Truth

[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 .

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]

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)[/COLOR]

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????