set of equations and are always true and again I do not need faith.

With regard to falsification you really don't get it do you? When we speak of falsification we are asking if you can think up a test. For example, in Ohms law I can work out the current if I know the voltage and resistance because that is what the law states. I can now falsify it by constructing the circuit and measuring the current. If it stands up to the test then the law is valid and it does NOT matter what circuit I use the same test will apply.

If I now try to use the same method on the Qu'ran or any scripture I run into trouble and the reason is that for any test to work it must be applied on any similar artefact. So if you say the Qu'ran is consistent then firstly it is a matter of opinion not fact and secondly if the conjecture is true it must apply to any book, it cannot just apply to the Qu'ran. Next it must stand up to any test that comes along not just the ones that give a yes. If it fails even one test it is falsified.

[Hugo]

i would say id rather argue against gravity than the quran... and in all ways it is easier to do so. i was just talking to somebody about string theory the other day. i guess that the theory of gravity has been made so infallable that string theory cant accomodate, i found this oddly funny.

What a strange thing to say, I nor you nor anyone else can ignore gravity but I can totally ignore the Qu'ran and it has zero effects on me.

[Hugo]

Since you cannot which i knew you couldn't... why are you trying to argue at the forums about Islam... many times on different threads, have you left off and never replied, to many questions i posed you... either you try to change the subject... and last time i told you to prove me whether all the Norms and Laws Quran gives came to exist after the Revelation of Quran and did not exist Pre Islamic revelation, you gave me the example of Ancient Greek full of errors and ignorant Law, which allowed baby girls to be buried.... and you talk about Revelation of Quran, while ignoring the fact, that you DONT even have any proof that Quran is NOT the word of God...

It is a very simple scientific principle that one cannot prove a negative. So here no one can prove the Qu'ran is NOT the word of God but that does NOT make it true or perhaps you can tell me how it does make it true. I will try again, suppose I say I (and others) have seen men from outer space, tell me how you will prove I did not?

The idea that scientific proofs came from the Qu'ran is totally fanciful. Even a cursory study of say the famous translation movement of the Abbasid's will show how they gathered books and idea from anywhere they could get them and then built on them. It is absurd to even think that all they did was search the Qu'ran. Just go and look at the life of the most famous exponents of Muslim universalism and an eminent figure in Islamic learning; Ibn Sina, known in the West as Avicenna (981-1037), one of the greatest thinkers and medical scholars in history. His 'Qanun fi-l-Tibb' is an immense encyclopedia of medicine covering pleurisy; contagious nature of phthisis; distribution of diseases by water and soil; careful description of skin troubles; of sexual diseases and perversions; of nervous ailments. He did this because he was a free thinkers and gathered information from wherever he could get it because he understood that scientific knowledge is universal it has nothing to do with faith and is the same for everyone.

I have tried to reason with you but your mind is so closed it cannot look outside the fence you have build around Islam.

[M.I.A.]

What a strange thing to say, I nor you nor anyone else can ignore gravity but I can totally ignore the Qu'ran and it has zero effects on me.

i believe in a message that has given the prophets peace and blessings be upon them flight to heaven and even flight in this world.
this was long before modern air travel so i guess in my eyes gravity is only a human construct, my belief is held in something else.
as far as gravity goes it can explain why things are held into orbit and also why we keep our feet on the ground, but in my opinion it is still a matter of understanding and debate.
as for the quran having zero effect on you, at least your intentions are clear...not many people who are narrow minded are open to anything other than there opinions.

[Hugo]

i believe in a message that has given the prophets peace and blessings be upon them flight to heaven and even flight in this world. this was long before modern air travel so i guess in my eyes gravity is only a human construct, my belief is held in something else. as far as gravity goes it can explain why things are held into orbit and also why we keep our feet on the ground, but in my opinion it is still a matter of understanding and debate. as for the quran having zero effect on you, at least your intentions are clear...not many people who are narrow minded are open to anything other than there opinions.

Surely God created gravity and everything, we certainty did not construct them and we should be in awe and wonder at such precision and beauty in the laws of nature and as far as I know God has not allowed us to debate them as if they were untrue or we can change them but he has allowed us to discover them.

Just a question but are you suggesting that those who who are sceptical about the Qu'ran are by definition 'narrow minded'?

[جوري]

Just a question but are you suggesting that those who who are sceptical about the Qu'ran are by definition 'narrow minded'?

:lol: well what other explanation is there if the 'bible' is your better choice? :haha: you really do tickle us.. subject your bible to some of that, let's see how well it fares if you were honest, or are you too good to be true?

[Hugo]

well what other explanation is there if the 'bible' is your better choice? :haha: you really do tickle us.. subject your bible to some of that, let's see how well it fares if you were honest, or are you too good to be true?

How about the truth of the following, be sceptical if you wish or find a Qu'ranic passage which compares in clarity with this same idea.

1 Corinthians 13 (New International Version)
If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing. Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

[M.I.A.]

Surely God created gravity and everything, we certainty did not construct them and we should be in awe and wonder at such precision and beauty in the laws of nature and as far as I know God has not allowed us to debate them as if they were untrue or we can change them but he has allowed us to discover them.

Just a question but are you suggesting that those who who are sceptical about the Qu'ran are by definition 'narrow minded'?

i agree, discovery by man is from god, what i do not agree with is accepting something that has been discovered and then put into theory and not accepting something that has been discovered and not understood....is that the same as rejecting something or quietly ignoring it?
for example the plane of orbit that most planets, moons and such rotote on. they all sit on the same plane of rotation...god knows why,scientists do not.

science feels always too primative in many respects, whenever i look at it as a whole it seems crude and always open for improvement.
whenever i look at the quran i know its whole and has stood the test of time, science may try to disprove some points made by it but i look over and think its always on shaky legs and never one to judge....whatever you would rather believe in really.

[جوري]

How about the truth of the following, be sceptical if you wish or find a Qu'ranic passage which compares in clarity with this same idea.

1 Corinthians 13 (New International Version)
If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing. Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

Nice paragraph, a bit sophmoric, I couldn't compare it to the Quran, there is nothing to compare, there is the language of men, and then the language of the divine, but I'll post that which is better by Antonio Machado, albeit the above wouldn't even qualify as a poem (let alone what you set it out to do)

Last Night As I Was Sleeping

Last night as I was sleeping,
I dreamt—marvelous error!—
that a spring was breaking
out in my heart.
I said: Along which secret aqueduct,
Oh water, are you coming to me,
water of a new life
that I have never drunk?

Last night as I was sleeping,
I dreamt—marvelous error!—
that I had a beehive
here inside my heart.
And the golden bees
were making white combs
and sweet honey
from my old failures.

Last night as I was sleeping,
I dreamt—marvelous error!—
that a fiery sun was giving
light inside my heart.
It was fiery because I felt
warmth as from a hearth,
and sun because it gave light
and brought tears to my eyes.

Last night as I slept,
I dreamt—marvelous error!—
that it was God I had
here inside my heart.


Translated by Robert Bly



should we worship antonio machado .. his words make more sense than saul's
all the best

[Zafran]

Have you never heard of 'deduction' and the scientific method? The problem of induction is that it is always circular but when we say talk about Ohms law we are NOT using induction but deduction. So I don't have to wait until the circuit operates before I know the parameters, I can work all of them out beforehand with absolute certainty. If I design an aeroplane I don't say aeroplanes with wings usually fly (induction) because I have worked it all out from known and proved scientific principles and mathematics. Can't you see that if I for example have an equation x + 1 = 4 that it cannot give me a different answer tomorrow and I am not using induction and I don't need faith. The same goes for say Newtons laws of motion they are a set of equations and are always true and again I do not need faith.

With regard to falsification you really don't get it do you? When we speak of falsification we are asking if you can think up a test. For example, in Ohms law I can work out the current if I know the voltage and resistance because that is what the law states. I can now falsify it by constructing the circuit and measuring the current. If it stands up to the test then the law is valid and it does NOT matter what circuit I use the same test will apply.

If I now try to use the same method on the Qu'ran or any scripture I run into trouble and the reason is that for any test to work it must be applied on any similar artefact. So if you say the Qu'ran is consistent then firstly it is a matter of opinion not fact and secondly if the conjecture is true it must apply to any book, it cannot just apply to the Qu'ran. Next it must stand up to any test that comes along not just the ones that give a yes. If it fails even one test it is falsified.

This is even more odd - you know that Ohms law works before hand? how? just because you worked an equation out and how do you know thats actually going to work in practice in the future - Even if it works a million times its still not absolute - there is always a probablity that it wont work. Its simply not absolute - Its never the Job of science to be absolute and doesnt claim to be absolute regardless of what the theory or law is.

it maybe known the past but that provides no certainity that they will work in the future.

For the test of the Quran - the Quran gives its own test which hasnt been met by anyone.

You should have no problem with this has you have no problem of following a law and claiming that it tells you the future and even going so far as denying the possibilty of it being wrong!

[M.I.A.]

love is a great tool and a hard one to keep hold of, especially as we as muslims always strive against our nafs and try to do jihad.
i can partly justify this as most live in a society where violents and fighting are not permitted, struggle is done on other levels especially against those that would go against you. but personal victory can set bad examples to those that would witness your victory, so it may be better to hope that the hands of those that are against you are there own undoing. that is the power of love and the ultimate hope and faith in god... and it may soften the hearts of those around you.
doubt it ever works like this though, just speculating.

[Lynx]

Have you never heard of 'deduction' and the scientific method? The problem of induction is that it is always circular but when we say talk about Ohms law we are NOT using induction but deduction. So I don't have to wait until the circuit operates before I know the parameters, I can work all of them out beforehand with absolute certainty. If I design an aeroplane I don't say aeroplanes with wings usually fly (induction) because I have worked it all out from known and proved scientific principles and mathematics. Can't you see that if I for example have an equation x + 1 = 4 that it cannot give me a different answer tomorrow and I am not using induction and I don't need faith. The same goes for say Newtons laws of motion they are a set of equations and are always true and again I do not need faith.

Although Zafran explained the problem of your post very clearly I can't help but put in my two cents also.

Newton's laws are NOT 'absolutely' true and they do rely on inductive reasoning. The mathematical equations only describe what would happen IF my assumptions about the natural world are true and your assumptions of the natural world are only true because of some inductive reasoning. But if the universe changed all of a sudden and Newton's laws no longer applied, what would happen to your mathematical equations? They would no longer apply and would no longer be able to give you accurate predictions. So it's very naive of you to say you will always know equations in Newtons physics will always be true; they will only always be true if what they are meant to describe stay the same and there is no logical guarantee that they will ! A rule of thumb that that helps clear up confusion between certainty and near certainty is to see if you get a contradiction if you assumed that something you think is absolute is not absolute. It's easy to see how tomorrow the universe could magically change and all your laws of physics will turn out to be wrong (this is logically possible and if this logical possibility exists you can't claim certitude, or at least not in the 'deductive' sense) but I suppose it's harder to see how an equation as simple as x + 1 = 4 could give you a wrong answer. Math is a little funny though, it seems to be the case, as Godel proved, that math will be true but unprovable logically.

[syed_z]

It is a very simple scientific principle that one cannot prove a negative. So here no one can prove the Qu'ran is NOT the word of God but that does NOT make it true or perhaps you can tell me how it does make it true. I will try again, suppose I say I (and others) have seen men from outer space, tell me how you will prove I did not?

The idea that scientific proofs came from the Qu'ran is totally fanciful. Even a cursory study of say the famous translation movement of the Abbasid's will show how they gathered books and idea from anywhere they could get them and then built on them. It is absurd to even think that all they did was search the Qu'ran. Just go and look at the life of the most famous exponents of Muslim universalism and an eminent figure in Islamic learning; Ibn Sina, known in the West as Avicenna (981-1037), one of the greatest thinkers and medical scholars in history. His 'Qanun fi-l-Tibb' is an immense encyclopedia of medicine covering pleurisy; contagious nature of phthisis; distribution of diseases by water and soil; careful description of skin troubles; of sexual diseases and perversions; of nervous ailments. He did this because he was a free thinkers and gathered information from wherever he could get it because he understood that scientific knowledge is universal it has nothing to do with faith and is the same for everyone.

I have tried to reason with you but your mind is so closed it cannot look outside the fence you have build around Islam.

The reason why Ibn Sina was a free thinker was because of these Verses of Quran which exhort the Muslim to see the signs of Reality in the physical world, in the process of History and in his own inner self (biology)!


(Al Quran 3:190-191)Surely in the creation of the heavens and the earth, and in the alternation of night and day, there are signs for men of understanding. those who remember Allah while standing, sitting or (reclining) on their backs, and reflect in the creation of the heavens and the earth, (saying): 'Our Lord! You have not created this in vain. Glory to You! Save us, then, from the chastisement of the Fire.



it was words like these which inspired the Muslims to do research and their bases of research was Beleif in One God , and it was their Belief in words of Quran given by Prophet Muhammad (Saw) which made them do all these discoveries, the fruit which is being enjoyed by Modern Western Secular states....


Hugo it is your mind which closed, seeing yourself as always right, has even made you over look your faults, and is making you waste your time in this world, which is very precious... for you remind me of those, who work so hard for this world, while forgetting that the Real Life is Here after....


The Research done by Arab Muslims was done because the Quran tells them to look at the Creation and explore... A European understands this Because he is Unbiased.... but as you keep viewing the Muslims and Islam with your Discriminatory view, you see nothing but faults...


Rom Landau Author of the Well Known Book Islam and Arabs says...

"They might be summarized as the ardent desire to gain a deeper understanding of the World, as created by Allah ; an acceptance of the physical universe, as not inferior to the spiritual but co valid with it; a strong realism that faithfully reflects the unsentimental nature of the Arab mind; and finally insatiable curiosity. Everything that was in the Universe was Allah's , from the mystic ecstacy and a mother love to the flight of arrows, the plague that destroys an entire country and the sting of a mosquito.....In Islam religion and science do not go their separate ways. In fact the former provided one of the main incentives for the latter."


The only person who would attribute to Muslims Scientific contribution to the modern world and claim that Religion did NOT have to do any thing with Muslims discovery , is either, lost and does not know, or is pretending to act like he is lost.... and for Hugo, he is pretending!

[syed_z]

What a strange thing to say, I nor you nor anyone else can ignore gravity but I can totally ignore the Qu'ran and it has zero effects on me.

The Quran answers people like you.... why they would NOT have effect on you...

(17:45) When you recite the Qur'an, We place a hidden barrier between you and those who do not believe in the Hereafter

(17:46) and We place a covering on their hearts so that they do not comprehend it, and We cause a heaviness in their ears; and when you mention your Lord, the Only True Lord, in the Qur'an, they turn their backs in aversion.

just like i said, your wasting ours and your time...

[Hugo]

i agree, discovery by man is from god, what i do not agree with is accepting something that has been discovered and then put into theory and not accepting something that has been discovered and not understood....is that the same as rejecting something or quietly ignoring it? for example the plane of orbit that most planets, moons and such rotote on. they all sit on the same plane of rotation...god knows why,scientists do not. science feels always too primative in many respects, whenever i look at it as a whole it seems crude and always open for improvement. whenever i look at the quran i know its whole and has stood the test of time, science may try to disprove some points made by it but i look over and think its always on shaky legs and never one to judge....whatever you would rather believe in really.

Interesting but what puzzles me in what you say is that the laws of nature cannot be avoided no matter how we feel and the fact that we don't quite understand it make no real difference. Also we have made great advances so it seems your are being disingenuous here. I suppose the point is that if one believes that God created the laws of nature then one can hardly distrust them. What you are saying is not unlike what people said in the middle ages when they interpreted the scriptures and said in effect science was often wrong and people got locked up or worse for going against an interpretation and progress came to a halt. John Lock writing in 1690 said "He that takes away reason to make room for revelation puts out the light of both; it's as if we persuade a man to put out his eyes, the better to receive the remote light of an invisible star by a telescope." So science shows us more of God not less.

Of course you can feel confidence in the Qu'ran but it does seem to stretch credulity too far to say science is primitive and at the same time accept without it seems question a revelation with a single witness and no possibility of corroboration - as you say you can believe whatever you want but surely we must not abandon reason in the process?

[syed_z]

People like Hugo argue about Quran, and Scientific Test or putting Quran through the Test to prove whether it is the Word of God or not...

While completely forgetting the Fact and overlooking the fact that Quran is the ONLY book with Ancient Semetic Language on Earth, which still remains unchanged...

Unless otherwise Hugo can prove that Quran's Arabic has been changed, then we can see whether the Book is changed or not.... the Miracle of Quran is that the Arabic Language in which it is found, is the only Ancient Language on Planet Earth, which STILL remains unchanged...

Another big reason why Bible went through so many changes was because the Original Language it was revealed in , is completely lost today! That is why they had to use other languages to translate them, which made it loose its originality, not forgetting interpolations being made with the translations.... Beauty of Quran is that Arabic has not gone through ANY changes! Unless Hugo can prove that One Quran is different from the Other... he is rejecting because he is Stubborn, no other reason...

[Hugo]

The Quran answers people like you.... why they would NOT have effect on you...]
(17:45) When you recite the Qur'an, We place a hidden barrier between you and those who do not believe in the Hereafter
(17:46) and We place a covering on their hearts so that they do not comprehend it, and We cause a heaviness in their ears; and when you mention your Lord, the Only True Lord, in the Qur'an, they turn their backs in aversion. just like i said, your wasting ours and your time...

Well don't waste any time go elsewhere if you have nothing to say and don't want to hear. You might like to know there is a Biblical verse in Matthew 13:15 "For this people's heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.' - so maybe indeed be you that is not hearing what God has to say.

[syed_z]

John Lock writing in 1690 said "He that takes away reason to make room for revelation puts out the light of both; it's as if we persuade a man to put out his eyes, the better to receive the remote light of an invisible star by a telescope." So science shows us more of God not less.

Of course you can feel confidence in the Qu'ran but it does seem to stretch credulity too far to say science is primitive and at the same time accept without it seems question a revelation with a single witness and no possibility of corroboration - as you say you can believe whatever you want but surely we must not abandon reason in the process?

Free reasoning devoid of all kinds of Higher Guidance, is leading the West towards its destruction.... we Muslims use reason, but let it be guided by Our revelation, as NO revelation, not only us but makes our decisions very dangerous for the whole society and that is why based on Pure reasoning, Great immoralities like Homosexuality , alcoholism and Strip clubs are being promoted in the West , while smoking at Public places is being told as worst than all the above.... because The West Uses its free Reason devoid of Revelation to determine right and wrong, which is actually making it overlook its real Problems of the Society.....mankind is in need of revelation to guide them and their own minds are NOT sufficient....

The corroboration of a Revelation is when you implement and see whether the effects of that Revelation will have any positive effects on the Society.... when implementing Man made laws Vs Quranic Laws, it clearly shows which are more blessing for a society.... thats also one way you can put Quran to test....would you like to ? Or are you going to run away again ?

[Hugo]

People like Hugo argue about Quran, and Scientific Test or putting Quran through the Test to prove whether it is the Word of God or not...

Nowhere have I said there is a test to prove the Qu'ran or Bible or indeed any scripture is truly from God - what I have said is that such a test does NOT exist.

While completely forgetting the Fact and overlooking the fact that Quran is the ONLY book with Ancient Semetic Language on Earth, which still remains unchanged...

Well I would dispute this so called fact but it proves nothing with regard to it being from God - all it would prove is that it is unchanged, nothing else. You are inventing a test that goes in one direction only. Here is another test, it is a fact the Qu'ran contains stories found elsewhere so it is not unique and therefore cannot be from God

Unless otherwise Hugo can prove that Quran's Arabic has been changed, then we can see whether the Book is changed or not.... the Miracle of Quran is that the Arabic Language in which it is found, is the only Ancient Language on Planet Earth, which STILL remains unchanged...

This is just rubbish as there are 100s of Arabic dialects. Ancient Greek remains unchanged and every dead language remains unchanged. Arabic did not arise on its own and comes out of other earlier Semitic languages - it is not an isolate is it.

Another big reason why Bible went through so many changes was because the Original Language it was revealed in , is completely lost today! That is why they had to use other languages to translate them, which made it loose its originality, not forgetting interpolations being made with the translations.... Beauty of Quran is that Arabic has not gone through ANY changes! Unless Hugo can prove that One Quran is different from the Other... he is rejecting because he is Stubborn, no other reason...

What languages are you talking about? The OT was in Hebrew and that is still in use today. The NT is in ancient Greek which is not used today but is as well know as any language on the planet. If you are speaking of Aramaic well that is also known though not in general use. But so what? It is an interesting point but nothing more and in general a language that stands still is a dead language which cannot be used because one cannot express modern ideas in it and new ideas will occur in the future making it even more obscure than it is today.

[syed_z]

The NT is in ancient Greek which is not used today but is as well know as any language on the planet. If you are speaking of Aramaic well that is also known though not in general use. But so what? It is an interesting point but nothing more and in general a language that stands still is a dead language which cannot be used because one cannot express modern ideas in it and new ideas will occur in the future making it even more obscure than it is today

Any word written in the New Testament from Aramaic given to any Christian child cannot be read by him/her unless they have learnt how to recite in Aramaic, which even the Priests who teach Christianity dont know the language either! While Quran even though it was in Arabic it can still be recited by any Muslim Child and even if you were to burn every QURAN scripture on earth, millions of hearts have it stored in them , the Quran in ARABIC which is original form revealed... not unlike New Testament, which we dont even know who translated them from Aramaic to Greek ? No record whatsoever.... and then the Errors in the New Testament, bro i don't even want to go there

The modern ideas can only come from a Revelation which is beyond space and time, because only then it can be for all ages! Unlike Bible whether new or old testament, the need to run away and hide in Secularism which happened in the West, because it could NOT solve the Problems of their World.... ONLY a true revelation of God, who HImself is beyond space and time, can be applied for al ages and it should show Blessings not only for our age but also Future Generations.....

How much do you know about Quran ? Quran has every word in Arabic which has many meanings, because the shades of meanings which come out of every words, shows its richness and the deep grammar that it carries which opens for us many doors to knowledge.... could you say the same about Aramaic ? And how if you could ?

The Scripture being lost from its originality shows its fallibilty! Quran can even solve the Problems of the Modern West which struggles to save itself from Moral Destruction! only an ignorant person who does not know anything about Quran, would speak against it. as every post of my reflects your ignorance.

[syed_z]

This is just rubbish as there are 100s of Arabic dialects. Ancient Greek remains unchanged and every dead language remains unchanged. Arabic did not arise on its own and comes out of other earlier Semitic languages - it is not an isolate is it.

the Original Arabic which is ancient Arabic and still can be found spoken by Bedouin Arabs in deserts, even though different from New Arabic dialects, but still the New Arabic dialect speakers, even for them it is VERY easy to recite Quran.... its about Whether the Book can still be recited and pondered in its original form... the ancient Arabic can still be Learned from Madrassah's while Aramaic is not even taught by any Priest!

[syed_z]

Ancient Greek remains unchanged and every dead language remains unchanged.

show me a book of Guidance, which is Truly Universal for all mankind in Greek ? Will you please ?

[syed_z]

Nowhere have I said there is a test to prove the Qu'ran or Bible or indeed any scripture is truly from God - what I have said is that such a test does NOT exist.

Such test does Exist.... since God is Above Space and time, then the Revelation which is a True one should work for all Ages.... because only such a Revelation would be able to solve the Problems of Humanity in Present, have done it in the Past, and should be able to do it in future, which is itself Beyond Space and Time... everything in Space and time changes, but God does NOT change otherwise he is not god then!

If you claim Bible is for all ages then put it through Test and See whether it has the ability to solve the Problems of Humanity ... and if it does NOT then you could agree that such a Book is not worthy of Being called a Pure Revelation, because it has interpolation , which even you by now seeing so many errors in the Bible should be able to accept, but since your stubborn person, you could put the Bible through a Test and see whether it is Fallible or Not... and compare it with Errors in Quran, which you have already admitted that there is no way for you to prove....

so now if youd like to we can put Quran through the Test and it should be able to answer the Modern Age which even the Capitalism, Democracy and Communism are also struggling against, only because it comes from Some One (God) who is beyond Space and Time....

If you don't want to , then its fine, then you should admit... that you come here just to waste time!

[M.I.A.]

its a point of personal perspective, the more one trains the mind to a thought process the less likely the brain is to bring an opposing perspective spontaneously. even improving on something can come at the cost of losing objectivity. its an easy concept to grasp.
lol i would say today it is the opposite anology to that of the middle ages, you are much more likely to be locked up for disagreeing with science!
i dont doubt the concepts of natural laws and evidence which can be experimentally repeated... it is the way in which they are used that i dont quite trust.

John Lock writing in 1690 said "He that takes away reason to make room for revelation puts out the light of both; it's as if we persuade a man to put out his eyes, the better to receive the remote light of an invisible star by a telescope."

i understand, not many are willing to turn there backs on the world.

[Hugo]

Any word written in the New Testament from Aramaic given to any Christian child cannot be read by him/her unless they have learnt how to recite in Aramaic, which even the Priests who teach Christianity dont know the language either! While Quran even though it was in Arabic it can still be recited by any Muslim Child and even if you were to burn every QURAN scripture on earth, millions of hearts have it stored in them , the Quran in ARABIC which is original form revealed... not unlike New Testament, which we dont even know who translated them from Aramaic to Greek ? No record whatsoever.... and then the Errors in the New Testament, bro i don't even want to go there

The NT was not translated from Aramaic it was written in Greek right from the start. The Greeks invaded Israel long before the Romans got there so Greek itself was well known and indeed particularly well known in Galilee. Just as in Arabia at the time of Mohammed there were many dialects but one was chosen so it is not surprising in any way that Jesus spoke Aramaic and his message was written down in Greek since that was the lingua Franca of the world at that time. What point are you trying to make since there are millions of Muslims who can recite the whole Qu'ran without understanding a word of it so they will never know they are reciting a story that God said a man can marry his adopted sons ex-wife or that Moses was struck down by lightning and then raised to life again so that he could thank God for doing it - and then the errors in the Qu'ran, bro I don't want to go there.

The modern ideas can only come from a Revelation which is beyond space and time, because only then it can be for all ages! Unlike Bible whether new or old testament, the need to run away and hide in Secularism which happened in the West, because it could NOT solve the Problems of their World.... ONLY a true revelation of God, who HImself is beyond space and time, can be applied for al ages and it should show Blessings not only for our age but also Future Generations.....

This is total absurdity - the laser, the jet engine, penicillin are modern ideas so show me what revelation brought these and millions of others about so if the Qu'ran is a revelation it cannot tell us everything can it? If I want to build a bridge I don't look in the Qu'ran or hadith do I?

How much do you know about Quran ? Quran has every word in Arabic which has many meanings, because the shades of meanings which come out of every words, shows its richness and the deep grammar that it carries which opens for us many doors to knowledge.... could you say the same about Aramaic ? And how if you could ?

Firstly, Arabic like most languages is not pure and borrows freely from other languages and this is true of words in the Qu'ran. Every language has its own subtleties there is nothing special about Arabic. If we confine ourselves to the Arabic of the Qu'ran we have a tiny vocabulary of just 2,822 different words and 80% of it uses just 582 words and even a child has 10 times that so it is impossible that it can say everything or describe the modern world. Modern English in contrast has over 1,000,000 words so far outstrips Arabic in what it can say.

The Scripture being lost from its originality shows its fallibilty! Quran can even solve the Problems of the Modern West which struggles to save itself from Moral Destruction! only an ignorant person who does not know anything about Quran, would speak against it. as every post of my reflects your ignorance.

Well where is the Original Qu'ran so I can go an look at it? How can it solve the problems of the modern world: will it tell us about how to organise water conservation in Bangladesh, how to predict earth quakes, how to run a modern nation state with 60 million people, did Edward Jenner look up in the Qu'ran how to make a small pox vaccine.... If we look at modern Muslim societies we see endemic corruption, persecution of religious minorities, hatred of those who in conscience give up Islam or even question it - only an ignorant person would speak as you do and display such blindness.

[syed_z]

The NT was not translated from Aramaic it was written in Greek right from the start. The Greeks invaded Israel long before the Romans got there so Greek itself was well known and indeed particularly well known in Galilee. Just as in Arabia at the time of Mohammed there were many dialects but one was chosen so it is not surprising in any way that Jesus spoke Aramaic and his message was written down in Greek since that was the lingua Franca of the world at that time. What point are you trying to make since there are millions of Muslims who can recite the whole Qu'ran without understanding a word of it so they will never know they are reciting a story that God said a man can marry his adopted sons ex-wife or that Moses was struck down by lightning and then raised to life again so that he could thank God for doing it - and then the errors in the Qu'ran, bro I don't want to go there.

We Muslims know, learn and teach , Praise be to Our Lord who is also yours, but you deny. And we recite in Original form, and did not let, Pagan kings, interfere with the Holy Book, even if we wanted to , then still Allah (swt) has mentioned He will Protect the Book, does your Book say such ? I know that Your Modern Western Philospophy is also going down, the Philosophy of Capitalism, as you struggle so hard to save it by conquering nations. Still i see it falling apart as banks are falling! And you are loosing in Afghanistan any ways. So your not even sure if your Modern Secular system would survive long, while Quran has survived 1400 Years, and in its Original NOT in something new.




Jesus (a.s) spoke Aramaic... he did not speak Greek... it doesn't matter if Greeks invaded them, the Jews always kept writing their own scriptures in the languages in which they were handed down to them. The earlier scriptures were all, Hebrew and Aramaic. It was the day-to-day language of Israel in the 2nd Temple (586-539 BC) was also the original language of Books of Ezra and Daniel. Why would Jesus speak in Greek and leave the language of his ancestors ? If he did speak in Aramaic and the books were written in Greek, that means that they did not even have any respect for Jesus, as the words can be twisted from Aramaic to Greek for Aramaic language is Semetic and the Mathew 15:24 ...lost sheep of Israel... to whom Jesus came, he came to fix the Law, and the Law could not be replaced, unless He spoke in their Languages.... and does that mean that Mary and Zecharias all used to conversate in the Jerusalem Temple in Greek ? And they all forgot their local Language ? The Britishers on the Point of Sword conquered Muslims, and still even though we speak english, doesn't mean we have forgotten our Persian, Arabic and other languages. We still have Quran in Arabic!


Even the Dead Sea Scrolls, The Scrolls are for the most part, written in Hebrew, but there are many written in Aramaic. Aramaic was the common language of the Jews of Palestine for the last two centuries B.C. and of the first two centuries A.D.

If you say that it was due to invasion.... then while the Talmud was being written, the Rabbis and Jews were all enslaved to Babylon... why didn't they change their Books to their Language.... and why didn't they change to Persian when Cyrus the Great conquered after 500 BC ? Because the other empires, never adopted the Religion of Jews, NOT until the Romans decided to Adopt :)... it was then the books started to change, from Language of Jesus to Greek...... And Also Paul's theory of making Jesus the "son" was very much of interest of new ruling Priestly Class, as they had all adopted Christianity after coming from Pagan Roman Religion where they Worshiped the Sun on Sundays, and thats why they wanted to continue worshiping the Sun, so they chose the Pauline theology of Son of God i.e Trinity and so Hugo you have been worshiping the Sun and not the Son while forgeting the Teachings of Jesus... any ways...

This is total absurdity - the laser, the jet engine, penicillin are modern ideas so show me what revelation brought these and millions of others about so if the Qu'ran is a revelation it cannot tell us everything can it? If I want to build a bridge I don't look in the Qu'ran or hadith do I?

In a report published by CNN, researchers announced that AIDS rate of incidence is increasing day after day. Despite the billions being paid, they failed to find an effective treatment for this disease until now. The Center for Disease Control and prevention CDC said that there are more infections of Human Immunodeficiency Viruse (HIV) between Americans with rates higher than what used to be thought. Keeve Vinton, Manager of AIDS Dept at the center, had pointed out that about 56 thousand new cases were recorded last year, which means 40% increase over previous estimations. The CDC report says that there is more than a million American carrying HIV and that quarter of them are ignorant with their infection. It was published in the report that 53% of the new infections was among gays and bisexual people.

Well Hugo lets see what Quran has to offer for the "Enlightened West"

"And come not near to unlawful sex. Verily, it is a Fâhishah (i.e. anything that transgresses its limits: a great sin), and an evil way (that leads one to Hell unless Allâh forgives him)" (32: Al Isra'a).

Quran has the Solution to problems of mankind and for Hugo :)

How can it solve the problems of the modern world: will it tell us about how to organise water conservation in Bangladesh, how to predict earth quakes, how to run a modern nation state with 60 million people, did Edward Jenner look up in the Qu'ran how to make a small pox vaccine.... If we look at modern Muslim societies we see endemic corruption, persecution of religious minorities, hatred of those who in conscience give up Islam or even question it - only an ignorant person would speak as you do and display such blindness.

Obesity costs America 147 billion Dollars


American researchers said that spent money on obesity related diseases comprises 10% of the total medical expenses in the US, which is equal to 147 billion Dollars a year. According to a study published in the Health Avenue Magazine, the total expenditure on obesity related issues had doubled in less than 10 years.
Dr. Thomas Freden, the director of the US centers for Disease Control and Prevention, says that it is very important to have effective actions immediately to decrease the enormous burden on the country resulting from obesity. More than 26% of Americans are considered obese meaning that they have Body Mass Index 30 or more (Body Mass Index BMI is measured by weight in kilograms divided by the square of height in meters). Obesity is also a major cause of Cancer!


Allah, the Almighty, had specified a golden rule in diet as He said: " and eat and drink but waste not by extravagance, certainly He (Allâh) likes not Al-Musrifûn (those who waste by extravagance)" (31:Al A'raf.).


Prophet Muhammad (saw) said "(the disbeliever eats in seven intestines and the believer eats in one intestine)" (Al Bukhari and Muslim).

Also Prophet said "Eat but leave some room in the stomach." i.e don't eat till your full! eat moderately! Too much McDonalds and KFC is killing you unless you would like to learn from Islam ?



Dirty Flies have Cure in them... Said Prophet Muhammad (Saw) ... is this True ?


Muhammad (saw) said "If there is any one of you flies fall in his drink he dip it and take it out, because one of its wings has a disease and the other contains the medicine" [Bukhari].

What does Modern Science say ?

The Professor Juan Alvarez Bravo of the University of Tokyo, says: "The last thing ttan one can accept is to see the flies in the hospital! But we soon will witness an effective treatment for many diseases that is extracted from flies.

A few months ago some researchers at Auburn University got a patent for their discovery of a protein in the saliva of the fly, this protein can accelerate the healing of wounds and chronic skin cracks.
Protein in Fly Saliva Speeds Healing of Incisions, Wounds, Auburn University, 23 Jan 2005.


This is also one of the Scientific Facts! Don't Agree ? Your ignorance.. dont learn!

how to organise water conservation in Bangladesh, how to predict earth quakes, how to run a modern nation state with 60 million people,

Hugo Asked About Predicting Earthquakes!

(And verily, We will make them taste of the near torment (i.e. the torment in the life of this world, i.e. disasters, calamities, etc.) prior to the supreme torment (in the Hereafter), in order that they may (repent and) return (i.e. accept Islam).)(Sûrat As-Sajdah-verse 21).


"Although it's difficult to prove that toads "predicted" the quake, it's certainly not impossible. We know that animals sense pre-earthquake micro-tremors, and react to underground water movements, or even changes in the composition of the air. It's just that these theories haven't been scientifically proven yet" Says Pascal Bernard a researcher in a team of seismologists at the Jussieu University in Paris.

On May 5th, 2008 many Chinese had noticed thousands of frogs on the move.

They were seen traveling without fear of traffic as they crossed streets in mass floods. The Chinese government told them that it was just a natural migration for the purpose of propagation. This calmed the people and no one took the omen very seriously.

But on Monday, 12th of May, at about 2:45pm, central China region recorded a 7.8 magnitude quake which occurred near Wenchuan County, Sichuan province that killed nearly 10,000 people.


The Earthquake Test Centres are of No Use for West or the World, only Creatures of Allah , could tell such! Only a Fool like you would not be able to see the coming out of Frogs, as a warning, like many , because you people are blinded by your arrogance!

And has subjected to you all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth; it is all as a favor and kindness from Him. Verily, in it are signs for a people who think deeply)(Sûrat Al-Jâthiyah-verse13).


We are Representative of God on earth, and he made everything subservient to us to learn and prepare before hand! So even animals tell, but if you believe in an Al Mighty , who has no Son!

Shouldn't we deeply think in these signs and work hard to do good deeds may Allah protect us from His torture?

Attachment 4136


(And We send the winds fertilizing (to fill heavily the clouds with water), then cause the water (rain) to descend from the sky, and We give it to you to drink, and it is not you who are the owners of its stores) (Sûrat A-Hijr - verse22).


So Allah (swt) says it is NOT you who are the owner of its stores. What does that mean ?

Lets see..

Today, the scientists confirm that storing water underground purifies and sterilizes the water to be drinkable, Allah reminds us with that grace, and so will we thank Him for that?

It is a tremendous grace that Allah almighty had made great warehouses under the ground to store the pure water. What is the new thing concerning that matter?

The scientists were trying for many years to use many methods to purify the water on earth which is polluted by micro-organisms which cause many diseases, so they invented the water purification stations and different kinds of filters also they discovered different kinds of purification methods.

The most amazing way to purifying the water was discovered by the microbiologist Dr Simon Toze who invented a very simple and cheap method to purify the water by storing it in the underground layers for couple of months. He says that this method is enough to kill all harmful kinds of micro-organisms which cause many diseases like: Polio, diarrhea diseases and different kind of serious viral diseases.

This method is called "geo purification method" as Allah allows the ground to absorb all kinds of bacteria, viruses, oils, fats, dirt and other contaminants.

The scientists were confused about this amazing technique as Dr Simon says:

"We know the pollution goes, but we don't know how"


...and We give it to you to drink, and it is not you who are the owners of its stores) (Sûrat A-Hijr - verse22).






Hugo the Western Industrialization is creating Global Warming around the Earth, which is killing our planet, may be you should ask your leaders why they are producing more than the planet needs, to Bangladesh can be saved, but see this is what happens, when greed guides you rather than Revelation!....and may be you should yourself learn from Quran, what you have been missing. Allah created you, why you so shy from Your creator ?

If we look at modern Muslim societies we see endemic corruption, persecution of religious minorities, hatred of those who in conscience give up Islam or even question it - only an ignorant person would speak as you do and display such blindness.

Vice Versa, there is much more all of such in the West with the Muslim Minorities. I can prove you. Non Muslims are much better here in our lands, even though we have worst leaders.



To Run a State Hugo, you need Quran and Sunnah, and Quran and Sunnah is Our Constitution! We will implement it InshAllah, when we chase your Wester Occupational forces out of Middle East InshAllah, and put the Puppet Leaders you Installed over us, on the Board with them!


I Challenge You to Prove me all of the Above from Bible. Go Ahead !

[Hugo]

We Muslims know, learn and teach , Praise be to Our Lord who is also yours, but you deny. And we recite in Original form, and did not let, Pagan kings, interfere with the Holy Book, even if we wanted to , then still Allah (swt) has mentioned He will Protect the Book, does your Book say such ? I know that Your Modern Western Philospophy is also going down, the Philosophy of Capitalism, as you struggle so hard to save it by conquering nations. Still i see it falling apart as banks are falling! And you are loosing in Afghanistan any ways. So your not even sure if your Modern Secular system would survive long, while Quran has survived 1400 Years, and in its Original NOT in something new.

Western culture goes back to well before Islam with its roots in Greek, Roman and lastly Christian culture that has brought about massive improvement and development. Why does it matter what language Jesus spoke since it his message we are interested in. The OT was written in Hebrew which a script that was Aramaic in origin and it was also available in Greek the point being that with these two languages every one could read it. There are also many example where Jesus read from the Hebrew Bible so he also knew Hebrew. What possible advantage can there be generally in insisting that Muslim follow a book with a language that is antiquated - that to understand it one has to understand the meaning of those words as they were use 14 centuries ago.

There was a Palestinian and Babylonian Talmud because they were the two places of higher learning for Jews. In much the same way and again because of the dispersion there was need for a Hebrew and Greek version of the OT. No one 'changed' the language of Jesus, no one denies that he spoke Aramaic but if the word was to be spread it had to be written in Greek because that was spoken or know practically everywhere. Well what does the Qu'ran offer as all of its stories are written elsewhere and mostly in the Bible so that is not new.

In what sense has the Quran the Solution to problems of mankind? I can list 1000s of thing which it does not cover or speak about and of course there will be new problems which as yet we know nothing about. It might have a moral code but that will not fix everything will it? Just as many Muslim are overweight, die of cancer, get cataracts as anyone else so what is all this pointless rambling as we know more about how the body works and diets that could ever have been know 1400 years ago and we are not short of good medical advice are we.

If you are going to try to prove something about medical things then use a suitable source not just copy as you have done aimlessly from web sites - try MEDLINE for example or give an acceptable reference but here you give nothing and so there is no substance to what you say.

It absolutely silly beyond words to say you can run a modern state with just the Qu'ran and Sunnah - where are the building regulations, where are the medical practices, where are the methods of building bridges, or fire regulations or a million and one other things. It is simply absurd to think that someone who is expert in the Qu'ran and Sunnah would know how to manage a factory or diagnose an illness and so on

[Hugo]

I wonder if we might move the discussion on and think about how we might decide what is 'true'. Now in science it is in principle simple, we use the scientific method of observation and experiment based on the notion that we can find a test that is falsifiable and that test applies to every similar thing. In a way the wonderful thing about science is that is outside religion, gravity, Archimedes principle, Ohms law are the same for every one no matter what they believe and what the believe has no power to change them. Outside of science, and that includes religion, we cannot usually find a test that is universally applicable and instead we use reason and argument though religion would want to use authority; tell us what we can and cannot believe. Sadly, religion often wants to stifle opinion and criticism and assumes a guises of infallibility. I am not of that persuasion and never will be but what do you think and to start us off I offer these quotes from Thomas Paine extracted from his book "On Liberty" (easy to get as an eBook for free)

But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. We can never be sure that the opinion we are endeavouring to stifle is a false opinion; and if we were sure, stifling it would be an evil still and I give two reason the first of which is in this post.

First: the opinion which it is attempted to suppress by authority may possibly be true. Those who desire to suppress it, of course deny its truth; but they are not infallible. They have no authority to decide the question for all mankind, and exclude every other person from the means of judging. To refuse a hearing to an opinion, because they are sure that it is false, is to assume that their certainty is the same thing as absolute certainty. All silencing of discussion is an assumption of infallibility. Its condemnation may be allowed to rest on this common argument, not the worse for being common.

Of course I understand that these ideas strike at the heart of religion of whatever source because it means that everything can and must be challenged and challenged vigorously - as Socrates would say the unexamined life is not worth living. So might argue that these idea undermine or destroy faith but I have never found it like that because one is learning all the time.

[جوري]

Dude-- you ought to read some history books ey before writing about 'christian enlightenment'-- Christianity is synonymous with the dark ages, in fact that is where any semblance of 'civility' went down hill!
It wasn't until these so-called Christians separated themselves from religion and went about pillaging and stealing the wealth of other nations, did they see some semblance of improvement -- still many of those carrying the western nations on their shoulders are either immigrants from other countries, or the economy which is supported and sustained by stolen goods from other countries.. Someone needs to give you a wake up call.. although it would certainly be amusing to see you give a public speech where you'd be annihilated for your ignorance -- (that would be entertaining)

[جوري]

in support of the above to help our delusional guest get in grips with reality!

WONDERFUL EVENTS THAT TESTIFY TO GOD'S DIVINE GLORY"Listed are only events that solely occurred on command of church authorities or were committed in the name of Christianity. (List incomplete)
Ancient Pagans

• As soon as Christianity was legal (315), more and more pagan temples were destroyed by Christian mob. Pagan priests were killed.
• Between 315 and 6th century thousands of pagan believers were slain.
• Examples of destroyed Temples: the Sanctuary of Aesculap in Aegaea, the Temple of Aphrodite in Golgatha, Aphaka in Lebanon, the Heliopolis.
• Christian priests such as Mark of Arethusa or Cyrill of Heliopolis were famous as "temple destroyer." [DA468]
• Pagan services became punishable by death in 356. [DA468]
• Christian Emperor Theodosius (408-450) even had children executed, because they had been playing with remains of pagan statues. [DA469]
  According to Christian chroniclers he "followed meticulously all Christian teachings..."
• In 6th century pagans were declared void of all rights.
• In the early fourth century the philosopher Sopatros was executed on demand of Christian authorities. [DA466]
• The world famous female philosopher Hypatia of Alexandria was torn to pieces with glass fragments by a hysterical Christian mob led by a Christian minister named Peter, in a church, in 415.
  [DO19-25]

Mission

• Emperor Karl (Charlemagne) in 782 had 4500 Saxons, unwilling to convert to Christianity, beheaded. [DO30]
• Peasants of Steding (Germany) unwilling to pay suffocating church taxes: between 5,000 and 11,000 men, women and children slain 5/27/1234 near Altenesch/Germany. [WW223]
• Battle of Belgrad 1456: 80,000 Turks slaughtered. [DO235]
• 15th century Poland: 1019 churches and 17987 villages plundered by Knights of the Order. Victims unknown. [DO30]
• 16th and 17th century Ireland. English troops "pacified and civilized" Ireland, where only Gaelic "wild Irish", "unreasonable beasts lived without any knowledge of God or good manners, in common of their goods, cattle, women, children and every other thing." One of the more successful soldiers, a certain Humphrey Gilbert, half-brother of Sir Walter Raleigh, ordered that "the heddes of all those (of what sort soever thei were) which were killed in the daie, should be cutte off from their bodies... and should bee laied on the ground by eche side of the waie", which effort to civilize the Irish indeed caused "greate terrour to the people when thei sawe the heddes of their dedde fathers, brothers, children, kinsfolke, and freinds on the grounde".
  Tens of thousands of Gaelic Irish fell victim to the carnage. [SH99, 225]

Crusades (1095-1291)

• First Crusade: 1095 on command of pope Urban II. [WW11-41]
• Semlin/Hungary 6/24/96 thousands slain. Wieselburg/Hungary 6/12/96 thousands. [WW23]
• 9/9/96-9/26/96 Nikaia, Xerigordon (then turkish), thousands respectively. [WW25-27]
• Until Jan 1098 a total of 40 capital cities and 200 castles conquered (number of slain unknown) [WW30]
• after 6/3/98 Antiochia (then turkish) conquered, between 10,000 and 60,000 slain. 6/28/98 100,000 Turks (incl. women & children) killed. [WW32-35]
  Here the Christians "did no other harm to the women found in [the enemy's] tents - save that they ran their lances through their bellies," according to Christian chronicler Fulcher of Chartres. [EC60]
• Marra (Maraat an-numan) 12/11/98 thousands killed. Because of the subsequent famine "the already stinking corpses of the enemies were eaten by the Christians" said chronicler Albert Aquensis. [WW36]
• Jerusalem conquered 7/15/1099 more than 60,000 victims (jewish, muslim, men, women, children). [WW37-40]
  (In the words of one witness: "there [in front of Solomon's temple] was such a carnage that our people were wading ankle-deep in the blood of our foes", and after that "happily and crying for joy our people marched to our Saviour's tomb, to honour it and to pay off our debt of gratitude")
• The Archbishop of Tyre, eye-witness, wrote: "It was impossible to look upon the vast numbers of the slain without horror; everywhere lay fragments of human bodies, and the very ground was covered with the blood of the slain. It was not alone the spectacle of headless bodies and mutilated limbs strewn in all directions that roused the horror of all who looked upon them. Still more dreadful was it to gaze upon the victors themselves, dripping with blood from head to foot, an ominous sight which brought terror to all who met them. It is reported that within the Temple enclosure alone about ten thousand infidels perished." [TG79]
• Christian chronicler Eckehard of Aura noted that "even the following summer in all of palestine the air was polluted by the stench of decomposition". One million victims of the first crusade alone. [WW41]
• Battle of Askalon, 8/12/1099. 200,000 heathens slaughtered "in the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ". [WW45]
• Fourth crusade: 4/12/1204 Constantinople sacked, number of victims unknown, numerous thousands, many of them Christian. [WW141-148]
• Rest of Crusades in less detail: until the fall of Akkon 1291 probably 20 million victims (in the Holy land and Arab/Turkish areas alone). [WW224] Note: All figures according to contemporary (Christian) chroniclers.

Heretics

• Already in 385 C.E. the first Christians, the Spanish Priscillianus and six followers, were beheaded for heresy in Trier/Germany [DO26]
• Manichaean heresy: a crypto-Christian sect decent enough to practice birth control (and thus not as irresponsible as faithful Catholics) was exterminated in huge campaigns all over the Roman empire between 372 C.E. and 444 C.E. Numerous thousands of victims. [NC]
• Albigensians: the first Crusade intended to slay other Christians. [DO29]
  The Albigensians (cathars = Christians allegedly that have all rarely sucked) viewed themselves as good Christians, but would not accept roman Catholic rule, and taxes, and prohibition of birth control. [NC]
  Begin of violence: on command of pope Innocent III (greatest single pre-nazi mass murderer) in 1209. Bezirs (today France) 7/22/1209 destroyed, all the inhabitants were slaughtered. Victims (including Catholics refusing to turn over their heretic neighbours and friends) 20,000-70,000. [WW179-181]
• Carcassonne 8/15/1209, thousands slain. Other cities followed. [WW181]
• subsequent 20 years of war until nearly all Cathars (probably half the population of the Languedoc, today southern France) were exterminated. [WW183]
• After the war ended (1229) the Inquisition was founded 1232 to search and destroy surviving/hiding heretics. Last Cathars burned at the stake 1324. [WW183]
• Estimated one million victims (cathar heresy alone), [WW183]
• Other heresies: Waldensians, Paulikians, Runcarians, Josephites, and many others. Most of these sects exterminated, (I believe some Waldensians live today, yet they had to endure 600 years of persecution) I estimate at least hundred thousand victims (including the Spanish inquisition but excluding victims in the New World).
• Spanish Inquisitor Torquemada alone allegedly responsible for 10,220 burnings. [DO28]
• John Huss, a critic of papal infallibility and indulgences, was burned at the stake in 1415. [LI475-522]
• University professor B.Hubmaier burned at the stake 1538 in Vienna. [DO59]
• Giordano Bruno, Dominican monk, after having been incarcerated for seven years, was burned at the stake for heresy on the Campo dei Fiori (Rome) on 2/17/1600.

Witches

• from the beginning of Christianity to 1484 probably more than several thousand.
• in the era of witch hunting (1484-1750) according to modern scholars several hundred thousand (about 80% female) burned at the stake or hanged. [WV]
• incomplete list of documented cases:
  The Burning of Witches - A Chronicle of the Burning Times

Religious Wars

• 15th century: Crusades against Hussites, thousands slain. [DO30]
• 1538 pope Paul III declared Crusade against apostate England and all English as slaves of Church (fortunately had not power to go into action). [DO31]
• 1568 Spanish Inquisition Tribunal ordered extermination of 3 million rebels in (then Spanish) Netherlands. Thousands were actually slain. [DO31]
• 1572 In France about 20,000 Huguenots were killed on command of pope Pius V. Until 17th century 200,000 flee. [DO31]
• 17th century: Catholics slay Gaspard de Coligny, a Protestant leader. After murdering him, the Catholic mob mutilated his body, "cutting off his head, his hands, and his genitals... and then dumped him into the river [...but] then, deciding that it was not worthy of being food for the fish, they hauled it out again [... and] dragged what was left ... to the gallows of Montfaulcon, 'to be meat and carrion for maggots and crows'." [SH191]
• 17th century: Catholics sack the city of Magdeburg/Germany: roughly 30,000 Protestants were slain. "In a single church fifty women were found beheaded," reported poet Friedrich Schiller, "and infants still sucking the breasts of their lifeless mothers." [SH191]
• 17th century 30 years' war (Catholic vs. Protestant): at least 40% of population decimated, mostly in Germany. [DO31-32]

Jews

• Already in the 4th and 5th centuries synagogues were burned by Christians. Number of Jews slain unknown.
• In the middle of the fourth century the first synagogue was destroyed on command of bishop Innocentius of Dertona in Northern Italy. The first synagogue known to have been burned down was near the river Euphrat, on command of the bishop of Kallinikon in the year 388. [DA450]
• 17. Council of Toledo 694: Jews were enslaved, their property confiscated, and their children forcibly baptized. [DA454]
• The Bishop of Limoges (France) in 1010 had the cities' Jews, who would not convert to Christianity, expelled or killed. [DA453]
• First Crusade: Thousands of Jews slaughtered 1096, maybe 12.000 total. Places: Worms 5/18/1096, Mainz 5/27/1096 (1100 persons), Cologne, Neuss, Altenahr, Wevelinghoven, Xanten, Moers, Dortmund, Kerpen, Trier, Metz, Regensburg, Prag and others (All locations Germany except Metz/France, Prag/Czech) [EJ]
• Second Crusade: 1147. Several hundred Jews were slain in Ham, Sully, Carentan, and Rameru (all locations in France). [WW57]
• Third Crusade: English Jewish communities sacked 1189/90. [DO40]
• Fulda/Germany 1235: 34 Jewish men and women slain. [DO41]
• 1257, 1267: Jewish communities of London, Canterbury, Northampton, Lincoln, Cambridge, and others exterminated. [DO41]
• 1290 in Bohemian (Poland) allegedly 10,000 Jews killed. [DO41]
• 1337 Starting in Deggendorf/Germany a Jew-killing craze reaches 51 towns in Bavaria, Austria, Poland. [DO41]
• 1348 All Jews of Basel/Switzerland and Strasbourg/France (two thousand) burned. [DO41]
• 1349 In more than 350 towns in Germany all Jews murdered, mostly burned alive (in this one year more Jews were killed than Christians in 200 years of ancient Roman persecution of Christians). [DO42]
• 1389 In Prag 3,000 Jews were slaughtered. [DO42]
• 1391 Seville's Jews killed (Archbishop Martinez leading). 4,000 were slain, 25,000 sold as slaves. [DA454] Their identification was made easy by the brightly colored "badges of shame" that all jews above the age of ten had been forced to wear.
• 1492: In the year Columbus set sail to conquer a New World, more than 150,000 Jews were expelled from Spain, many died on their way: 6/30/1492. [MM470-476]
• 1648 Chmielnitzki massacres: In Poland about 200,000 Jews were slain. [DO43]

(I feel sick ...) this goes on and on, century after century, right into the kilns of Auschwitz.

Native Peoples

• Beginning with Columbus (a former slave trader and would-be Holy Crusader) the conquest of the New World began, as usual understood as a means to propagate Christianity.
• Within hours of landfall on the first inhabited island he encountered in the Caribbean, Columbus seized and carried off six native people who, he said, "ought to be good servants ... [and] would easily be made Christians, because it seemed to me that they belonged to no religion." [SH200]
  While Columbus described the Indians as "idolators" and "slaves, as many as [the Crown] shall order," his pal Michele de Cuneo, Italian nobleman, referred to the natives as "beasts" because "they eat when they are hungry," and made love "openly whenever they feel like it." [SH204-205]
• On every island he set foot on, Columbus planted a cross, "making the declarations that are required" - the requerimiento - to claim the ownership for his Catholic patrons in Spain. And "nobody objected." If the Indians refused or delayed their acceptance (or understanding), the requerimiento continued:

I certify to you that, with the help of God, we shall powerfully enter in your country and shall make war against you ... and shall subject you to the yoke and obedience of the Church ... and shall do you all mischief that we can, as to vassals who do not obey and refuse to receive their lord and resist and contradict him." [SH66]

• Likewise in the words of John Winthrop, first governor of Massachusetts Bay Colony: "justifieinge the undertakeres of the intended Plantation in New England ... to carry the Gospell into those parts of the world, ... and to raise a Bulworke against the kingdome of the Ante-Christ." [SH235]
• In average two thirds of the native population were killed by colonist-imported smallpox before violence began. This was a great sign of "the marvelous goodness and providence of God" to the Christians of course, e.g. the Governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony wrote in 1634, as "for the natives, they are near all dead of the smallpox, so as the Lord hath cleared our title to what we possess." [SH109,238]
• On Hispaniola alone, on Columbus visits, the native population (Arawak), a rather harmless and happy people living on an island of abundant natural resources, a literal paradise, soon mourned 50,000 dead. [SH204]
• The surviving Indians fell victim to rape, murder, enslavement and spanish raids.
• As one of the culprits wrote: "So many Indians died that they could not be counted, all through the land the Indians lay dead everywhere. The stench was very great and pestiferous." [SH69]
• The indian chief Hatuey fled with his people but was captured and burned alive. As "they were tying him to the stake a Franciscan friar urged him to take Jesus to his heart so that his soul might go to heaven, rather than descend into hell. Hatuey replied that if heaven was where the Christians went, he would rather go to hell." [SH70]
• What happened to his people was described by an eyewitness:
  "The Spaniards found pleasure in inventing all kinds of odd cruelties ... They built a long gibbet, long enough for the toes to touch the ground to prevent strangling, and hanged thirteen [natives] at a time in honor of Christ Our Saviour and the twelve Apostles... then, straw was wrapped around their torn bodies and they were burned alive." [SH72]
  Or, on another occasion:
  "The Spaniards cut off the arm of one, the leg or hip of another, and from some their heads at one stroke, like butchers cutting up beef and mutton for market. Six hundred, including the cacique, were thus slain like brute beasts...Vasco [de Balboa] ordered forty of them to be torn to pieces by dogs." [SH83]
• The "island's population of about eight million people at the time of Columbus's arrival in 1492 already had declined by a third to a half before the year 1496 was out." Eventually all the island's natives were exterminated, so the Spaniards were "forced" to import slaves from other caribbean islands, who soon suffered the same fate. Thus "the Caribbean's millions of native people [were] thereby effectively liquidated in barely a quarter of a century". [SH72-73] "In less than the normal lifetime of a single human being, an entire culture of millions of people, thousands of years resident in their homeland, had been exterminated." [SH75]
• "And then the Spanish turned their attention to the mainland of Mexico and Central America. The slaughter had barely begun. The exquisite city of Tenochtitln [Mexico city] was next." [SH75]
• Cortez, Pizarro, De Soto and hundreds of other spanish conquistadors likewise sacked southern and mesoamerican civilizations in the name of Christ (De Soto also sacked Florida).
• "When the 16th century ended, some 200,000 Spaniards had moved to the Americas. By that time probably more than 60,000,000 natives were dead." [SH95]

Of course no different were the founders of what today is the US of Amerikkka.

• Although none of the settlers would have survived winter without native help, they soon set out to expel and exterminate the Indians. Warfare among (north American) Indians was rather harmless, in comparison to European standards, and was meant to avenge insults rather than conquer land. In the words of some of the pilgrim fathers: "Their Warres are farre less bloudy...", so that there usually was "no great slawter of nether side". Indeed, "they might fight seven yeares and not kill seven men." What is more, the Indians usually spared women and children. [SH111]
• In the spring of 1612 some English colonists found life among the (generally friendly and generous) natives attractive enough to leave Jamestown - "being idell ... did runne away unto the Indyans," - to live among them (that probably solved a sex problem).
  "Governor Thomas Dale had them hunted down and executed: 'Some he apointed (sic) to be hanged Some burned Some to be broken upon wheles, others to be staked and some shott to deathe'." [SH105] Of course these elegant measures were restricted for fellow englishmen: "This was the treatment for those who wished to act like Indians. For those who had no choice in the matter, because they were the native people of Virginia" methods were different: "when an Indian was accused by an Englishman of stealing a cup and failing to return it, the English response was to attack the natives in force, burning the entire community" down. [SH105]
• On the territory that is now Massachusetts the founding fathers of the colonies were committing genocide, in what has become known as the "Peqout War". The killers were New England Puritan Christians, refugees from persecution in their own home country England.
• When however, a dead colonist was found, apparently killed by Narragansett Indians, the Puritan colonists wanted revenge. Despite the Indian chief's pledge they attacked.
  Somehow they seem to have lost the idea of what they were after, because when they were greeted by Pequot Indians (long-time foes of the Narragansetts) the troops nevertheless made war on the Pequots and burned their villages.
  The puritan commander-in-charge John Mason after one massacre wrote: "And indeed such a dreadful Terror did the Almighty let fall upon their Spirits, that they would fly from us and run into the very Flames, where many of them perished ... God was above them, who laughed his Enemies and the Enemies of his People to Scorn, making them as a fiery Oven ... Thus did the Lord judge among the Heathen, filling the Place with dead Bodies": men, women, children. [SH113-114]
• So "the Lord was pleased to smite our Enemies in the hinder Parts, and to give us their land for an inheritance". [SH111].
• Because of his readers' assumed knowledge of Deuteronomy, there was no need for Mason to quote the words that immediately follow:
  "Thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth. But thou shalt utterly destroy them..." (Deut 20)
• Mason's comrade Underhill recalled how "great and doleful was the bloody sight to the view of the young soldiers" yet reassured his readers that "sometimes the Scripture declareth women and children must perish with their parents". [SH114]
• Other Indians were killed in successful plots of poisoning. The colonists even had dogs especially trained to kill Indians and to devour children from their mothers breasts, in the colonists' own words: "blood Hounds to draw after them, and Mastives to seaze them." (This was inspired by spanish methods of the time)
  In this way they continued until the extermination of the Pequots was near. [SH107-119]
• The surviving handful of Indians "were parceled out to live in servitude. John Endicott and his pastor wrote to the governor asking for 'a share' of the captives, specifically 'a young woman or girle and a boy if you thinke good'." [SH115]
• Other tribes were to follow the same path.
• Comment the Christian exterminators: "God's Will, which will at last give us cause to say: How Great is His Goodness! and How Great is his Beauty!"
  "Thus doth the Lord Jesus make them to bow before him, and to lick the Dust!" [TA]
• Like today, lying was OK to Christians then. "Peace treaties were signed with every intention to violate them: when the Indians 'grow secure uppon (sic) the treatie', advised the Council of State in Virginia, 'we shall have the better Advantage both to surprise them, & cutt downe theire Corne'." [SH106]
• In 1624 sixty heavily armed Englishmen cut down 800 defenseless Indian men, women and children. [SH107]
• In a single massacre in "King Philip's War" of 1675 and 1676 some "600 Indians were destroyed. A delighted Cotton Mather, revered pastor of the Second Church in Boston, later referred to the slaughter as a 'barbeque'." [SH115]
• To summarize: Before the arrival of the English, the western Abenaki people in New Hampshire and Vermont had numbered 12,000. Less than half a century later about 250 remained alive - a destruction rate of 98%. The Pocumtuck people had numbered more than 18,000, fifty years later they were down to 920 - 95% destroyed. The Quiripi-Unquachog people had numbered about 30,000, fifty years later they were down to 1500 - 95% destroyed. The Massachusetts people had numbered at least 44,000, fifty years later barely 6000 were alive - 81% destroyed. [SH118] These are only a few examples of the multitude of tribes living before Christian colonists set their foot on the New World. All this was before the smallpox epidemics of 1677 and 1678 had occurred. And the carnage was not over then.
• All the above was only the beginning of the European colonization, it was before the frontier age actually had begun.
• A total of maybe more than 150 million Indians (of both Americas) were destroyed in the period of 1500 to 1900, as an average two thirds by smallpox and other epidemics, that leaves some 50 million killed directly by violence, bad treatment and slavery.
• In many countries, such as Brazil, and Guatemala, this continues even today.

More Glorious events in US history

• Reverend Solomon Stoddard, one of New England's most esteemed religious leaders, in "1703 formally proposed to the Massachusetts Governor that the colonists be given the financial wherewithal to purchase and train large packs of dogs 'to hunt Indians as they do bears'." [SH241]
• Massacre of Sand Creek, Colorado 11/29/1864. Colonel John Chivington, a former Methodist minister and still elder in the church ("I long to be wading in gore") had a Cheyenne village of about 600, mostly women and children, gunned down despite the chiefs' waving with a white flag: 400-500 killed.
  From an eye-witness account: "There were some thirty or forty squaws collected in a hole for protection; they sent out a little girl about six years old with a white flag on a stick; she had not proceeded but a few steps when she was shot and killed. All the squaws in that hole were afterwards killed ..." [SH131]
  More gory details.
• By the 1860s, "in Hawai'i the Reverend Rufus Anderson surveyed the carnage that by then had reduced those islands' native population by 90 percent or more, and he declined to see it as tragedy; the expected total die-off of the Hawaiian population was only natural, this missionary said, somewhat equivalent to 'the amputation of diseased members of the body'." [SH244]

20th Century Church Atrocities

• Catholic extermination camps
  Surpisingly few know that Nazi extermination camps in World War II were by no means the only ones in Europe at the time. In the years 1942-1943 also in Croatia existed numerous extermination camps, run by Catholic Ustasha under their dictator Ante Paveli, a practising Catholic and regular visitor to the then pope. There were even concentration camps exclusively for children!
  
  In these camps - the most notorious was Jasenovac, headed by a Franciscan friar - orthodox-Christian serbians (and a substantial number of Jews) were murdered. Like the Nazis the Catholic Ustasha burned their victims in kilns, alive (the Nazis were decent enough to have their victims gassed first). But most of the victims were simply stabbed, slain or shot to death, the number of them being estimated between 300,000 and 600,000, in a rather tiny country. Many of the killers were Franciscan friars. The atrocities were appalling enough to induce bystanders of the Nazi "Sicherheitsdient der SS", watching, to complain about them to Hitler (who did not listen). The pope knew about these events and did nothing to prevent them. [MV]
• Catholic terror in Vietnam
  In 1954 Vietnamese freedom fighters - the Viet Minh - had finally defeated the French colonial government in North Vietnam, which by then had been supported by U.S. funds amounting to more than $2 billion. Although the victorious assured religious freedom to all (most non-buddhist Vietnamese were Catholics), due to huge anticommunist propaganda campaigns many Catholics fled to the South. With the help of Catholic lobbies in Washington and Cardinal Spellman, the Vatican's spokesman in U.S. politics, who later on would call the U.S. forces in Vietnam "Soldiers of Christ", a scheme was concocted to prevent democratic elections which could have brought the communist Viet Minh to power in the South as well, and the fanatic Catholic Ngo Dinh Diem was made president of South Vietnam. [MW16ff]
  
  Diem saw to it that U.S. aid, food, technical and general assistance was given to Catholics alone, Buddhist individuals and villages were ignored or had to pay for the food aids which were given to Catholics for free. The only religious denomination to be supported was Roman Catholicism.
  
  The Vietnamese McCarthyism turned even more vicious than its American counterpart. By 1956 Diem promulgated a presidential order which read:
• 
  
  • "Individuals considered dangerous to the national defense and common security may be confined by executive order, to a concentration camp."

Supposedly to fight communism, thousands of buddhist protesters and monks were imprisoned in "detention camps." Out of protest dozens of buddhist teachers - male and female - and monks poured gasoline over themselves and burned themselves. (Note that Buddhists burned themselves: in comparison Christians tend to burn others). Meanwhile some of the prison camps, which in the meantime were filled with Protestant and even Catholic protesters as well, had turned into no-nonsense death camps. It is estimated that during this period of terror (1955-1960) at least 24,000 were wounded - mostly in street riots - 80,000 people were executed, 275,000 had been detained or tortured, and about 500,000 were sent to concentration or detention camps. [MW76-89].

To support this kind of government in the next decade thousands of American GI's lost their life....

• Rwanda Massacres
  In 1994 in the small african country of Rwanda in just a few months several hundred thousand civilians were butchered, apparently a conflict of the Hutu and Tutsi ethnic groups.

For quite some time I heard only rumours about Catholic clergy actively involved in the 1994 Rwanda massacres. Odd denials of involvement were printed in Catholic church journals, before even anybody had openly accused members of the church.
Then, 10/10/96, in the newscast of S2 Aktuell, Germany - a station not at all critical to Christianity - the following was stated:

"Anglican as well as Catholic priests and nuns are suspect of having actively participated in murders. Especially the conduct of a certain Catholic priest has been occupying the public mind in Rwanda's capital Kigali for months. He was minister of the church of the Holy Family and allegedly murdered Tutsis in the most brutal manner. He is reported to have accompanied marauding Hutu militia with a gun in his cowl. In fact there has been a bloody slaughter of Tutsis seeking shelter in his parish. Even two years after the massacres many Catholics refuse to set foot on the threshold of their church, because to them the participation of a certain part of the clergy in the slaughter is well established. There is almost no church in Rwanda that has not seen refugees - women, children, old - being brutally butchered facing the crucifix.

According to eyewitnesses clergymen gave away hiding Tutsis and turned them over to the machetes of the Hutu militia.
In connection with these events again and again two Benedictine nuns are mentioned, both of whom have fled into a Belgian monastery in the meantime to avoid prosecution. According to survivors one of them called the Hutu killers and led them to several thousand people who had sought shelter in her monastery. By force the doomed were driven out of the churchyard and were murdered in the presence of the nun right in front of the gate. The other one is also reported to have directly cooperated with the murderers of the Hutu militia. In her case again witnesses report that she watched the slaughtering of people in cold blood and without showing response. She is even accused of having procured some petrol used by the killers to set on fire and burn their victims alive..." [S2]

As can be seen from these events, to Christianity the Dark Ages never come to an end....
References:

[DA] K.Deschner, Abermals krhte der Hahn, Stuttgart 1962. [DO] K.Deschner, Opus Diaboli, Reinbek 1987. [EC] P.W.Edbury, Crusade and Settlement, Cardiff Univ. Press 1985. [EJ] S.Eidelberg, The Jews and the Crusaders, Madison 1977. [LI] H.C.Lea, The Inquisition of the Middle Ages, New York 1961. [MM] M.Margolis, A.Marx, A History of the Jewish People. [MV] A.Manhattan, The Vatican's Holocaust, Springfield 1986.
See also V.Dedijer, The Yugoslav Auschwitz and the Vatican, Buffalo NY, 1992. [NC] J.T.Noonan, Contraception: A History of its Treatment by the Catholic Theologians and Canonists, Cambridge/Mass., 1992. [S2] Newscast of S2 Aktuell, Germany, 10/10/96, 12:00. [SH] D.Stannard, American Holocaust, Oxford University Press 1992. [SP] German news magazine Der Spiegel, no.49, 12/2/1996. [TA] A True Account of the Most Considerable Occurrences that have Hapned in the Warre Between the English and the Indians in New England, London 1676. [TG] F.Turner, Beyond Geography, New York 1980. [WW] H.Wollschlger: Die bewaffneten Wallfahrten gen Jerusalem, Zrich 1973.
(This is in german and what is worse, it is out of print. But it is the best I ever read about crusades and includes a full list of original medieval Christian chroniclers' writings). [WV] Estimates on the number of executed witches:

• N.Cohn, Europe's Inner Demons: An Enquiry Inspired by the Great Witch Hunt, Frogmore 1976, 253.
• R.H.Robbins, The Encyclopedia of Witchcraft and Demonology, New York 1959, 180.
• J.B.Russell, Witchcraft in the Middle Ages, Ithaca/NY 1972, 39.
• H.Zwetsloot, Friedrich Spee und die Hexenprozesse, Trier 1954, 56

[Hugo]

Perhaps post 73 illustrated much better than I could say how some want to stifle opinion that they don't like and here she does it by posting a 6000 word copied from two sources and it is doubtful she had read either. If your read them you will find very little in the way of references and they rest on a presupposition that belief in which the direct word of God is the only absolute truth (Qu'ran). Clearly such a supposition is unprovable and all we really get here is a restatement of the usual Islamic arguments of supremacy and faultlessness with absurd and erroneous assumption that everything that is any value being derived from Islam.

[Hugo]

Such test does Exist.... since God is Above Space and time, then the Revelation which is a True one should work for all Ages.... because only such a Revelation would be able to solve the Problems of Humanity in Present, have done it in the Past, and should be able to do it in future, which is itself Beyond Space and Time... everything in Space and time changes, but God does NOT change otherwise he is not god then!

Let me make it easy for you, prove that God exists? If you cannot do that then anything else is worthless.

[Hugo]

show me a book of Guidance, which is Truly Universal for all mankind in Greek ? Will you please ?

How about the New Testament?

[جوري]

Perhaps post 73 illustrated much better than I could say how some want to stifle opinion that they don't like and here she does it by posting a 6000 word copied from two sources and it is doubtful she had read either. If your read them you will find very little in the way of references and they rest on a presupposition that belief in which the direct word of God is the only absolute truth (Qu'ran). Clearly such a supposition is unprovable and all we really get here is a restatement of the usual Islamic arguments of supremacy and faultlessness with absurd and erroneous assumption that everything that is any value being derived from Islam.

it is called cementing your words with facts--proper recorded historical facts! you ought to try it sometimes so that everything you write also by way of 6000 words has some semblance of truth and not a product of wishful thinking..

Let me make it easy for you, prove that God exists? If you cannot do that then anything else is worthless.

truly you are a dynamo of a hyperbole!

[جوري]

How about the New Testament?

is that why Christianity is declining in all of Europe at a rate of 1% a year, and how is guidance in Christianity working out when you're holding vigils to burn books? :lol: you really are a tickle! ;D

[Hugo]

the Original Arabic which is ancient Arabic and still can be found spoken by Bedouin Arabs in deserts, even though different from New Arabic dialects, but still the New Arabic dialect speakers, even for them it is VERY easy to recite Quran.... its about Whether the Book can still be recited and pondered in its original form... the ancient Arabic can still be Learned from Madrassah's while Aramaic is not even taught by any Priest!

I cannot follows this, you appear not to be at all concerned with what is in the book only that it can be recited in Arabic? Its a bit like saying Archimedes principles only applicable if it is written in Ancient Greek?

The truth here is that one can make a sacred books and obstacle to moral and intellectual; progress, because it can consecrate the ideas of a given epoch and its customs as divinely appointed and I would argue that the Qu'ran and hadith do just that. Do you not think it an odd jumble to prove the truth of the Qu'ran by the truth it contains, and at the same time conclude those doctrines to be true because they are contained in the Qu'ran?

[Zafran]

I find it seriously funny that you still believe that science gives ABSOLUTE truth??? It amazes me that you can believe that but have a problem with someone believing that the Quran is absolute?

[Hugo]

it is called cementing your words with facts--proper recorded historical facts! you ought to try it sometimes so that everything you write also by way of 6000 words has some semblance of truth and not a product of wishful thinking..

I am all for facts but all you EVER do is copy from web sites which themselves contain hardly any references to sources. So the FACT is you are ONLY interested in finding something that props up your own view and I cannot recall you ever doing more than that. In contrast I almost never use websites and invariably give a source and it is a source that I have in my possession and easily accessible to anyone who care to do some real reading. You MUST know that NO one is going to read a 6,000 word post so what you are doing is just trying to stifle the discussion. Even if they do read your long posts, as I have done, what you end up with is hundreds of unanswered questions and so we get nowhere because what you post is unrelaible.

[Zafran]

I am all for facts but all you EVER do is copy from web sites which themselves contain hardly any references to sources. So the FACT is you are ONLY interested in finding something that props up your own view and I cannot recall you ever doing more than that. In contrast I almost never use websites and invariably give a source and it is a source that I have in my possession and easily accessible to anyone who care to do some real reading. You MUST know that NO one is going to read a 6,000 word post so what you are doing is just trying to stifle the discussion. Even if they do read your long posts, as I have done, what you end up with is hundreds of unanswered questions and so we get nowhere because what you post is unrelaible.

ofcourse you dont Hugo - we will forget about Wikipedia shall we.

[Hugo]

I find it seriously funny that you still believe that science gives ABSOLUTE truth??? It amazes me that you can believe that but have a problem with someone believing that the Quran is absolute?

Let me put it simply, the Universes as far as we know has existed for about 85 millions years and the laws of physics and the universal constants are unchanged. I can work out how to fly from here to Mars and execute a pin point landing there, trillions of electrical circuits obey ohms law 24 hours a day, every day, trillions of billions of transistor work according to knowN laws, ..... No one but you find my trust in those things at all funny or odd. Yet you seriously content that a book compiled from supposed revelations 1400 years ago is more certain of truth that the laws of nature (which by the ways would have been created by the same God). Let me give a scientific example. According to Q2:31-32 .. He taught Adam all the names.". So Allah taught Adam the names of the plants and animals of which there are about 1.7 million known today and if we include the probable 10 million yet to be discovered plus 99% already extinct ... I think it is stretching it a bit to say it contains absolute truth don't you think?

[Hugo]

ofcourse you dont Hugo - we will forget about Wikipedia shall we.

Well you might well as anyone who looks through your posts will be very hard pressed to find a single reference to anything. Even this quote at the bottom is most likely fake as I have read as far as I know all of Eckermann's letters and recollections (I would guess you don't even know who Eckermann is and what his relationship with Goethe was) and I cannot find it - if you can tell me the ISBN of a book and a page number that has that particular letter or recollection in it I will be happy to retract fully my statement and apologise.

[Zafran]

Well you might well as anyone who looks through your posts will be very hard pressed to find a single reference to anything. Even this quote at the bottom is most likely fake as I have read as far as I know all of Eckermann's letters and recollections (I would guess you don't even know who Eckermann is and what his relationship with Goethe was) and I cannot find it.

- I dont know have you you checked your top site wikipedia you might find it there :p.

But seriously you need to learn that what you believe and think isnt the only view - Most of the musilims here disagree with you - you cant seem to handle that.

[جوري]

I cannot follows this, you appear not to be at all concerned with what is in the book only that it can be recited in Arabic? Its a bit like saying Archimedes principles only applicable if it is written in Ancient Greek?

The truth here is that one can make a sacred books and obstacle to moral and intellectual; progress, because it can consecrate the ideas of a given epoch and its customs as divinely appointed and I would argue that the Qu'ran and hadith do just that. Do you not think it an odd jumble to prove the truth of the Qu'ran by the truth it contains, and at the same time conclude those doctrines to be true because they are contained in the Qu'ran?

the references are laid out on the bottom of the previous page in full..
No, I don't think it is an odd jumble to prove the truth in the Quran by the truth it contains.. (although that wasn't the subject of my last post) it was written purely to put into perspective your alleged 'christian enlightenment'
All truths have to start at some source.. and with Islam the source is the Quran.. let's see that level of integrity in your bible, for starters let the 'authors' agree on content and then we can impose it on real world events!

all the best

[Zafran]

Let me put it simply, the Universes as far as we know has existed for about 85 millions years and the laws of physics and the universal constants are unchanged. I can work out how to fly from here to Mars and execute a pin point landing there, trillions of electrical circuits obey ohms law 24 hours a day, every day, trillions of billions of transistor work according to knowN laws, ..... No one but you find my trust in those things at all funny or odd. Yet you seriously content that a book compiled from supposed revelations 1400 years ago is more certain of truth that the laws of nature (which by the ways would have been created by the same God). Let me give a scientific example. According to Q2:31-32 .. He taught Adam all the names.". So Allah taught Adam the names of the plants and animals of which there are about 1.7 million known today and if we include the probable 10 million yet to be discovered plus 99% already extinct ... I think it is stretching it a bit to say it contains absolute truth don't you think?

So now your calling it "trust" - or belief which is what I have been arguing all along - you however believed that all these laws were absolute. Look at Links post I think you missed it but he said it better then me what I was saying (so I'm not the only one!) - but if you want to believe that all these laws are absolute then thats your view - dont expect other people to share it.

[Hugo]

- I dont know have you you checked your top site wikipedia you might find it there. But seriously you need to learn that what you believe and think isnt the only view - Most of the musilims here disagree with you - you cant seem to handle that.

As I said you have no idea where your quote comes from and cannot give a source. I perfectly understand that you or anyone my not agree with me but that does not make you right does it? That is why we have open discussion and of course no one need join in or even read what is posted. But there is I think a difference between because as Paine has pointed out there is the greatest difference between presuming an opinion to be true, because, with every opportunity for contesting it, it has not been refuted, and assuming its truth for the purpose of not permitting its refutation. To me what I find in Islam is that there is a tacit convention that principles are not to be disputed; where the discussion of the greatest questions which can occupy humanity is considered to be closed, so we cannot hope to find that generally high scale of mental activity which has made some periods of history so remarkable.

[Hugo]

No, I don't think it is an odd jumble to prove the truth in the Quran by the truth it contains.. (although that wasn't the subject of my last post) it was written purely to put into perspective your alleged 'christian enlightenment' All truths have to start at some source.. and with Islam the source is the Quran.. let's see that level of integrity in your bible, for starters let the 'authors' agree on content and then we can impose it on real world events!

References to web sites don't really cut it academically do they. But it is interesting you say the Qu'ran is the source so its just another book.

[Zafran]

As I said you have no idea where your quote comes from and cannot give a source. I perfectly understand that you or anyone my not agree with me but that does not make you right does it? That is why we have open discussion and of course no one need join in or even read what is posted. But there is I think a difference between because as Paine has pointed out there is the greatest difference between presuming an opinion to be true, because, with every opportunity for contesting it, it has not been refuted, and assuming its truth for the purpose of not permitting its refutation. To me what I find in Islam is that there is a tacit convention that principles are not to be disputed; where the discussion of the greatest questions which can occupy humanity is considered to be closed, so we cannot hope to find that generally high scale of mental activity which has made some periods of history so remarkable.

I have and its in my sig if you cant find it thats not my problem. Neither does it make you right does it? Its not really an open discussion - its agree with hugo or else type of discussion - so far a lot of people disagree with you you cant seem to handle that - if someone does have a sound disagreement with you seem

1 - ignore them
2- talk about something random like my sig which has nothing to do with the thread and my question is left in the open -

[Hugo]

[QUOTE=τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ;1353530]Nice paragraph, a bit sophmoric, I couldn't compare it to the Quran, there is nothing to compare, there is the language of men, and then the language of the divine, but I'll post that which is better by Antonio Machado, albeit the above wouldn't even qualify as a poem (let alone what you set it out to do)

So you could NOT meet the challenge and find something in the Qu'ran to match what I posted. Perhaps this can be another of your principles or criteria, that if the Qu'ran were from God it or part of it would contain every possible idea and so match anything found anywhere.

[Hugo]

I have and its in my sig if you cant find it thats not my problem. Neither does it make you right does it? Its not really an open discussion - its agree with hugo or else type of discussion - so far a lot of people disagree with you you can seem to handle that - if someone does have a sound disagreement with you seem1 - ignore them
2- talk about something random like my sig which has nothing to do with the thread and my question is left in the open -

Well I definably don't ignore them. But let's try it out, you argue that Science is not absolute, it can change tomorrow ow and I disagree and have given reason for that. So which is true?

[Zafran]

Well I definably don't ignore them. But let's try it out, you argue that Science is not absolute, it can change tomorrow ow and I disagree and have given reason for that. So which is true?

how do you solve the problem of induction?

[جوري]

So you could NOT meet the challenge and find something in the Qu'ran to match what I posted. Perhaps this can be another of your principles or criteria, that if the Qu'ran were from God it or part of it would contain every possible idea and so match anything found anywhere.

Firstly who are you to set any sort of criteria?
secondly what is your criteria supposed to prove? do you find every mathematics books to cover all the principles of physics? or do you find that it can teach you the basics with which to approach principal that could arise thereafter?
The Quran is a book of guidance and a book of signs, interestingly when you and yours were mired in ignorance as sure to be the case if anyone took christianity with other than a grain of salt, those who followed Islamic guidance built empires with sound science, social,moral and political systems that make all your petty attempts all the more entertaining..

do us all a favor and try to read some of the contents of the books whose ISBN you readily share instead of digging for opinions that support yours, you might actually learn something on logic and world history amongst other things and it might allay some of that seething hatred and ignorance that seems to govern your every move!


all the best!

[aadil77]

Well don't waste any time go elsewhere if you have nothing to say and don't want to hear. You might like to know there is a Biblical verse in Matthew 13:15 "For this people's heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.' - so maybe indeed be you that is not hearing what God has to say.

Likewise we have similar verses for your kind:

2:171 The parable of those who reject Faith is as if one were to shout Like a goat-herd, to things that listen to nothing but calls and cries: Deaf, dumb, and blind, they are void of wisdom.

6:110 And We will turn away their hearts and their eyes just as they refused to believe in it the first time. And We will leave them in their transgression, wandering blindly.

22:46 So have they not traveled through the earth and have hearts by which to reason and ears by which to hear? For indeed, it is not eyes that are blinded, but blinded are the hearts which are within the breasts.

[Abu Zakariya]

Hugo,

I detect a supposition here on your part, one that I would contend. The idea that the truth about existential questions in life - like those about God, religious truth, morality, and things like that - are to be attained through a process similar to the one that we utilize to find out facts about the material world around us isn't really an Islamic idea to being with. I mean, if God wanted us to reach the truth about Him and His true religion through empirical, scientific means, then the most obvious way for Him to reveal Himself would be through, well, simply showing Himself to us, right? Yet, the Qur'an ridicules the mere idea, which, at least, tells us that this notion of using the scientific method as a yard stick to find out whether or not Islam is the truth isn't something that a Muslim would say is the proper method in the first place. In other words: no one said that it is scientifically provable that Gabriel, for instance, cleansed the heart of the Prophet. I am not saying that one should believe based on blind faith or something like that. And I do believe that Islam is the truth and can be provable, in a sense. But my point here is that the discussion cannot even begin before we agree on what it actually means to prove something, and a Muslim would say that the empirical method is the wrong one due to its limitiation (and by limitation I mean: it is used to find out truth about the material world, and God isn't material, nor are religious truths).

[Hugo]

how do you solve the problem of induction?

The problem of induction cannot be solved, it is fatally flawed. Induction might be simply characterised as 'more of the same' so we see something, we see it often and it is tempting to conclude we can predict the future. An argument is valid when there is no way (meaning no possible way) that the premises or starting points could be true without the conclusions being true. However, as Hume and others have shown, when we reason inductively there is a way in which our premises can be true and our conclusion false. For example I can say it has rained every Thursday at 3pm for the last 4 weeks and that can be is unquestionably true but if I suggest the conclusion that therefore it will rain next Thursday at 3pm it is obvious this may not be true.

What induction does is engineer a bridge between past and future, but cannot argue that the bridge is reliable. If we think of this in the context of scripture the truth is that one can make a sacred books and obstacle to moral and intellectual; progress, because it can consecrate the ideas of a given epoch and its customs as divinely appointed and hence unchangeable and not possible to improve but that is illogical for the simple reason that one cannot know what you yourself or others might know in the future.

The only way forward is to let everything be discussed and every objection heard because to but think that some particular principle or doctrine should be forbidden to be questioned because it is so certain, that is, because they are certain that it is certain so we decide the question for others, without allowing them to hear what can be said on the contrary side so he who prevents the opinion from being heard assumes infallibility. However unwillingly a person who has a strong opinion may admit the possibility that his opinion may be false, he ought to be moved by the consideration that however true it may be, if it is not fully, frequently, and fearlessly discussed, it will be held as a dead dogma, not a living truth. Where there is a tacit convention that principles are not to be disputed; where the discussion of the greatest questions which can occupy humanity is considered to be closed, we cannot hope to find that generally high scale of mental activity which has made some periods of history so remarkable - in short we must assert our mental freedom and any religion or dogma that forbids it or worse is to be fought. No one can be a great thinker who does not recognize, that as a thinker it is his first duty to follow his intellect to whatever conclusions it may lead.

[Zafran]

The problem of induction cannot be solved, it is fatally flawed. Induction might be simply characterised as 'more of the same' so we see something, we see it often and it is tempting to conclude we can predict the future. An argument is valid when there is no way (meaning no possible way) that the premises or starting points could be true without the conclusions being true. However, as Hume and others have shown, when we reason inductively there is a way in which our premises can be true and our conclusion false. For example I can say it has rained every Thursday at 3pm for the last 4 weeks and that can be is unquestionably true but if I suggest the conclusion that therefore it will rain next Thursday at 3pm it is obvious this may not be true.

What induction does is engineer a bridge between past and future, but cannot argue that the bridge is reliable. If we think of this in the context of scripture the truth is that one can make a sacred books and obstacle to moral and intellectual; progress, because it can consecrate the ideas of a given epoch and its customs as divinely appointed and hence unchangeable and not possible to improve but that is illogical for the simple reason that one cannot know what you yourself or others might know in the future.

The only way forward is to let everything be discussed and every objection heard because to but think that some particular principle or doctrine should be forbidden to be questioned because it is so certain, that is, because they are certain that it is certain so we decide the question for others, without allowing them to hear what can be said on the contrary side so he who prevents the opinion from being heard assumes infallibility. However unwillingly a person who has a strong opinion may admit the possibility that his opinion may be false, he ought to be moved by the consideration that however true it may be, if it is not fully, frequently, and fearlessly discussed, it will be held as a dead dogma, not a living truth. Where there is a tacit convention that principles are not to be disputed; where the discussion of the greatest questions which can occupy humanity is considered to be closed, we cannot hope to find that generally high scale of mental activity which has made some periods of history so remarkable - in short we must assert our mental freedom and any religion or dogma that forbids it or worse is to be fought. No one can be a great thinker who does not recognize, that as a thinker it is his first duty to follow his intellect to whatever conclusions it may lead.

right so you now you believe that the law of gravity is now not absolute as it suffers from induction! Have you wasted everyones time by talking about something you have just refuted 7 pages later????

[Hugo]

I detect a supposition here on your part, one that I would contend. The idea that the truth about existential questions in life - like those about God, religious truth, morality, and things like that - are to be attained through a process similar to the one that we utilize to find out facts about the material world around us isn't really an Islamic idea to being with. I mean, if God wanted us to reach the truth about Him and His true religion through empirical, scientific means, then the most obvious way for Him to reveal Himself would be through, well, simply showing Himself to us, right? Yet, the Qur'an ridicules the mere idea, which, at least, tells us that this notion of using the scientific method as a yard stick to find out whether or not Islam is the truth isn't something that a Muslim would say is the proper method in the first place. In other words: no one said that it is scientifically provable that Gabriel, for instance, cleansed the heart of the Prophet. I am not saying that one should believe based on blind faith or something like that. And I do believe that Islam is the truth and can be provable, in a sense. But my point here is that the discussion cannot even begin before we agree on what it actually means to prove something, and a Muslim would say that the empirical method is the wrong one due to its limitiation (and by limitation I mean: it is used to find out truth about the material world, and God isn't material, nor are religious truths).

If you see my earlier post you will note that I state that empiricism is logicically unsound though sometime its all we have. Secondly, I would say that the scientific method is much to be preferred but when it comes to God and revelation there is no material evidence available to us. The problem often is as expressed by Socrates 3,000 years ago when he said " is what is Holy, Holy because the God's approve it, or do they approve it because it is Holy" and is a classic induction hypothesis. Therefore, whether the Bible or the Qu'ran is from God or not, is a question of faith not proof because no such proof exists - we can can trace the text, date the text and so on but they cannot prove a God exists.

Finally, proof is a hard concept but means that the phenomenon we are looking at is always true, it’s not a matter of belief but something that cannot be avoided (gravity for example) - Archimedes principle is unconstrained, meaning it is always true for everyone, all the time, everywhere, is accepted by all and cannot be avoided or ignored by anyone - simplistically, it does not matter what kind of bath you get in, colour shape or whatever, the water will always be displaced. In contrast if I say the Qu'ran is the word of God because it is linguistically perfect then such a test cannot ONLY apply to the Qu'ran, it must apply to ANY book, ipso facto ANY book can be from God. Of course I can suggest other seemingly plausible tests but they will all fail the test of Universality because they are essentially inductive and hence cannot be proof and in a way the reason is obvious and that is we cannot even prove God exists.

I am not arguing that God does not exist since there is no way of knowing that one way or the other but what in faith I have done and in principle anyone can do is become convinced after reading say the Bible and seeing its teaching outworking in ones own and the lives of others - I don't think it is possible to go beyond that.

[Hugo]

right so you now you believe that the law of gravity is now not absolute as it suffers from induction! Have you wasted everyones time by talking about something you have just refuted 7 pages later????

I get the feeling I am wasting my time with you. From the time signature of my original post and your reply we have a maximum of 6 minutes so you are not even considering what I have said are you and certainly not bothering to check any thing out - perhaps you ought to be aware of the saying "awareness of our own ignorance is the doorstep to knowledge?

The laws of nature DO NOT suffer from induction. Induction as I have shown gives you NO CERTAINTY, it cannot with reliability predict the future. But if I have a law of nature I can do it with precision. For example, if I know the voltage and resistance in a circuit I can work out exactly what the current will be, I do not need knowledge of past events to do that. It is suggested there are 18 basic physical laws in the universe: Fluid mechanics : Archimedes’ principle, Force, mass, and inertia, Kepler’s three laws of planetary motion, Newton’s three laws of motion, Euler's laws of rigid body motion, Newton’s law of universal gravitation, Heat, energy, and temperature, Newton’s law of cooling, Boyle’s law, Law of conservation of energy, Joule’s first and second law, The four laws of thermodynamics, Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle.

[جوري]

perhaps you ought to be aware of the saying "awareness of our own ignorance is the doorstep to knowledge?

We certainly hope you take your own advise pithy phrase -- fact is, most people here feel that you are wasting their time and not reading anything and your replies aren't in fact either inapplicable to anything they've said nor draw from its premise or dodgy at best when you can't reconcile your own beliefs, least of which when simply stated a couple of pages ago.. I'd put that into a table of you vs. those who feel you are wasting their time and if the percentage is overwhelmingly against you, then I'd consider that there is something wrong with your person rather than there is something wrong with everyone else!

all the best

[Zafran]

I get the feeling I am wasting my time with you. From the time signature of my original post and your reply we have a maximum of 6 minutes so you are not even considering what I have said are you and certainly not bothering to check any thing out - perhaps you ought to be aware of the saying "awareness of our own ignorance is the doorstep to knowledge?

The laws of nature DO NOT suffer from induction. Induction as I have shown gives you NO CERTAINTY, it cannot with reliability predict the future. But if I have a law of nature I can do it with precision. For example, if I know the voltage and resistance in a circuit I can work out exactly what the current will be, I do not need knowledge of past events to do that. It is suggested there are 18 basic physical laws in the universe: Fluid mechanics : Archimedes’ principle, Force, mass, and inertia, Kepler’s three laws of planetary motion, Newton’s three laws of motion, Euler's laws of rigid body motion, Newton’s law of universal gravitation, Heat, energy, and temperature, Newton’s law of cooling, Boyle’s law, Law of conservation of energy, Joule’s first and second law, The four laws of thermodynamics, Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle.

From all your examples you need to test these if they work - lets take the law of gravity - how do you know that the law of gravity is going to work in the future - your answer becasue all the experiments I have done in the past say so - its induction and thats what it suffers with? what part of this do you not understand. All of the exmaples you give preety much rely on experiments from the past.

By the way this isnt just me if you Go back to Lynk post (57) he expalins the same thing maybe you should apply "awareness of our own ignorance is the doorstep to knowledge"? Did you miss that on purpose?

You need to solve the problem of induction for this to be absolute. If you cannot do that then it is a belief that these laws will work in the future.

I have read your previous post and it makes your position look even weaker!

[Hugo]

We certainly hope you take your own advise pithy phrase -- fact is, most people here feel that you are wasting their time and not reading anything and your replies aren't in fact either inapplicable to anything they've said nor draw from its premise or dodgy at best when you can't reconcile your own beliefs, least of which when simply stated a couple of pages ago.. I'd put that into a table of you vs. those who feel you are wasting their time and if the percentage is overwhelmingly against you, then I'd consider that there is something wrong with your person rather than there is something wrong with everyone else!

I do but here what have you added to the discussion? But like always in these threads no one has to read what others have written

[جوري]

I do but here what have you added to the discussion? But like always in these threads no one has to read what others have written

rather what have you added to the discussion with your all too frequent dodges by way of pithy phrases oh pithy one? We are simply pointing out the obvious which you desire from others but seem to exempt of yourself.. I highly doubt you sit down with yourself and reassess why many seem to have formulated a similar stance on the quality of your posts or lack thereof.......

all the best

[Zafran]

I do but here what have you added to the discussion? But like always in these threads no one has to read what others have written

This does seem to be the case with you - but if your going to repeat the same rhetoric over and over again when it isnt accurate dont expect people to nod there heads in agreement with everything you say. Your view on Newtons law being absolute and not suffering from induction being a big one.

[Hugo]

From all your examples you need to test these if they work - lets take the law of gravity - how do you know that the law of gravity is going to work in the future - your answer becasue all the experiments I have done in the past say so - its induction and thats what it suffers with? what part of this do you not understand. All of the exmaples you give preety much rely on experiments from the past.

Induction gives no certainty of future events but laws of nature do. I can design a circuit using known laws, I can work out the trajectory of a ball and know where it will land and so on. What an experiment does is CONFIRM a law and ones confirmed we may uses it with absolute confidence. If you don't agree the add some content, explain how induction and deduction differ? I will now consider post 57

Newton's laws are NOT 'absolutely' true and they do rely on inductive reasoning. The mathematical equations only describe what would happen IF my assumptions about the natural world are true and your assumptions of the natural world are only true because of some inductive reasoning.

This is NOT correct, it is true that Newton might have been inductive when he was searching for those laws and eventually guessed what they might be. However, at some point he was able to formulate a theory and once he had that he could decide what data was needer to verify them. Ever after the discovery the predictions they make about the natural world will be correct. If there is an assumption here it is that the laws of nature don't change and since Newtons Laws have been used trillions of times everyday for as long as the Universe has existed it is hardly an assumption is it? The whole point of reasoning in a way is to discover the laws of nature and that of course gives us power over it.

But if the universe changed all of a sudden and Newton's laws no longer applied, what would happen to your mathematical equations? They would no longer apply and would no longer be able to give you accurate predictions

But surely in any conceivably Universe some laws must apply and so there would in effect always be Newtons laws in one form or another. But what possible mechanism can you think of that would cause the laws of nature to change? It is of course true that some recent cosmological measurement hint that the value of the fine-structure constants may have changed over the history of the universe (85 million years). If confirmed, the results will be of enormous significance for the foundations of physics but physics remains and what this would be about is why the laws are as they are - for example, we are familiar with magnetism and we have precise laws surrounding it but what exactly it is, is a mystery.

So it's very naive of you to say you will always know equations in Newtons physics will always be true; they will only always be true if what they are meant to describe stay the same and there is no logical guarantee that they will!

This make no sense to me - you like every one else uses their Iphone every day, get on Aeroplanes, turn on the TV and so on NO ONE would think me in any way odd or naive for thinking as I do. They would though most likely think you bonkers for suggesting all this may may change tomorrow. The premise is that the laws of physics don't change and as far as I know there is no evidence at all that they do unless you have some - as I have said every law of physics (including the ones we don't know about) have worked perfectly trillions upon trillion of times - how much evidence do you want?

A rule of thumb that that helps clear up confusion between certainty and near certainty is to see if you get a contradiction if you assumed that something you think is absolute is not absolute. It's easy to see how tomorrow the universe could magically change and all your laws of physics will turn out to be wrong (this is logically possible and if this logical possibility exists you can't claim certitude, or at least not in the 'deductive' sense) but I suppose it's harder to see how an equation as simple as x + 1 = 4 could give you a wrong answer. Math is a little funny though, it seems to be the case, as Godel proved, that math will be true but unprovable logically.

This is a bit muddled as I cannot for the life of me see easily or otherwise how the laws of the Universe could change - so perhaps we are at an impasse - you accept the premise that the laws can change and I that they cannot. So in a way perhaps we both agree with Godel (well we cannot do anything else can we as he has PROVED it, unless you think that could change as well?) that in any system there will always be something that you cannot prove but have to assume (though Turing and others made it worse).

[Hugo]

This does seem to be the case with you - but if your going to repeat the same rhetoric over and over again when it isnt accurate dont expect people to nod there heads in agreement with everything you say. Your view on Newtons law being absolute and not suffering from induction being a big one.

But cannot you see that if Newtons Laws are inductive I would have to have tables of velocity and acceleration from past experiments and if I wanted to find a particular value I would have to look it up using these past events. But we don't do that do we because we KNOW the law that connects the variables so we DO NOT need to know about past events to predict motion events in the future.

[Abu Zakariya]

If you see my earlier post you will note that I state that empiricism is logicically unsound though sometime its all we have. Secondly, I would say that the scientific method is much to be preferred but when it comes to God and revelation there is no material evidence available to us. The problem often is as expressed by Socrates 3,000 years ago when he said " is what is Holy, Holy because the God's approve it, or do they approve it because it is Holy" and is a classic induction hypothesis. Therefore, whether the Bible or the Qu'ran is from God or not, is a question of faith not proof because no such proof exists - we can can trace the text, date the text and so on but they cannot prove a God exists.

Finally, proof is a hard concept but means that the phenomenon we are looking at is always true, it’s not a matter of belief but something that cannot be avoided (gravity for example) - Archimedes principle is unconstrained, meaning it is always true for everyone, all the time, everywhere, is accepted by all and cannot be avoided or ignored by anyone - simplistically, it does not matter what kind of bath you get in, colour shape or whatever, the water will always be displaced. In contrast if I say the Qu'ran is the word of God because it is linguistically perfect then such a test cannot ONLY apply to the Qu'ran, it must apply to ANY book, ipso facto ANY book can be from God. Of course I can suggest other seemingly plausible tests but they will all fail the test of Universality because they are essentially inductive and hence cannot be proof and in a way the reason is obvious and that is we cannot even prove God exists.

I am not arguing that God does not exist since there is no way of knowing that one way or the other but what in faith I have done and in principle anyone can do is become convinced after reading say the Bible and seeing its teaching outworking in ones own and the lives of others - I don't think it is possible to go beyond that.

Fair enough, I do think that I can see your point here, but I don't agree with what you say about there not being a way to know whether or not God exists. God wants us to accept His message of truth and He wouldn't have made His existence (or His message) unknowable. It isn't scientifically verifiable, I think, due to the limitations of the scientific method but that doesn't mean that it is unknowable.

[Zafran]

Induction gives no certainty of future events but laws of nature do. I can design a circuit using known laws, I can work out the trajectory of a ball and know where it will land and so on. What an experiment does is CONFIRM a law and ones confirmed we may uses it with absolute confidence. If you don't agree the add some content, explain how induction and deduction differ? I will now consider post 57

How do you know where that ball will land, how can you work this out? we'll see your reasoning here and you'll see you use induction. How do you know these known laws for example making a circuit? Your not deducing anything your using induction you'll see from the explanation you'll give.

This is NOT correct, it is true that Newton might have been inductive when he was searching for those laws and eventually guessed what they might be. However, at some point he was able to formulate a theory and once he had that he could decide what data was needer to verify them. Ever after the discovery the predictions they make about the natural world will be correct. If there is an assumption here it is that the laws of nature don't change and since Newtons Laws have been used trillions of times everyday for as long as the Universe has existed it is hardly an assumption is it? The whole point of reasoning in a way is to discover the laws of nature and that of course gives us power over it.

Pin point example of induction we know that Newtons laws have worked because they have worked trillion years in the PAST so clearly according to you they will work in the future for that reason - By the way how do you know that Newtons laws have been working trillions of years in the past and how are you certain with this one?

This make no sense to me - you like every one else uses their Iphone every day, get on Aeroplanes, turn on the TV and so on NO ONE would think me in any way odd or naive for thinking as I do. They would though most likely think you bonkers for suggesting all this may may change tomorrow. The premise is that the laws of physics don't change and as far as I know there is no evidence at all that they do unless you have some - as I have said every law of physics (including the ones we don't know about) have worked perfectly trillions upon trillion of times - how much evidence do you want?

why is it because our I phones, Aeroplanes and TV have worked in the past - so they Must work in the future - I get you more induction. You also ram it home by saying it worked trillions and trillions of time when? oh in the past - more induction you should by now understand where I'm getting at.

another thing is that how do you know that the laws of newton dont change??? is it that also becasue they havent changed in the past - so clearly they wont change in the future (according to you) - More induction.

So all the examples you have given so far are based on induction - every single one. You do see this right.

[Zafran]

But cannot you see that if Newtons Laws are inductive I would have to have tables of velocity and acceleration from past experiments and if I wanted to find a particular value I would have to look it up using these past events. But we don't do that do we because we KNOW the law that connects the variables so we DO NOT need to know about past events to predict motion events in the future.

Hugo man seriously no you dont know that - the only thing you are certain and absolute of is that Newtons law work fine in the past - that in no way means we can be absolute or certain that they will work in the future - For you to believe that which you have shown in your previous post is only by Induction - do you understand now. I have highlighted your inductive reasoning in your previous post. I think its quite clear.

[Hugo]

Hugo man seriously no you dont know that - the only thing you are certain and absolute of is that Newtons law work fine in the past - that in no way means we can be absolute or certain that they will work in the future - For you to believe that which you have shown in your previous post is only by Induction - do you understand now. I have highlighted your inductive reasoning in your previous post. I think its quite clear.

Before we continue can you just tell me if YOU think that the only form of reasoning is inductive?

[Zafran]

Before we continue can you just tell me if YOU think that the only form of reasoning is inductive?

No but it is for Newtons law and experimental science.

[Hugo]

No but it is for Newtons law and experimental science.

Ok, that is your view but what others methods are there other than induction and perhaps you will give an example of use?

[Zafran]

Ok, that is your view but what others methods are there other than induction and perhaps you will give an example of use?

Do you accept that your using induction or not - i believe you are and have clearly shown it with your examples.

[Hugo]

Do you accept that your using induction or not - i believe you are and have clearly shown it with your examples.

We all use induction in our every day lives but I do not use induction when say I cite Ohms law. But let me answer by asking you two questions.

1. Do you agree that induction is flawed because it implies a circular form of reasoning that in general it cannot be trusted to give us a reliable predictor of the future?

2. If we consider Newtons 3 Laws of Motion, can you explain how he got them by induction - the usual classical forms v = u + at, s = (u + v)t/2 etc?

[Hugo]

Fair enough, I do think that I can see your point here, but I don't agree with what you say about there not being a way to know whether or not God exists. God wants us to accept His message of truth and He wouldn't have made His existence (or His message) unknowable. It isn't scientifically verifiable, I think, due to the limitations of the scientific method but that doesn't mean that it is unknowable.

Some points which we might usefully consider.

1. I don't think the scientific method is at fault its that we cannot get material data with which to work?
2. One has to be careful when arguing in the form of what God would or would not do because it pre-supposes he exists so we end in a paradox. However, I do concur that we can find God if we search for him. Christians and Jews are unconcerned about proofs but take the line expressed in Jeremiah 29:10-15 (NIV)

For I know the plans I have for you," declares the LORD, "plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future. Then you will call upon me and come and pray to me, and I will listen to you. You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart. I will be found by you," declares the LORD, "and will bring you back from captivity.

Of course contextually this is about those in exile but in a sense without God we are all exiled. So the key for the Jew and Christian is not to look for proofs of God but rather to focus on finding God, so when we read the Bible we ask what is God saying to us?

One might go further back to Abraham the father of all our faiths. He had no scripture, no miracles, no proofs but somehow in Ur where he lived, part of a glittering Sumerian civilization, he sought God and heard his call and set off for the promised land - which at that time was inhabited by nomads.

So yes, God is knowable but we must seek for Him and his working and prompting in our hearts and minds and of course now we have much more than Abraham to aid the search. So looking for proofs seems empty to me as well as rationally impossible. If we speak of evidence then I see it in the lives of the Biblical characters, Biblical teaching and I see how it transforms lives today - but this is just evidence not proof and so each of us must be convinced like Abraham in our own minds that God is/has called us.

What is your take on this?

[Zafran]

We all use induction in our every day lives but I do not use induction when say I cite Ohms law. But let me answer by asking you two questions.

1. Do you agree that induction is flawed because it implies a circular form of reasoning that in general it cannot be trusted to give us a reliable predictor of the future?

2. If we consider Newtons 3 Laws of Motion, can you explain how he got them by induction - the usual classical forms v = u + at, s = (u + v)t/2 etc?

1 - No what I am saying is that newtons law, Ohams law and any other law are the best Guess work we have - but in no way does this mean that it is absolute like you are claiming. I Believe its a belief and strong one that Newtons laws will work in the futuire but that is only what it is a strong belief not certainty or absolute which you are arguing for.

2 - and what does this have to do with certainty - Even if Newtons laws worked in the past by Newton carrying out tests does that mean they are certain or even absolute to work in the future - of course not. We can believe it but by no means does it mean it is certain.

Now If you still believe that Newtons laws are absolute then whats your problem with somebody claiming that his or her religious scripture is absolute???

[Hugo]

1 - No what I am saying is that newtons law, Ohams law and any other law are the best Guess work we have - but in no way does this mean that it is absolute like you are claiming. I Believe its a belief and strong one that Newtons laws will work in the futuire but that is only what it is a strong belief not certainty or absolute which you are arguing for.

I would go along with the notion that Newtons laws are the best explanation we have. Now I can explain how by deduction we get these laws but you cannot (well not so far anyway) explain how they arise by induction. The point is that I can test these laws, anyone can test them and get the same results BUT we KNOW induction does not have that property. One cannot logically hold to the view that induction is only 'certain' in some cases and not others.

Please think about this and let me hear your answer. Einstein, in the early 1900s brought us amongst other things General and Special Relativity - can you explain how he did that using induction? This is a critical question if your arguments are correct and you don't need a degree in physics to answer it.

Now If you still believe that Newtons laws are absolute then whats your problem with somebody claiming that his or her religious scripture is absolute???

I have no problem in general with anyone claiming their scriptures are absolute but the issue is not what is claimed but what can be proved and I have yet to see a proof, a universal proof that ANY scripture is unequivocally the very word of God. If you wish to present one then do so.

[Zafran]

I would go along with the notion that Newtons laws are the best explanation we have. Now I can explain how by deduction we get these laws but you cannot (well not so far anyway) explain how they arise by induction. The point is that I can test these laws, anyone can test them and get the same results BUT we KNOW induction does not have that property. One cannot logically hold to the view that induction is only 'certain' in some cases and not others.

How do you KNOW that they will get the same results in the future - every test you do there is always a chance that it can still be wrong in the future regardless of Newton or Einstien doing the test - it is not absolute - so its a belief.

Please think about this and let me hear your answer. Einstein, in the early 1900s brought us amongst other things General and Special Relativity - can you explain how he did that using induction? This is a critical question if your arguments are correct and you don't need a degree in physics to answer it.

You dont get it do you - lets say you do the same thing that einstien did - Is it certian/absolute that it will work in the future ofcourse not - it worked the past but gives is zero certainty in the future - I'm waiting for you to admit that these laws do suffer from induction.

I have no problem in general with anyone claiming their scriptures are absolute but the issue is not what is claimed but what can be proved and I have yet to see a proof, a universal proof that ANY scripture is unequivocally the very word of God. If you wish to present one then do so.

Thats like denying the "proofs" of Newtons laws - we can give you millions of past tests but if the person does not see them as "proof" then its like talking to the flat earth society and arguing that the earth is round.

[Hugo]

How do you KNOW that they will get the same results in the future - every test you do there is always a chance that it can still be wrong in the future regardless of Newton or Einstien doing the test - it is not absolute - so its a belief.

The simple fact is that Newtons Laws may be falsified - meaning we have a test that every one agrees on and everyone can do at any time and this has been done and so unless you can create a test that shows otherwise the laws are true now and always will be.

You dont get it do you - lets say you do the same thing that einstien did - Is it certian/absolute that it will work in the future ofcourse not - it worked the past but gives is zero certainty in the future - I'm waiting for you to admit that these laws do suffer from induction.

Respectfully, its you that 'don't get it'. if one looks through your post you offer no argument just a statement of what you believe and you have been unable to explain deduction or how laws are formulated. If we now turn to Einstein and relativity then it is totally obvious that he could NOT have arrived at his theories by an inductive route - do you know why? Well its simple, induction relies on observation of past events and using them you can make inferences about future similar events which may turn out to be true or false. However, Einstein nor anyone else could have made any measurements or observations about curved space or time dilation so here we have pure deduction, he worked it all out without recourse to any data. In fact it would be another 11 years before anyone was able to test and verify his predictions.

That's like denying the "proofs" of Newtons laws - we can give you millions of past tests but if the person does not see them as "proof" then its like talking to the flat earth society and arguing that the earth is round.

ANYONE can bizarrely deny Newtons Laws, it makes no differences as the effects which those laws describe CANNOT be avoided no matter what you believe. In fact you are the one who denies them because you believe, without a shred of evidence, that they can change tomorrow so you essentially deny the proof. If someone (as a Saudi cleric did in 1977) declares the earth flat then I can tell him what to do to test it. In fact in the case of the Saudi cleric he was forced to withdraw his fatwa or face further ridicule when he saw a Saudi astronaut in the space station.

I will say it again when we have laws of nature that have been uncovered by deduction so they can be falsified - meaning we know how to test them. So for Newtons Laws of motion it does not matter if we tested them with a big car, a green car, a sports car, a bus, bulldozer, a bicycle they will always work.

Now if we turn briefly to the question of is the Qu'ran true then I do not know of a single test that is capable of universal falsification. Here I mean that the Qu'ran MUST be regarded as just a book, like any other book so whatever test you or I think of MUST be applicable to any book because we cannot automatically know that any book is or is not from God - we have to test them. So if you know of such a test then tell us about it?

[Zafran]

The simple fact is that Newtons Laws may be falsified - meaning we have a test that every one agrees on and everyone can do at any time and this has been done and so unless you can create a test that shows otherwise the laws are true now and always will be.

No they are not absolute - your "test" does not make Newtons law absolute as I have shown before from your own examples simply you saying it does not mean you are true or all these "people that agree with you" which frankly I have not met - your the first one to actually claim newtons laws are absolute.

Respectfully, its you that 'don't get it'. if one looks through your post you offer no argument just a statement of what you believe and you have been unable to explain deduction or how laws are formulated. If we now turn to Einstein and relativity then it is totally obvious that he could NOT have arrived at his theories by an inductive route - do you know why? Well its simple, induction relies on observation of past events and using them you can make inferences about future similar events which may turn out to be true or false. However, Einstein nor anyone else could have made any measurements or observations about curved space or time dilation so here we have pure deduction, he worked it all out without recourse to any data. In fact it would be another 11 years before anyone was able to test and verify his predictions.

You changing names and theories does not mean you have solved the problem - here once again we look in the past for guess who Einstien and 11 years after him - all in the past - ofcourse the usual inductive argument - its funny because all the examples you give the only way you can come to the concluion that they are absolute is simply by Induction.

You say Newton said it (yes in the past) Einstien did this (yes in the past) 11 years later they tested it (guess what thats in the past as well). So according to you this must mean there theories have to be absolute in the future as all there tests and great work was done in the past.

Do you want to give more examples of Induction or is this not enough for you???

ANYONE can bizarrely deny Newtons Laws, it makes no differences as the effects which those laws describe CANNOT be avoided no matter what you believe. In fact you are the one who denies them because you believe, without a shred of evidence, that they can change tomorrow so you essentially deny the proof. If someone (as a Saudi cleric did in 1977) declares the earth flat then I can tell him what to do to test it. In fact in the case of the Saudi cleric he was forced to withdraw his fatwa or face further ridicule when he saw a Saudi astronaut in the space station.

You dont KNOW that because they might not work in the future - there is always a chnace of that - slim but there is - this is why they are NOT absolute. You fall into induction once again how do you know they are absolute - (do you like going in circles) You have failed to show any non inductive reasoning - all the works you talk about Newton, Einstien are all in the past - do you understand that? Its induction.

Lets not forget about the christain church that imprisoned a man called Galilo. - Anyway a great exmaple of Hugo going way off topic with your love affair with the saudis.

ANYONE can bizarrely deny Newtons Laws, it makes no differences as the effects which those laws describe CANNOT be avoided no matter what you be

I will say it again when we have laws of nature that have been uncovered by deduction so they can be falsified - meaning we know how to test them. So for Newtons Laws of motion it does not matter if we tested them with a big car, a green car, a sports car, a bus, bulldozer, a bicycle they will always work.

Now if we turn briefly to the question of is the Qu'ran true then I do not know of a single test that is capable of universal falsification. Here I mean that the Qu'ran MUST be regarded as just a book, like any other book so whatever test you or I think of MUST be applicable to any book because we cannot automatically know that any book is or is not from God - we have to test them. So if you know of such a test then tell us about it?

Man its like talking to a brick wall - you know how to test them - How in God's earth does that make it absloute or certian that it will work in the future - are you going to give me another inductive reasoning?? we did a test in the past so it must work the futuire as well - what part induction do you not understand with this one as well.

universal falsification? if you know something can be falsified how does that make it more true or false Hugo??? we would have define what is true and false here as well.

do you agree that Newtons laws are a strong BELEIF and not a certainty/absolute due to the problem of induction which you keep showing me.

[Zafran]

By the way Hugo your definition of the Quran being ONLY a book like any other book is wrong because the Quran has many purposes and a book is only one of them. So its not just a book. Do you know what else it is as you like talking about the Quran so much??

[Lynx]

The simple fact is that Newtons Laws may be falsified - meaning we have a test that every one agrees on and everyone can do at any time and this has been done and so unless you can create a test that shows otherwise the laws are true now and always will be.

No the fact that Newton's laws haven't been falsified do not show that Newton's laws will always be true; it only shows that Newton's laws are true *so far*. Maybe the best way to explain this to you is if you can construct your argument in a syllogism; you will see the error you're making quite easily I think. Standardizing arguments is useful!

[However, Einstein nor anyone else could have made any measurements or observations about curved space or time dilation so here we have pure deduction,

You've misunderstood the nature of deduction. A pure deduction cannot yield any new data! If you know standard deduction then you know the goal of a deduction is to show that a conclusion follows from a set of premises. Now the error you're making is that you think deduction on it's own can lead to data that is empirically true. This is not the case and the easiest way to see this is to look any deduction and notice that the premises are either arbitrary symbols (in formal logic) or assumed to be true or theorems in logic. In science the premises are assumed to be true based on induction so the reasoning Einstein applied might have been deductive but the origin of his premises certainly weren't.

ANYONE can bizarrely deny Newtons Laws, it makes no differences as the effects which those laws describe CANNOT be avoided no matter what you believe. In fact you are the one who denies them because you believe, without a shred of evidence, that they can change tomorrow so you essentially deny the proof.

This actually illustrates the confusion quite well. You are saying that Zafran denies the 'proof' well you'd be right if science was based on 'proofs' but it isn't. Proving is something that is done only in an axiomatic system like math or logic. In logic the axioms are self-evident & in math they are true but unprovable. In science they are assumed to be true because of induction. A proof leaves no logical possibility of being wrong so Zafran is 100% right in saying that it's possible that the laws of physics might not apply tomorrow BECAUSE the logical possibility exists. The best way to look at the difference between a real absolute proof as opposed to something accepted in science is the Pythagorean theorem. the theorem might work for all the triangles we ever drew in class but how do we know it will work for every triangle that we might possibly make? Well the answer to that question would be a real proof because there will be no logical possibility that it might be wrong.

And just as im explaining this; something is logically possible when it's negation does not imply a contradiction.

edit: i am not sure i follow your argument. the quran can easily be falsified... just find a contradiction (logically falsified) or find a statement about the world that isn't true (empirical falsification). for instance, if it turns out evolution is true then i don't see how the quran would not be falsified. at the very least, orthodox islam will have bit the dust.

[Hugo]

No they are not absolute - your "test" does not make Newtons law absolute as I have shown before from your own examples simply you saying it does not mean you are true or all these "people that agree with you" which frankly I have not met - your the first one to actually claim newtons laws are absolute.

Well we seem to be at an impasse. You do not understand the notion of falsification and why it is important. You as far as I can tell take the view that there is only one way, induction, to know anything so for you NOTHING can be proved, indeed the very notion of proof for you is not possible. Even when I showed that Einstein did not, could not have used induction you cling to the view that it nevertheless must be induction. I have as best I can tried to explain these things but you more or less claim infallibility, you cannot possibly be wrong and cannot even see that I might feel the same way, that I indeed am talking to a brick wall. So can you EXPLAIN:

1. What is meant by proof or is such an idea impossible - I am assuming here that we can agree that proof by induction is NOT possible (I do not include Mathematical induction here).

2. Can you explain how one constructs a scientific proof, simplistically, how do you end up with the formulas and know they are 'true'

3. As far as I can tell you do not accept and cannot explain what deduction is. Please prove me wrong by explaining it with an example and then demonstrate the difference between and inductive inference and a deductive prediction.

4. If you are so certain that say Ohms law could change in the future can you cite evidence to support that conjecture?

[Abu Zakariya]

Hugo,

1. I don't think the scientific method is at fault its that we cannot get material data with which to work?

I agree. It is limited in that it doesn't even deal with existential issues, or moral ones. But it isn't "at fault", since that sort of thing isn't its purpose in the first place.

2. One has to be careful when arguing in the form of what God would or would not do because it pre-supposes he exists so we end in a paradox.

Yeah, but I was speaking as a believer to a fellow believer in God. But even if I were presenting that argument when speaking to an atheist, I think he/she would appreciate the point I was making there.

What is your take on this?

I thought you'd never ask :statisfie If I've understood you correctly, I think that we share the same basic perspective on this, with some differences in nuance. And I would put it a bit differently. I'll insert a text I wrote a while ago on this, and suggest that you read it and decide whether or not our views are indeed similar. Read it if you've got time to spare, it's a bit long so I don't blame you if you decide to take a pass on this suggestion of mine. Here it is:

I have been thinking very much about the issue of atheism. And throughout the years I have come across many of the various arguments in favor of God's existence. For instance, you have the various cosmological arguments, like the one that basically states that we must be created since the alternative would have been endless regression, which doesn't work. Also you have the argument that if the world were eternal (as opposed to created), we would never have been able to reach this point in time, since it would take an eternity to reach this time period, etc.

The thing is it that even though all of these arguments are very interesting, I realized that they actually don't have anything to do with my faith in God. What I mean is that even if I never got to hear any cosmolocigal arguments, I would still believe in God, regardless of those arguments. And even if an atheist were to convince me that the cosmological arguments do not hold up in light of modern scientific knowledge, I would still believe in God. Belief in God is simply a part of me. It would therefore, in a sense, be intellectually dishonest of me to use such arguments when discussing the issue with atheists, wouldn't it? This realization made me reflect even more on this issue. And the issue is basically about the relationship between faith and proof.

The atheist requires proof. He says that he can't believe in God unless and until he sees some proof for His existence. The thing is, though, that before we do anything, we must first agree on what exactly it means to prove something, philosophically. Not everyone agrees on what it means to prove something. The atheist, since he is a naturalist/materialist, will tell you that empiricism is the only way to go. However, there are a few problems with this. First of all, theists do not believe that God is material. So we have a dilemma: how can we use a method (empirical science) created to observe the material world around us, to determine the existence of an incorporeal being? Also, Islam tells us that life is a test and that God therefore cannot be observed empirically (since everyone would then believe in Him, and there would be not test). But there are more problems here. For even the naturalists/materialists who believe that empiricism is the only valid method to reach the truth about things differ among themselves regarding which method truly is legitimate and which isn't. To give a couple of very simplified examples of how secular, materialistic philosophers of science differ among themselves: you have the Positivists who say that induction and deduction is the legitimate scientific way to go, you have Marxists who believe that historical materialism is legitimate, you have the Freud crowd who believe that psychoanalysis is scientific. And then you have Karl Popper, who argues that falsificationism is the correct method, and that Freud's and Marx's theories are pseudo-scientific and that Positivism doesn't measure up. Then you have Kuhn who tells you that science is really about paradigms, and if you take Feyerabend's word for it, well, then anything goes, every method is valid in the pursuit of truth. So according to this way of looking at things, you have to do a thorough study of the philosophy of science so that you can navigate through this jungle of theories about what it means to prove something, before you can even begin to reach the truth about God. But not everybody can do this (since education requires time and money, and not everyone has this). And what about the people who lived before all of these theories were even developed (those who lived before Popper, Marx and the Positivists), did they have less of an opportunity to reach the truth about God compared to us who live in a time when more knowledge has been accumulated? If you believe in a God who is merciful and that He therefore makes the truth about Him accessible to all, all of this sounds absurd. Atheists of course neither accept the premise that God exists or that He makes the truth about Him accessible to all. But our discussion here is about exactly that type of god, so to speak. The god I believe in is one that possesses these attributes (He is merciful and wants guidance for all), so if an atheist wants me to prove the existence of the god that I believe in, then the discussion has to be about that god and not some other god that doesn't want guidance for all (and therefore makes it inaccessible). The atheist cannot demand that I give him empirical evidence to prove the existence of "my" god when I don't believe in a god that would make empiricism and scientific proof the way to know Him since, as I said, that would mean that the elite of society (those who have time and money for education) have an advantage over people who have other things (such as pure survival) to think about. I hope it is clear what I mean by this. In short, my belief in God is such that I do not believe that empiricism is the way to prove it, and therefore, a paradox arises if the atheist requires empirical proof for this belief of mine.

We thus have a dilemma on our hands, don't we? If the atheist requires that I prove God's existence empirically, he is basically asking me to prove the existence of a god that I do not believe in, since the god that I believe in would not have made knowledge of Him dependent on scientific education (as the latter isn't universally available). In addition to this, God is not tangible, and so a method created for the observation of the material world cannot, by definition, be used to find out whether he exists or not. So what is it I am trying to say? That it can't be proven that God exists? No, that is not what I mean. What I am saying is that the way to reach the truth about God, to know whether he exists or not, must be superior to empiricism, and this method must be accessible to all, not only those with a scientific and philosophical education.

What, then, is this method? I think the easiest way to explain this is through a concrete example that even an atheist can relate to. The example is about murder. We know it is not possible to prove scientifically that murder is wrong. This is because science is about how things are, and not how they ought to be. Therefore, to use science to determine whether murder is morally wrong is like using a thermometer to measure the height of the ceeling - the method is unsuited to the task. But despite the lack of evidence for murder being wrong, most people still believe that it is. Why? Because the belief that murder is wrong is an innate and natural human feeling. Therefore, when a prophet comes and tells you that murder is wrong and that you have to shun it, man has no excuse to reject this command. You cannot say, "Well, I might have to first do some scientific research before I can believe that murder is wrong", it will not count as an excuse on Judgement Day. This is because we already possess this belief, God created us that way. The same is true of faith in God. It is intuitive and natural in man so that everyone, regardless of education and economic status, can know that He exists. It requires no research.

The question of course arises: "If everyone is born with an intuitive faith in God, how come there are disbelievers." Well, deep down, all of us have faith in God (and it comes out, for example, if we find ourselves in a crashing plane and ask Him to save us), but with time you supress it, so to speak, and ignore it. And because you don't affirm it in your life, God will not guide you. That is to say, because the person ignores his inner faith in God, he is ignored by God (in the sense that God doesn't guide this person to follow Him). This happens not only with faith in God, it also happens with other truths that people know intuitively, like the example of murder I mentioned earlier. Although we all know deep down that murder is wrong, there are still people who ignore this inner belief and try to legitimize various forms of killing (such as terrorism or a state's bombing of civilian areas). In the same way, you have others who justify lying, stealing and so on.

[Lynx]

What, then, is this method? I think the easiest way to explain this is through a concrete example that even an atheist can relate to. The example is about murder. We know it is not possible to prove scientifically that murder is wrong. This is because science is about how things are, and not how they ought to be. Therefore, to use science to determine whether murder is morally wrong is like using a thermometer to measure the height of the ceeling - the method is unsuited to the task. But despite the lack of evidence for murder being wrong, most people still believe that it is. Why? Because the belief that murder is wrong is an innate and natural human feeling. Therefore, when a prophet comes and tells you that murder is wrong and that you have to shun it, man has no excuse to reject this command. You cannot say, "Well, I might have to first do some scientific research before I can believe that murder is wrong", it will not count as an excuse on Judgement Day. This is because we already possess this belief, God created us that way. The same is true of faith in God. It is intuitive and natural in man so that everyone, regardless of education and economic status, can know that He exists. It requires no research.

The question of course arises: "If everyone is born with an intuitive faith in God, how come there are disbelievers." Well, deep down, all of us have faith in God (and it comes out, for example, if we find ourselves in a crashing plane and ask Him to save us), but with time you supress it, so to speak, and ignore it. And because you don't affirm it in your life, God will not guide you. That is to say, because the person ignores his inner faith in God, he is ignored by God (in the sense that God doesn't guide this person to follow Him). This happens not only with faith in God, it also happens with other truths that people know intuitively, like the example of murder I mentioned earlier. Although we all know deep down that murder is wrong, there are still people who ignore this inner belief and try to legitimize various forms of killing (such as terrorism or a state's bombing of civilian areas). In the same way, you have others who justify lying, stealing and so on.

All you're doing here is speculating on the nature of morality and speculating on the states of an atheists inner heart without any evidence.

Also, most atheists that I know and most academic atheists that I have read don't just ask for empirical evidence for God because they're 'materialists'. A priori arguments would probably suffice too; the traditional ones that you've mentioned, however, don't really work.

[Hugo]

Hugo,I agree. It is limited in that it doesn't even deal with existential issues, or moral ones. But it isn't "at fault", since that sort of thing isn't its purpose in the first place. Yeah, but I was speaking as a believer to a fellow believer in God. But even if I were presenting that argument when speaking to an atheist, I think he/she would appreciate the point I was making there.

Give me a day or two to look at your post but I think we have common ground in that we are dealing with moral questions and so to arrive at the 'truth' we have to consider arguments and objections and in essence debate such issues though I would qualify that by saying that it cannot be done once and for all because inevitably new points of view or objections or those terrible inconvenient facts show up and there is little we can do about that. My view is summed up by Bury in his book "A History of the Freedom of Thought" (you can get it free as a eBook)

The only way in which a human being can approach to knowing the whole of a subject, is by hearing what can be said about it by persons of every variety of opinion, and studying all modes in which it can be looked at by every character of mind. No wise man ever acquired his wisdom in any mode but this; nor is it in the nature of human intellect to become wise in any other manner. The steady habit of correcting and completing his own opinion by collating it with those of others, so far from causing doubt and hesitation in carrying it into practice, is the only stable foundation for a just reliance on it: for, being cognizant of all that can, at least obviously, be said against him, and having taken up his position against all gainsayers knowing that he has sought for objections and difficulties.

But yes if we can agree that at least we believe in a God then he can be discussed though others may think us bonkers

[Hugo]

By the way Hugo your definition of the Quran being ONLY a book like any other book is wrong because the Quran has many purposes and a book is only one of them. So its not just a book. Do you know what else it is as you like talking about the Quran so much??

But even what you say here is true of any book. The moment you set it on a pedestal is the moment you have already decided it is special and we are into circular arguments again. It is also true that what you say is a matter of opinion and not fact unless you are infallible. Every day I hear people saying "the Bible is much more than a book", "football is much more than a game" and so on and to them it may well be "more than" but it need not be to anyone else. Unless you are able to see this you can never even get close to objectivity because you start off with the answer you want and look for a way, and there is always a way to prove it and if anyone shows up with a way the does not give you the answer you want you dismiss it. I am familiar with those other things and one of them is to treat it as a kind of talisman to ward off disaster but many many other books, notably religious nones have a list of 'extra' things.

[Zafran]

Well we seem to be at an impasse. You do not understand the notion of falsification and why it is important. You as far as I can tell take the view that there is only one way, induction, to know anything so for you NOTHING can be proved, indeed the very notion of proof for you is not possible. Even when I showed that Einstein did not, could not have used induction you cling to the view that it nevertheless must be induction. I have as best I can tried to explain these things but you more or less claim infallibility, you cannot possibly be wrong and cannot even see that I might feel the same way, that I indeed am talking to a brick wall. So can you EXPLAIN:

1. What is meant by proof or is such an idea impossible - I am assuming here that we can agree that proof by induction is NOT possible (I do not include Mathematical induction here).

2. Can you explain how one constructs a scientific proof, simplistically, how do you end up with the formulas and know they are 'true'

3. As far as I can tell you do not accept and cannot explain what deduction is. Please prove me wrong by explaining it with an example and then demonstrate the difference between and inductive inference and a deductive prediction.

4. If you are so certain that say Ohms law could change in the future can you cite evidence to support that conjecture?

you dont seem to grasp what I am saying - thanks to induction we cant be certain that Newtons laws, Ohms Laws or even Einstiens work are absolute/certain. I have shown you many times - so what I am saying is that all these laws may work in the future (which is my belief) but thats what it is a strong belief NOT absolute, which is what you are claiming - as there is always a chance that these laws may not work the next day. Its very simple - Lynk seems to understand where I'm coming from I dont know why you cant see that as all these "laws" rely on past experiments. Give me an example where you feel you are using deduction - I will show you where you are actually using induction to "prove" its absolute.

1 - well clearly we do not as you seem to believe it gives absolute certainty in the future.

2 - how does this solve the problem of induction? we will still rely on past experimental "proofs" - like a test we can do a millions of times - we can believe that it will work in the future does this mean that its absolute in the future - of course not

3 - Show me where you use deduction and dont rely on past experiments?

4 - This shows your confusion of my position - I strongly BELIEVE that Ohms laws or Newons laws is going to work in the future - but this is NOT absolute as there is always a chance that it could be wrong in the future that is becasue we simply dont know the future. There is no absolute here - your the one claiming that. How do you "prove" that by induction.

[Zafran]

But even what you say here is true of any book. The moment you set it on a pedestal is the moment you have already decided it is special and we are into circular arguments again. It is also true that what you say is a matter of opinion and not fact unless you are infallible. Every day I hear people saying "the Bible is much more than a book", "football is much more than a game" and so on and to them it may well be "more than" but it need not be to anyone else. Unless you are able to see this you can never even get close to objectivity because you start off with the answer you want and look for a way, and there is always a way to prove it and if anyone shows up with a way the does not give you the answer you want you dismiss it. I am familiar with those other things and one of them is to treat it as a kind of talisman to ward off disaster but many many other books, notably religious nones have a list of 'extra' things.

This is odd coming from a person who believes that using past experiments of Newton or einstien will give you absolute certainty in the future. Isnt that circular also?

If somone uses the Quran like that whats your problem. You dont seem to have a problem when you use it to show the absolute of Newtons law in the future.

By the way the Quran is not just a book - how do we know it is just a book? is it not a criterion as well?

[Hugo]

You've misunderstood the nature of deduction. A pure deduction cannot yield any new data! If you know standard deduction then you know the goal of a deduction is to show that a conclusion follows from a set of premises. Now the error you're making is that you think deduction on it's own can lead to data that is empirically true. This is not the case and the easiest way to see this is to look any deduction and notice that the premises are either arbitrary symbols (in formal logic) or assumed to be true or theorems in logic. In science the premises are assumed to be true based on induction so the reasoning Einstein applied might have been deductive but the origin of his premises certainly weren't.

Pure and standard deduction are not terms I am familiar with. If I may say so I think you are a little muddled here. If we consider Einstein and relativity then we know his theory was not based on empirical evidence, data if you like, because at the time none existed, no one had any idea about curved space and time dilation. So the theory came from pure (to use your term) a priori reasoning, deductions and so he ended up with formulas. Now obviously, as you say, formulas are not experimental data BUT, and this is crucial, they tell you what data you need to collect IF the theory is to be verified - that is the premises did NOT come first, they arose from the deductive process. Therefore the experimental phase in essence verifies the premises and if they are true the conclusions is bound to be also true.

It is a logical paradox to say something is true but unprovable. However, induction cannot be used to prove anything and any assumptions of truth is similarly unjustified because we know the problem with induction is that the premises can all be true but the conclusion still be false so one cannot use it as a foundation for anything. Of course I understand in everyday life we use it all the time "it rained Monday and Tuesday therefore it's going to rain today" though NO ONE would assume that to be 100% safe. In much the same way if you argue that Newtons Laws of Motion arose from an inductive process there is no no reason to suppose they are true and can be relied upon, on the contrary one would have to be absolutely pessimistic since they can fail any time any where as well as be true any time anywhere. It is important here that you understand that induction ONLY allows us to make an inference about the future, a guess whilst deduction allows us to make a precise predictions. Of course you can decide that deduction is not possible but them we seem to be in the worst of all possible worlds being unsure about everything from one millisecond to the next.

One here has to ask what does it mean if we say we have discovered a law of Nature (I assume you believe that they exist?) and once discovered one tries to form a description of it such as Newton Laws of Motion, Ohms Law, Archimedes principles and so on. Now it is obvious that not every description is accurate so one has to test them and as I described above if we know the formulas we can know what data to use in our tests. For example, and being simplistic I could use Ohms law to predict the current in a circuit if I know the voltage and resistance, hence to test this prediction I create a circuit and see what value of current I get - if it agrees with the prediction the laws is verified. proved. This is not an inference based on ANY previous data, I don't need any and did not use any; it is a prediction based on a law and I have no logical reason not to take that law as absolute and give me the correct values every time. To suggest that this will not be true tomorrow is contrary to the Uniformity we see in nature.

Perhaps we do as William Clifford suggested and say that for certain things such as natural laws nature is for all practical purposes uniform and things outside those laws we cannot make such an assumption.

The theorem might work for all the triangles we ever drew in class but how do we know it will work for every triangle that we might possibly make? Well the answer to that question would be a real proof because there will be no logical possibility that it might be wrong.

This question was answered about 1200 years ago by a famous Arab Mathematician, Muhammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī from where we get our word algebra (al-jabr). One does NOT have to try all possible triangles because when we express a triangle algebraically the formula therefore contains EVERY triangle - that was the brilliant insight of Khwarrismi.

i am not sure i follow your argument. the quran can easily be falsified... just find a contradiction (logically falsified) or find a statement about the world that isn't true (empirical falsification). for instance, if it turns out evolution is true then i don't see how the quran would not be falsified. at the very least, orthodox islam will have bit the dust.

Here is looks like you don't quite understand the notion of falsification. What it means is that at least in principles we can find a test that COULD falsify a law or conjecture, it may not do that but we have to be convinced that it can. It may help you to see this if you think of the famous "are all Swans white" - well we have two choices, find every swan in the world or use the simple falsification rule find a black Swan (or any other colour). The point here is that EVERYONE can see and agree that the falsification rule is sufficient and will absolutely decide that matter. If we now consider the Qu'ran being from God and say the falsification test is to do with the perfection of its syntax then it seems obvious (to me) that that is not sufficient.

[Hugo]

you dont seem to grasp what I am saying - thanks to induction we cant be certain that Newtons laws, Ohms Laws or even Einstiens work are absolute/certain. I have shown you many times - so what I am saying is that all these laws may work in the future (which is my belief) but thats what it is a strong belief NOT absolute, which is what you are claiming - as there is always a chance that these laws may not work the next day.

I do see what your saying but I also think you are wrong and you did not even attempt to answer my questions - why not or is it cannot?

2 - how does this solve the problem of induction? we will still rely on past experimental "proofs" - like a test we can do a millions of times - we can believe that it will work in the future does this mean that its absolute in the future - of course not.

I have repeatedly stated the the problem of induction cannot be solved, there is NO way meaning NO possible way to ensure that when its premisses are true its conclusion is also true. Why do you keep asking this, have I stated it correctly or not, if not then You tell us what the problem is and how its to be solved.

3 - Show me where you use deduction and dont rely on past experiments?

I gave the example of Einstein and relativity - he arrived at a correct description of space and time but without recourse to induction since there were no past events available to him so no possible way to draw any inferences yet using his equations he could correctly predict the future. I think your problem is that you cannot explain what induction is, I have asked you several times but no response.

The theory gave us the variables involved and hence a test could be constructed to see if the equations correctly predict reality. Still you notice there is NO induction going on here and 11 years later the result of the first test verified his equations. No induction again since there was no previous data. Cannot you see that the equations (not previous events) told us exactly and precisely where to look.

4 - This shows your confusion of my position - I strongly BELIEVE that Ohms laws or Newons laws is going to work in the future - but this is NOT absolute as there is always a chance that it could be wrong in the future that is becasue we simply dont know the future. There is no absolute here - your the one claiming that. How do you "prove" that by induction.

One can imagine the pilot of an Airliner walking through the passenger cabin and telling everyone "that he strongly believes the plane will take off even though it has no faults but the laws of nature might fail at any moment".

But you are right YOU cannot be certain of the future by inductive means. In the same way you cannot show by induction that laws might fail because there are no cases which you can use. In contrast Einstein predicted an event 11 years before it happened without ANY previous data to work with.

I will concede though that I assume nature is uniform. But unless you can see a difference between induction and deduction we can go no further as we have no common ground.

[Abu Zakariya]

Hugo,

I don't know what facts you are talking about that would be inconvenient, I certainly don't consider any facts to be inconvenient when it comes to this type of discussion. And I doubt that there are many who would sincerely consider others to be bonkers for believing in God; even someone like Christopher Hitchens admitted that a belief in God comes naturally to the human race, he simply wishes that we "outgrow" it or try to keep it private. So whilst there may be many out there who feel that there is no scientific proof or philosophically rigurous arguments for the existence of God, I do doubt that people, deep down, consider believers in God to be bonkers. That's what I think.

[Lynx]

Pure and standard deduction are not terms I am familiar with. If I may say so I think you are a little muddled here. If we consider Einstein and relativity then we know his theory was not based on empirical evidence, data if you like, because at the time none existed, no one had any idea about curved space and time dilation. So the theory came from pure (to use your term) a priori reasoning, deductions and so he ended up with formulas.

It is a logical paradox to say something is true but unprovable. However, induction cannot be used to prove anything and any assumptions of truth is similarly unjustified because we know the problem with induction is that the premises can all be true but the conclusion still be false so one cannot use it as a foundation for anything. Of course I understand in everyday life we use it all the time "it rained Monday and Tuesday therefore it's going to rain today" though NO ONE would assume that to be 100% safe.

Of course Einstein's theories were based on induction. What you say here:

To suggest that this will not be true tomorrow is contrary to the Uniformity we see in nature.

Perhaps we do as William Clifford suggested and say that for certain things such as natural laws nature is for all practical purposes uniform and things outside those laws we cannot make such an assumption.

IS the induction because you don't know that the universe will be the same in the next second. We, as humans who employ induction at every moment of life, implicitely add the assumption that 'and the universe is uniform' in order to make it sound 'deductive'. But the logically possibility exists that it isn't because you have not proved that the universe is uniform; you only;y think it's uniform because of our human collective experience. Again, perhaps you are holding onto the fact that this would be a really ugly way of looking at life and in this case you are right EXCEPT I , and scientists, don't have a problem with laws of nature because our experience is so great with them that we can say with 99.9% certainty that they will be the same tomorrow while deep down acknowledging that we only know this inductively. TO modify your example of rain, consider the following inductive argument: It has rained everyday and second of the last 14billion years; therefore it will rain tomorrow. This is how we should REALLY view our laws of nature if we are to be completely consistent with logic.

Here is looks like you don't quite understand the notion of falsification. What it means is that at least in principles we can find a test that COULD falsify a law or conjecture, it may not do that but we have to be convinced that it can. It may help you to see this if you think of the famous "are all Swans white" - well we have two choices, find every swan in the world or use the simple falsification rule find a black Swan (or any other colour). The point here is that EVERYONE can see and agree that the falsification rule is sufficient and will absolutely decide that matter. If we now consider the Qu'ran being from God and say the falsification test is to do with the perfection of its syntax then it seems obvious (to me) that that is not sufficient.

Oh, I get your point. You're absolutely right here! There appears to be no falsification test for any religious text unless you take the part of the text that is meant to be scientific and falsify it scientifically (i.e., adam and eve) but then they can turn around and say it was a metaphor.

[Abu Zakariya]

Lynx

All you're doing here is speculating on the nature of morality and speculating on the states of an atheists inner heart without any evidence.

I don't feel that I was speculating on the nature of morality. Like I said: I don't think that science deals with it at all and I stated the reasons why. Are you suggesting that there is such a thing as a scientifically verifiable moral truth?
What I said about the inner state of the atheist is a religious explanation and I never claimed that I've provided evidence for it.

Also, most atheists that I know and most academic atheists that I have read don't just ask for empirical evidence for God because they're 'materialists'. A priori arguments would probably suffice too; the traditional ones that you've mentioned, however, don't really work.

Most atheists that I've come across do ask for proof for God's existence from the natural sciences and, conversely, say that they disbelieve in God because they don't feel that the natural sciences show anything that would indicate His existence. But, I'm sure that there are plenty of people out there who would accept an a priori argument. Don't feel shy about telling me why the arguments that I presented don't work.

[Zafran]

I do see what your saying but I also think you are wrong and you did not even attempt to answer my questions - why not or is it cannot?

I'm very aware you know what I am saying but it looks like you like Ignoring what I'm saying. Its funny as somebody else also explained it to you yet you ignored that didnt you?

I gave the example of Einstein and relativity - he arrived at a correct description of space and time but without recourse to induction since there were no past events available to him so no possible way to draw any inferences yet using his equations he could correctly predict the future. I think your problem is that you cannot explain what induction is, I have asked you several times but no response.

The theory gave us the variables involved and hence a test could be constructed to see if the equations correctly predict reality. Still you notice there is NO induction going on here and 11 years later the result of the first test verified his equations. No induction again since there was no previous data. Cannot you see that the equations (not previous events) told us exactly and precisely where to look.

How does that make it absolute in the future? how do we know with certianty and absolute that it will work the next day?

One can imagine the pilot of an Airliner walking through the passenger cabin and telling everyone "that he strongly believes the plane will take off even though it has no faults but the laws of nature might fail at any moment".

But you are right YOU cannot be certain of the future by inductive means. In the same way you cannot show by induction that laws might fail because there are no cases which you can use. In contrast Einstein predicted an event 11 years before it happened without ANY previous data to work with.

I will concede though that I assume nature is uniform. But unless you can see a difference between induction and deduction we can go no further as we have no common ground.

So how do YOU prove that Newtons law or any other empircal law will work in the future with absolute certainty?

[Hugo]

Of course Einstein's theories were based on induction.

Einstein and relativity - he arrived at a correct description of space and time but without recourse to induction since there were no past events available, no one had or could at that time have observed curved space or time dilation for instance, so no possible way to draw any inductive inferences yet using his equations he could correctly predict the future. I think your problem is that you cannot explain what deduction is or misunderstand it. The theory gave us the variables involved and hence a test could be constructed to see if the equations correctly predict reality. Still you notice there is NO induction going on here and 11 years later the result of the first test verified his equations. No induction again since there was no previous data. Cannot you see that the equations (not previous events) told us exactly and precisely where to look.

TO modify your example of rain, consider the following inductive argument: It has rained everyday and second of the last 14billion years; therefore it will rain tomorrow. This is how we should REALLY view our laws of nature if we are to be completely consistent with logic.

This shows you don't quite understand induction or deduction. Suppose you toss a fair coin and it comes down heads 50 times in a row then induction would lead you to say the next toss will be a head also because previous events 'force' me to that inductive conclusion. But of course you know that the chance of getting a head NEXT time is exactly 0.5, in fact it would not matter if I got 1000 heads in a row the chance of a head next toss is still 0.5 - ask yourself how you KNOW this is correct, will always be correct?

Oh, I get your point. You're absolutely right here! There appears to be no falsification test for any religious text unless you take the part of the text that is meant to be scientific and falsify it scientifically (i.e., adam and eve) but then they can turn around and say it was a metaphor.

Well it is not quite that as far as our discussion goes - its what you CONCLUDE by doing the test for example, textual consistency is a test we can perform on say the Qu'ran and at the end of that we can affirm consistency or not. But let's assume we confirm it but then would it be logically acceptable to then draw the conclusion that the text is from God? That in a nutshell is the moot point.

[Lynx]

Einstein and relativity - he arrived at a correct description of space and time but without recourse to induction since there were no past events available, no one had or could at that time have observed curved space or time dilation for instance, so no possible way to draw any inductive inferences yet using his equations he could correctly predict the future. I think your problem is that you cannot explain what deduction is or misunderstand it. The theory gave us the variables involved and hence a test could be constructed to see if the equations correctly predict reality. Still you notice there is NO induction going on here and 11 years later the result of the first test verified his equations. No induction again since there was no previous data. Cannot you see that the equations (not previous events) told us exactly and precisely where to look.

I actually pointed out the exact part where the induction is taking place. The assumption of the uniformity of the universe is assumed BASED on induction because we think the universe is uniform based on previous experience. Every scientist assumes THIS implicitly. You can't ever escape logical doubt UNLESS you assume this because deduction on its own is completely useless in producing new knowledge. Let me tell you again: in a deduction all premises are either a) assumed/arbitary or b) previous theorems.

This shows you don't quite understand induction or deduction. Suppose you toss a fair coin and it comes down heads 50 times in a row then induction would lead you to say the next toss will be a head also because previous events 'force' me to that inductive conclusion. But of course you know that the chance of getting a head NEXT time is exactly 0.5, in fact it would not matter if I got 1000 heads in a row the chance of a head next toss is still 0.5 - ask yourself how you KNOW this is correct, will always be correct?

In inductive logic the truth of a conclusion is measured by probability rather than a binary T/F truth value that you find in standard systems of deductive logic. Fallacies in inductive logic are different from fallacies in formal logic . What I described to you was a textbook inductive argument. Another one is 'the sun has always risen everyday for the past 4.5 billion years; therefore the sun will rise tomorrow'. Another one is 'this bridge has withheld for 100 years; therefore the bridge will hold tomorrow as well'. These you can find your standard critical reasoning textbook. Are you sure YOU understand deduction or induction? I don't think you appreciate the uselessness of deductive logic if you don't take for granted your assumptions. Go to your local philosophy department, find the logic professor and ask him if it's possible that a deduction can tell you something about the world IF you don't assume something about the world as true.

Well it is not quite that as far as our discussion goes - its what you CONCLUDE by doing the test for example, textual consistency is a test we can perform on say the Qu'ran and at the end of that we can affirm consistency or not. But let's assume we confirm it but then would it be logically acceptable to then draw the conclusion that the text is from God? That in a nutshell is the moot point.

Yeah I understand. I think what you're looking for is the verification principle; a statement's truth can be determined by examining it's truth conditions. It's an old logical positivist's idea. You agree then that no holy book can ever produce such conditions?

[Grace Seeker]

I see that this thread has gone on to address other issues than where it was when I last participated in it. But I'll still follow-up on a question asked of me:

There are Hundreds of them.... if you were to make your own way of practicing Baptism, then wouldn't this be an Innovation ? Something being added to something which was not meant to be part of... such leads towards misguidance...

No, I would not understand this as innovation.

Further, there are times when it is perfectly appropriate to add (or detract) from the original way something was said of done. All people, and hence all religions do this, even in Islam. For instance, electronic amplification is often employed, instead of just the voice alone, in making the call to prayer. The Amish (in Christian circles) would call use of such a device as a type of inappropriate innovation, yet it is perfectly acceptable in Islam (at least those places I know about). Other types of innovations would be acceptable to some and not to others even within Islam where there is supposed to be one interpretation (e.g., Yusuf Islam for instance was told by his Imam that he could play his music and it would be halal as long as his songs are "morally acceptabe", and though for years he did not, now he once again does, while others hold that all guitar music is haraam). The question that needs to be addressed is not whether something is or is not an innovation, but whether such innovations are appropriate or if they violate some aspect of one's faith. An innovation may not be appropriate, but it should not automatically be assumed that because it is an innovation that it is not meant to be practiced. Such thinking that prejudges an innovation for simply being an innovation without regard to its intrinsic appropriateness would seem to itself be a form of misguidance.

[Lynx]

Lynx



I don't feel that I was speculating on the nature of morality. Like I said: I don't think that science deals with it at all and I stated the reasons why. Are you suggesting that there is such a thing as a scientifically verifiable moral truth?
What I said about the inner state of the atheist is a religious explanation and I never claimed that I've provided evidence for it.

Oh okay. Well your entitled to express your opinions as much as you'd like. I thought you were trying to explain away atheists with a blanket statement that they are all just in denial. My own opinion is that we as humans DON'T think of murder as 'wrong' across the board and that there are people who are genuinely convinced that God does not exist.

Most atheists that I've come across do ask for proof for God's existence from the natural sciences and, conversely, say that they disbelieve in God because they don't feel that the natural sciences show anything that would indicate His existence. But, I'm sure that there are plenty of people out there who would accept an a priori argument. Don't feel shy about telling me why the arguments that I presented don't work.

I wouldn't mind explaining why I think those arguments don't work. I guess this thread is fine since it's called 'Truth' and the OP is no longer with us. The one you mentioned was the cosmological argument. The traditional response to the cosmological argument is that it makes an illogical leap from 'everything needs a cause' to 'God is that cause' that is not justifiable. It could just as well have been some unknown property of the universe that created itself. The variation you mentioned about 'if there was an infinite time before us we would never be here' might be true except that there wasn't an infinite time before us; time started at the Big Bang so there's no reason why we shouldn't be here. In fact, time did not exist before the big bang and the common mistake that proponents of this argument make is to assume that there was an infinite time before the big bang.

If I've missed out any important details in that argument , or if you have other ones in mind let me know. I just wanted to get the discussion rolling.

[Hugo]

I actually pointed out the exact part where the induction is taking place. The assumption of the uniformity of the universe is assumed BASED on induction because we think the universe is uniform based on previous experience. Every scientist assumes THIS implicitly. You can't ever escape logical doubt UNLESS you assume this because deduction on its own is completely useless in producing new knowledge. Let me tell you again: in a deduction all premises are either a) assumed/arbitary or b) previous theorems.

What bothers me with your absolute certainty here is that induction itself cannot be shown to be true, because according to you, you would have to use induction to do it and as far as I know there have been NO OTHER universes so I have no idea what you mean there by 'previous experience'. Secondly, it seems that you cannot even entertain the idea of deduction, a priori reasoning. Please explain, in the Einstein case what assumptions he could have made and what theorems he used? Of course he used algebra and other theorems in Physics but somewhere a leap of insight or brainwave or call it what you like occurred which could NOT have come from what was known already because the concepts and physical realities he predicted where NOT known and at the time had never been observed.

In inductive logic the truth of a conclusion is measured by probability rather than a binary T/F truth value that you find in standard systems of deductive logic. Fallacies in inductive logic are different from fallacies in formal logic. What I described to you was a textbook inductive argument.

I do not dispute that inductive reasoning is possible and for example is used in Law and by Lawyers all the time but more often than not the fallacies we find are common to deduction as well - for example equivocation. If we take your sun rises in the morning example, then obviously you could use an inductive argument to say it will rise tomorrow but I can use the Laws of planarity motion and predict exactly what time it will rise in 2059. No doubt you will argue I have to have some initial measurement much as in the same way if I want the area of a square I have to measure it first so that is NOT induction and I do not rely upon induction I rely upon physics. I think I do understand deduction and induction but do you, so a two tests for you, Sherlock Holmes is famously depicted as making deductions so do you agree and if so explain what that means in the way he works? Secondly, suppose I have a class of students and I lose something and I ask the students to find it: now explain how they might do it inductively and then how they might do it deductively?

I don't think you appreciate the uselessness of deductive logic if you don't take for granted your assumptions. Go to your local philosophy department, find the logic professor and ask him if it's possible that a deduction can tell you something about the world IF you don't assume something about the world as true

Does it not sound a bit bonkers to put so much trust in induction when we know it is flawed and then tell the world deduction is useless. If I create a deductive argument then of necessity I cannot make assumption about premises I have to be certain they are true - go and ask your professor! Those premises do not have to arise out of what I see they can just be totally the product of my imagination and there are many examples of this - for example the Turing machine, paralleled universes and so on. The process then is to show they are true and hence prove the conclusion. If you can't agree to this explain what deduction is for you and give an example.

I think what you're looking for is the verification principle; a statement's truth can be determined by examining it's truth conditions. It's an old logical positivist's idea. You agree then that no holy book can ever produce such conditions?

I am not sure you do. What I was speaking about was a fallacious reasoning. In the case of typical arguments for the Qu'ran of the form it is linguistically perfect therefore must come from God because God would only produce perfect thing. From a fallacy point of view this would be perhaps false dilemma or far-fetched hypothesis but maybe you have other ideas.

[Hugo]

I don't know what facts you are talking about that would be inconvenient, I certainly don't consider any facts to be inconvenient when it comes to this type of discussion. And I doubt that there are many who would sincerely consider others to be bonkers for believing in God; even someone like Christopher Hitchens admitted that a belief in God comes naturally to the human race, he simply wishes that we "outgrow" it or try to keep it private. So whilst there may be many out there who feel that there is no scientific proof or philosophically rigurous arguments for the existence of God, I do doubt that people, deep down, consider believers in God to be bonkers. That's what I think.

Here I meant that we may well have a set of ideas and arguments that look foolproof and then someone comes along with a new angle or idea that punches a hole through the lot. I read you paper and my issues with it is that you seem to have created an impregnable argument in that as soon as someone suggests a test you simply say it does not apply in you case. One often hears for example, of an atrocity perpetrated by a Muslim group but instead of accepting it you (not you literally) argue they could NOT have been Muslim. I see your points but if we as it were box ourselves into or barricade ourselves into a corner of our own making we may not be all that willing to listen to others.

[Zafran]

I wouldn't mind explaining why I think those arguments don't work. I guess this thread is fine since it's called 'Truth' and the OP is no longer with us. The one you mentioned was the cosmological argument. The traditional response to the cosmological argument is that it makes an illogical leap from 'everything needs a cause' to 'God is that cause' that is not justifiable. It could just as well have been some unknown property of the universe that created itself. The variation you mentioned about 'if there was an infinite time before us we would never be here' might be true except that there wasn't an infinite time before us; time started at the Big Bang so there's no reason why we shouldn't be here. In fact, time did not exist before the big bang and the common mistake that proponents of this argument make is to assume that there was an infinite time before the big bang.

Not realy I've heard people argue that actual time is finite because of infinite regress - So that somewhere down the line there must have been a first cause - its called the Kalam cosmological argument - same argument but a bit fine tuned.

[Lynx]

What bothers me with your absolute certainty here is that induction itself cannot be shown to be true, because according to you, you would have to use induction to do it and as far as I know there have been NO OTHER universes so I have no idea what you mean there by 'previous experience'.

Yeah the problem with induction you mention was first brought up by Hume (or first that I've read). You don't need other universes to create and induction about our universe. Einstein lives in our universe and his data was meant to predict things in our universe and he operated under the following principle that he believed to be true based on inductive reasoning: The universe will not spontaneously change in the next 5 seconds. But Induction works fine. Something that is 99.9% true is good enough for everyone except a Pyronian Skeptic ;).

Secondly, it seems that you cannot even entertain the idea of deduction, a priori reasoning. Please explain, in the Einstein case what assumptions he could have made and what theorems he used? Of course he used algebra and other theorems in Physics but somewhere a leap of insight or brainwave or call it what you like occurred which could NOT have come from what was known already because the concepts and physical realities he predicted where NOT known and at the time had never been observed.

I understand that Einstein applied deductive reasoning but the theories of physics, the given facts about the universe (like the universe will not magically change tomorrow) is where he was employing inductive reasoning.

I do not dispute that inductive reasoning is possible and for example is used in Law and by Lawyers all the time but more often than not the fallacies we find are common to deduction as well - for example equivocation. If we take your sun rises in the morning example, then obviously you could use an inductive argument to say it will rise tomorrow but I can use the Laws of planarity motion and predict exactly what time it will rise in 2059. No doubt you will argue I have to have some initial measurement much as in the same way if I want the area of a square I have to measure it first so that is NOT induction and I do not rely upon induction I rely upon physics. I think I do understand deduction and induction but do you, so a two tests for you, Sherlock Holmes is famously depicted as making deductions so do you agree and if so explain what that means in the way he works? Secondly, suppose I have a class of students and I lose something and I ask the students to find it: now explain how they might do it inductively and then how they might do it deductively?

How do you know the laws of planetary motion will work tomorrow? Because they've been working uniformally for the past ~10 billion years. Hence induction. Once you've accepted that based on induction THEN you apply deductive reasoning but this is NOT a purely deducitve process. The Root of your theory is induction, and such is the case for all natural sciences. Your Sherlock Holomes argumetn is a great one; Sherlock Holmes operated with a set of premises (his clues) and he works to derive from those set of premise(s) a conclusion. Now anyone who knows about basic deductive logic is that those premises are arbitrary or assumed or theorems (theorem means a statement that has been proven deductively). The induction kicks in when he takes for granted that the world around him will always stay the same and those clues will not refer to something totally differnet in the next milisecond. Now you might be thinking 'that's impossible'; well of course, it's technically possible since it's not logically impossible; you've just used induction (your prior experience of the world) to convince yourself that something I've described is imposisble.

Does it not sound a bit bonkers to put so much trust in induction when we know it is flawed and then tell the world deduction is useless. If I create a deductive argument then of necessity I cannot make assumption about premises I have to be certain they are true - go and ask your professor! Those premises do not have to arise out of what I see they can just be totally the product of my imagination and there are many examples of this - for example the Turing machine, paralleled universes and so on. The process then is to show they are true and hence prove the conclusion. If you can't agree to this explain what deduction is for you and give an example.

No you've made a couple of mistakes here about both induction and deduction. First, it's not crazy at all to put this much trust in induction because, like the example of the Sun, I am pretty confident that my inductive reasoning is going to turn out right tomorrow morning and I will wake up to see the Sun still in the sky. If you had 99.999999999999999..% certainty that the sun will rise tomororw, are you going to lose sleep over it? Don't think so. Induction is how we make sense of the world; it's necessary by evolution (when you touch a fire it hurts, so you learn from that experience not to touch fire again to put simply). Like I said, the reality of induction is not a problem unless you're a Pyronian Skeptic! lol. Second, a valid deduction does not mean the premises are necessarily true; a valid deduction means IF the premises are true then it's impossible for the conclusion to be false. That's why when you study logic all your premises are letters or dummy variables because it does not matter what your premises are in order to construct a deduction. This is valid deduction: All Pigs are humans; all humans are snakes; therefore all Pigs are snakes. That is a deductive argument. Now, it's obviously not true, and how do we know? Well you have to research the first two premises empircally and in that search you're going to end up with inductive arguments because logic on its own cannot yield information about the world. Deduction is just a type of inference.

I am not sure you do. What I was speaking about was a fallacious reasoning. In the case of typical arguments for the Qu'ran of the form it is linguistically perfect therefore must come from God because God would only produce perfect thing. From a fallacy point of view this would be perhaps false dilemma or far-fetched hypothesis but maybe you have other ideas.

Not sure I do what? I agree that what you're saying wouldn't prove the Quran. So what I've asked you twice already is if you think that no holy book can come up with such a test.

[Lynx]

Not realy I've heard people argue that actual time is finite because of infinite regress - So that somewhere down the line there must have been a first cause - its called the Kalam cosmological argument - same argument but a bit fine tuned.

If I understand what you're saying it;s just not consistent with our current understanding of Time. The first cause was the big bang.

[Hugo]

Yeah the problem with induction you mention was first brought up by Hume. You don't need other universes to create and induction about our universe. Einstein lives in our universe and his data was meant to predict things in our universe and he operated under the following principle that he believed to be true based on inductive reasoning: The universe will not spontaneously change in the next 5 seconds. But Induction works fine.

Hume was perhaps the first to be explicit about induction but many others see it is as a circular form of reasoning and so it does not 'work fine' and nothing is certain. Of course in everyday life being fairly sure is usually fine though troublesome but mathematically we can only have true or false and nothing in between. Induction means "more of the same" so can you explain your line that we don't need other universes - it would be like saying the only car I have is red so all cars must be red? I asked you about proving induction but you said nothing? Of course you can speak of being 99.9999% certain but how can you know that - I gave you a tossing coins example which shows that YOU on an induction hypothesis would conclude that you are 99% certain another head is expected but YOU would be wrong

I understand that Einstein applied deductive reasoning but the theories of physics, the given facts about the universe (like the universe will not magically change tomorrow) is where he was employing inductive reasoning.

Please explain HOW he arrived at completely new knowledge, it never existed before that is what I was asking? I don't know what field you are in but there is a brand new concept called Horava gravity and these new things, created in someone's mind pop up all the time - surely you don't deny this? Is there no room for inspiration in your world? A priori knowledge means that something can be seen to be true immediately, without ANY knowledge of the world - but you as far as I can tell reject that. What fascinates me about science and especially the geniuses within it like Turing or Einstein is that one simply has to stand in awe of such brilliant and original minds.

How do you know the laws of planetary motion will work tomorrow? Because they've been working uni formally for the past ~10 billion years. Hence induction.

One can argue this way of course but I can equally say I now have an explanation, well as far as we know the best explanation so far and we can predict future events, induction cannot give us an explanation can it? But I have no reason to think things will not work tomorrow because now I understand how it all works. But I guess we are now going round in circles so lets agree to differ

Your Sherlock Holmes argument is a great one; Sherlock Holmes operated with a set of premises (his clues) and he works to derive from those set of premise(s) a conclusion.

No you have missed the point. I asked you to say what he would do IF he were deductive and what he would do IF he were inductive. Now unless induction and deduction for you are the same there must be something in his way of working that would differ between these two approaches. If you cannot see a difference then you do not understand one or the other or both.

Now anyone who knows about basic deductive logic is that those premises are arbitrary or assumed or theorems (theorem means a statement that has been proven deductively).

I am not clear here what you mean by a premise being 'arbitrary' as it sounds like you just choose anything and hope for the best. When you said induction kicks in it reminded me of something C.S. Lewis said because he asked how could you prove untrue that someone owns an invisible cat?

Like I said, the reality of induction is not a problem unless you're a Pyronian Skeptic!

You may think that but if someone was building a Nuclear Power station next to you I think you would want to know more than just "it has always worked before"lol

Not sure I do what? I agree that what you're saying wouldn't prove the Quran. So what I've asked you twice already is if you think that no holy book can come up with such a test.

I have stated on many occasions that I know of no test for any so called holy book, including the Qu'ran, that would 'prove' it to be from God. If you have such a test I would like to hear it.

[Lynx]

Hume was perhaps the first to be explicit about induction but many others see it is as a circular form of reasoning and so it does not 'work fine' and nothing is certain. Of course in everyday life being fairly sure is usually fine though troublesome but mathematically we can only have true or false and nothing in between. Induction means "more of the same" so can you explain your line that we don't need other universes - it would be like saying the only car I have is red so all cars must be red? I asked you about proving induction but you said nothing? Of course you can speak of being 99.9999% certain but how can you know that - I gave you a tossing coins example which shows that YOU on an induction hypothesis would conclude that you are 99% certain another head is expected but YOU would be wrong

Please explain HOW he arrived at completely new knowledge, it never existed before that is what I was asking? I don't know what field you are in but there is a brand new concept called Horava gravity and these new things, created in someone's mind pop up all the time - surely you don't deny this? Is there no room for inspiration in your world? A priori knowledge means that something can be seen to be true immediately, without ANY knowledge of the world - but you as far as I can tell reject that. What fascinates me about science and especially the geniuses within it like Turing or Einstein is that one simply has to stand in awe of such brilliant and original minds.

One can argue this way of course but I can equally say I now have an explanation, well as far as we know the best explanation so far and we can predict future events, induction cannot give us an explanation can it? But I have no reason to think things will not work tomorrow because now I understand how it all works. But I guess we are now going round in circles so lets agree to differ

No you have missed the point. I asked you to say what he would do IF he were deductive and what he would do IF he were inductive. Now unless induction and deduction for you are the same there must be something in his way of working that would differ between these two approaches. If you cannot see a difference then you do not understand one or the other or both.


I am not clear here what you mean by a premise being 'arbitrary' as it sounds like you just choose anything and hope for the best. When you said induction kicks in it reminded me of something C.S. Lewis said because he asked how could you prove untrue that someone owns an invisible cat?


You may think that but if someone was building a Nuclear Power station next to you I think you would want to know more than just "it has always worked before"lol

I've explained everything a few times already. You might think I don't understand induction or deduction but from where I stand you need to read up on both types of logic. In any case, I have not been able to explain myself to your satisfcation and to save us both time we have to agree to disagree because the responses I have lined up are the same ones I've been articularing in the previous posts, which have failed to convince you. Maybe your discussion with Zafran will be more fruitful.

I have stated on many occasions that I know of no test for any so called holy book, including the Qu'ran, that would 'prove' it to be from God. If you have such a test I would like to hear it.

[/quote]

So your answer to my question is No there's no holy book that can produce such a test. I agree.

goodday

[Hugo]

I though we might pursue another line of discussion here by thinking about truth as something that must be explored critically and no questions are barred and this applies to any area of life. From an Islamic point of view this is not encourages one might even say forbidden. For example, in (Dawood) Q5:101-102 "Believers, do not ask questions about things which, if made known to you, would only pain you, but if you ask them when the Koran is being revealed, they shall be made plain to you. God will pardon you for this; God is forgiving and gracious. Other men inquired about them before you, only to disbelieve afterwards.

So can Islam be questioned, can it be critically examined openly by Muslim s or indeed any one - if not there seems no choice but to accept it (all of it, Qu'ran and hadith) as truth blindly or to rejects it because it cannot be examined.