Atheists must watch this video from 3:42 time of this video

[IbnAbdulHakim]

eace: Peace ! eace:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-811321280634119479&q=zakir+naik



I hope this will at-least slightly make the atheist realise that the Quran has scientific proof and if they deny it... well... wouldnt you call me arrogant if i didnt accept that 2+2 = 4?


:salamext:​

 

[Trumble]

Nope. He's a good lecturer, but its just the usual stretched interpretations of verses that could mean anything, and almost certainly didn't mean what those who believe them 'proofs' say they do. As usual, they convince only those who already believe.

 

[IbnAbdulHakim]

Nope. He's a good lecturer, but its just the usual stretched interpretations of verses that could mean anything, and almost certainly didn't mean what those who believe them 'proofs' say they do. As usual, they convince only those who already believe.

so how do you interpret the verses? Seriously, how? Im very interested to know please

 

[Pygoscelis]

That WAS pretty funny though when he said that when trying to convert an atheist his job is already half done because the atheist already says "there is no god" and he just has to get them to add the 2nd part, "except for Allah".

 

[IbnAbdulHakim]

^ Glad you enjoyed it. So, what reasoning to you put forward sir?

 

[Pygoscelis]

I'm with Trumble on this one. The man was entertaining but when it came down to it he was just speaking as any other Nostradamus fan or pop culture psychic would. Take something that has come to pass and then interpret old writings to fit it. Note that it always done in this way.

Never do they show unambiguous detailed claims in their "prophetic" writings that are not contradicted elsewhere in the same text.

It would be amazing if they did, but even then it wouldn't accomplish what they seem to want to accomplish.

As even if they did, by chance, find such a writing, it would only show that the writer was either lucky or somehow knew something that we can not explain why they knew it.

It would say nothing as to their honesty or intentions in their writing, nothing of the accuracy of the remainder of their writings (even a broken clock is right twice a day), nothing of how they gained the knowledge, etc.

 

[Pygoscelis]

Completely off topic and just out of curiousity, why to you use a bloody sword as your avatar? Seems a bit disturbing.

 

[mohammed farah]

i find his lectures very good

 

[IbnAbdulHakim]

ITake something that has come to pass and then interpret old writings to fit it. Note that it always done in this way.

in this case i ask you exactly what i asked trumble, in what other way can you fit these old writings? I think they are all actually quite clear for example:

Blessed is He Who made constellations in the skies, and placed therein a Lamp and a Moon giving light;
025.061

"'And made the moon a light in their midst, and made the sun as a (Glorious) Lamp?
071.016

^^ clearly those verses refer to the sun as a lamp (it produces light) and a moon as something which gives out light but not of its own, why else was it not called another lamp?

Never do they show unambiguous detailed claims in their "prophetic" writings that are not contradicted elsewhere in the same text.

all controdictions of the quran have been baseless and out of context. For example the bible has countless mathematic controdictions, but can you even find ONE in the quran?

As even if they did, by chance, find such a writing, it would only show that the writer was either lucky or somehow knew something that we can not explain why they knew it.

but how could the writer be so lucky as to guess a 1000 ayyat of scientific knowledge? its impossible, you sound intelligent so you should know such chances are extremely negligible !

It would say nothing as to their honesty or intentions in their writing, nothing of the accuracy of the remainder of their writings (even a broken clock is right twice a day), nothing of how they gained the knowledge, etc.

but he was illitterate (forgive me for the spelling), how could he guess this much? A man of the desert who never saw the oceans knew all this? its impossible because he also knew that everything was made of water, and that salt and suger dont mix, and that well, you heard the lecture !


eace: Its nice discussing with you

 

[IbnAbdulHakim]

Completely off topic and just out of curiousity, why to you use a bloody sword as your avatar? Seems a bit disturbing.

its actually a darkly tinted golden sword, lol and its because images are not allowed and i think the sword looks how they say "neat" ;D

 

[Trumble]

in this case i ask you exactly what i asked trumble, in what other way can you fit these old writings? I think they are all actually quite clear for example:

Blessed is He Who made constellations in the skies, and placed therein a Lamp and a Moon giving light;
025.061

"'And made the moon a light in their midst, and made the sun as a (Glorious) Lamp?
071.016

^^ clearly those verses refer to the sun as a lamp (it produces light) and a moon as something which gives out light but not of its own, why else was it not called another lamp?

A great example to illustrate my point. Those verses are not remotely 'clear', let alone 'proof' of anything, unless your interpretation is determined in advance.

What do they actually say (I'll grant that is in translation)?;

made the moon a light

a moon giving light

So where's the reflected light from the sun (a.k.a 'lamp') bit? Where's the "not of its own" bit? Simply, it just isn't there.. unless you are desperate to see it. Why doesn't it actually say "the moon reflecting the light of the sun" or words to that effect? That I would have found rather more interesting. There isn't even a hint of that, indeed both suggest to me the moon is a light source itself.

Why was it not called "another lamp"? Because the sun is much brighter (bright = 'lamp', less bright= 'light')? Artistic style? ('placed therein a lamp and a lamp'?, 'placed therein two lamps'?) Who knows? But that's no excuse for reading in what simply isn't there. It's exactly the same with all the 'scientific proofs' regarding the Qur'an; I've looked at a couple in other threads.

To answer your precise question, my interpretation is that "He placed two lights in the sky". Maybe the use of "lamp" distinguishes the two - the sun and moon are clearly not identical - but no more. Sorry, but as I said this stuff convinces nobody who isn't already convinced.

There really isn't much point in bringing the Bible into it if you are addressing atheists, or at least non-theists! I could pick up just about any volume of my shelves and there wouldn't be any mathematical contradictions in that either!

 

[Rou]

A great example to illustrate my point. Those verses are not remotely 'clear', let alone 'proof' of anything, unless your interpretation is determined in advance.

What do they actually say (I'll grant that is in translation)?;





So where's the reflected light from the sun (a.k.a 'lamp') bit? Where's the "not of its own" bit? Simply, it just isn't there.. unless you are desperate to see it. Why doesn't it say "the moon reflecting the light of the sun" or words to that effect - that I would have found rather more interesting.

Why was it not called "another lamp"? Because the sun is much brighter (bright = 'lamp', less bright= 'light')? Artistic style? ('placed therein a lamp and a lamp'?, 'placed therein two lamps'?) Who knows? But that's no excuse for reading in what simply isn't there. It's exactly the same with all the 'scientific proofs' regarding the Qur'an; I've looked at a couple in other threads.

To answer your precise question, my interpretation is that "He placed two lights in the sky". Maybe the use of "lamp" distinguishes the two - the sun and moon are clearly not identical - but no more. Sorry, but as I said this stuff convinces nobody who isn't already convinced.

There really isn't much point in bringing the Bible into it if you are addressing atheists, or at least non-theists! I could pick up just about any volume of my shelves and there wouldn't be any mathematical contradictions in that either!

it states the moon and the sun in two diffrent lights as in there is one thing mentioned as a lamp and the moon that which gives light, therefore the moon is not the lamp it is merely that which uses the lamp to give light and in the second ayat it explains that the sun is what is the lamp...

heance what we know today the sun reflects off the moon to give light at night...indeed quite hard to hit so many things randomly and by mistake oh so long ago but hey your opinion so your choice..


sorry kind off subject but im just asking...as an atheist how do you beleive the universe came into existence?

 

[IbnAbdulHakim]

To answer your precise question, my interpretation is that "He placed two lights in the sky". Maybe the use of "lamp" distinguishes the two - the sun and moon are clearly not identical - but no more. Sorry, but as I said this stuff convinces nobody who isn't already convinced.

The use of lamp does indeed distinguish the two.
Your understanding of that shows you interpretted the verse as the scholars have.

Anyway, i guess if you dont agree with the countless scientific evidences of the Quran then its your choice .

eace: and nice discussing with you

 

[Trumble]

it states the moon and the sun in two diffrent lights as in there is one thing mentioned as a lamp and the moon that which gives light, therefore the moon is not the lamp it is merely that which uses the lamp to give light and in the second ayat it explains that the sun is what is the lamp...

There is no "therefore"! Just using that word doesn't mean it follows, and it doesn't. It just doesn't SAY that the moon "uses the lamp to give light", let alone that it reflects the sun's light. Nowhere is a connection between the two implied at all, that interpretation is added on top with absolutely nothing to justify it. As I keep saying, that might convince 'believers' but it will convince nobody else at all.

sorry kind off subject but im just asking...as an atheist how do you beleive the universe came into existence?

I'm not an atheist, just not a theist at least as you would understand that term. Let's just say I'm open minded, but find the God argument less than convincing - or to be precise I find the 'answer' to the "if God created the universe, what created God?" argument less than convincing.

 

[Rou]

There is no "therefore"! Just using that word doesn't mean it follows, and it doesn't. It just doesn't SAY that the moon "uses the lamp to give light", let alone that it reflects the sun's light. Nowhere is a connection between the two implied at all, that interpretation is added on top with absolutely nothing to justify it. As I keep saying, that might convince 'believers' but it will convince nobody else at all.



I'm not an atheist, just not a theist at least as you would understand that term. Let's just say I'm open minded, but find the God argument less than convincing - or to be precise I find the 'answer' to the "if God created the universe, what created God?" argument less than convincing.

uhmmm...ok?

looking at it through the eyes of science how did a person all the way back then get so lucky at guessing all these things (however NOT close you wish to state they are) not having one contradiction in the quran (the book he so called wrote) and convincing all the tribes in arabia to unite and have time to raise an army to take and make two holy cities? and also in that time as stated earlier claims that he had time to write this book and make sure he didnt make one mistake? and that he knew all these certain things that seem to be very close to what we know today by the help of science?

guess he was very very lucky?

try convincing one man that he should start praying five times day..thats all...not the rest like giving up pork,or stop drinking etc..

just praying five times a day...i would state probably a hard thing to do...

now try changing millions and writing a flawless book and raising an army and making two holy cities and creating a religon that lasts for thousands of years?

hmmm..indeed very very very lucky if ya could achive that in a lifetime...

oh well we each have our view and you are entitled to your own...

oh and you never answered my question how do you precive that the universe was created? i wasnt going to state the god this that im just intrested...

 

[Trumble]

looking at it through the eyes of science how did a person all the way back then get so lucky at guessing all these things

I'm not saying anybody got "lucky at guessing". There is nothing to guess - my point is that "these things" simply don't say what they are 'interpreted' as saying. Those interpretations are not justified, simply take far too many liberties to produce the result the interpreter, and their usual audience, wish to see.

oh and you never answered my question how do you precive that the universe was created? i wasnt going to state the god this that im just intrested...

I thought I had; I don't know. I also said that I don't find the God explanation satisfactory, and explained why, although I wouldn't rule it out for the same reason I wouldn't rule anything out. I guess I think, as with the fundamental nature of reality itself, we simply as a species don't have the intellectual capacity to even ask the right questions when it comes to the origin of the universe, let alone formulate and understand an answer.

now try changing millions and writing a flawless book and raising an army and making two holy cities and creating a religon that lasts for thousands of years?

Several people have created religions that have been around rather longer. And to be honest I would be far more impressed by a religious leader who had no need to 'raise an army'; who could achieve their objectives without violence.

 

[KAding]

Surely, anyone can see the weakness of his arguments about Islam as a source of science when he discusses the shape of our planet. That the earth is a sphere was known long before the Qu'ran 'revealed' any such thing. In fact, the Qu'ran even claims the earth is shaped like an egg, which is a dubious claim.

From wikipedia:

By the time of Pliny the Elder in the 1st century, however, the Earth's spherical shape was generally acknowledged among the learned in the western world. Around then Ptolemy derived his maps from a curved globe and developed the system of latitude, longitude, and climes. His writings remained the basis of European astronomy throughout the Middle Ages, although Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages (ca. 3rd to 7th centuries) saw occasional arguments in favor of a flat Earth. The modern misconception that people of the Middle Ages believed that the Earth was flat first entered the popular imagination in the nineteenth century.

On his claims of the moon not being an independent source of light. It is quite likely the Greeks knew of this already, since the attempted to calculate the diameter of the moon based on the shadow cast onto it by the earth. Surely, anyone who sees half moon can figure out quite easily that it does not have it's own source of light? Even if the half-baked claim is true that the Qu'ran reveals this, it is clear that this was known long before it has been revealed by God through the angel gabriel and Mohammed.

From wikipedia:

Among the first in the Western world to offer a scientific explanation for the Moon was the Greek philosopher Anaxagoras, who reasoned that the Sun and Moon were both giant spherical rocks, and that the latter reflected the light of the former.

His 'proof' of god consists of little more than the watchmakers analogy and these incorrect claims about Islam revealing stuff previously unknown. The watchmaker analogy alone is not convincing enough, since clearly we know things can evolve from simple too complex through a series of small steps.

And don't even get me started on his 'rape' and the Islamic 'solution' to it in the first three minutes of his lecture. Quite frankly, his 'solutions' sound draconian and totalitarian to me.

Sorry, he is not going to convince many atheist. If he can't even get some basic facts straight how am I supposed to believe him when he says 'there is no God, except Allah'?

Still an interesting lecture though, thanks .

 

[*Hana*]

As even if they did, by chance, find such a writing, it would only show that the writer was either lucky or somehow knew something that we can not explain why they knew it.

It would say nothing as to their honesty or intentions in their writing, nothing of the accuracy of the remainder of their writings (even a broken clock is right twice a day), nothing of how they gained the knowledge, etc.

Peace to you Pygoscelis:

My question to you is this: With all the scientific evidences found in the Qur'an, (far more than discussed by Dr. Naik in this lecture), how many would you need to read before you would admit no one can be THAT lucky THAT many times? What would be the chances that ONE person knew all of those scientific proofs long before the most respected scientists that came hundreds of years later, and some only recently being discovered. Many of these scientific proofs found in the Qur'an are accepted as factual by many, many, many non Muslims scientists today and yet they are at a loss as to how that knowledge could have been obtained 1400 years ago by an illiterate man.

So, you have to ask yourself, when does fluke stop being fluke to the point where you have to come up with a better explanation.

Peace to you,
Hana

 

[Trumble]

Many of these scientific proofs found in the Qur'an are accepted as factual by many, many, many non Muslims scientists today

What is "accepted" are the scientific facts themselves, not that the Qur'an included them long before they was discovered elsewhere. There is no need to explain one man (or group of men) having excess luck or flukes as he/they didn't need it - because there are no 'proofs' in the Qur'an that need to explained by luck or fluke. The so-called proofs are just interpretations (with little foundation) by muslims that give themselves and their muslim audience what they want to see... which is, of course, why it is also so difficult to understand why others don't see them that way, particularly those rather less casual with the word 'proof'. KAding's excellent post also shows that even if there is some foundation for some of those interpretations, the knowledge concerned did not originate with the Qur'an in any event.

 

[*Hana*]

What is "accepted" are the scientific facts themselves, not that the Qur'an included them long before they was discovered elsewhere. There is no need to explain one man (or group of men) having excess luck or flukes as he/they didn't need it - because there are no 'proofs' in the Qur'an that need to explained by luck or fluke. The so-called proofs are just interpretations (with little foundation) by muslims that give themselves and their muslim audience what they want to see... which is, of course, why it is also so difficult to understand why others don't see them that way, particularly those rather less casual with the word 'proof'. KAding's excellent post also shows that even if there is some foundation for some of those interpretations, the knowledge concerned did not originate with the Qur'an in any event.

Considering the Qur'an was revealed over 1400 years ago, where exactly did they come from. The scientific proofs in the Qur'an are very clear, Trumble. What do you mean the Qur'an didn't include them before they were discovered?? Obviously if it's in the Qur'an, but modern science didn't discover something until say 200 years ago...then it WAS included in the Qur'an before it was discovered. You're contradicting yourself here. Did you ever consider it is you that is not seeing the obvious? I wasn't always a Muslim and I saw it long before I reverted. So, no you don't have to be a Muslim to see the scientific proofs in the Qur'an at all. LOL "even if there is some foundation for some of those interpretations, the knowledge concerned did not originate with the Qur'an..."????? Where did all this knowledge originate and who kept it a massive secret for hundreds of years after the revelation of the Qur'an? And why was it only given to ONE man so thousands more could commit it to memory and wait for science to discover it much, much later when they wouldn't even be around to appreciate it or point their fingers and say, 'told ya!!'?

No offense, but what you're saying makes no sense....you're talking in circles.

The proofs are there. Whether or not you choose to accept them is up to you. You can dismiss it any way you want, but if you think you can be that lucky that many times, I strongly urge you to start playing the lottery.

Peace to you,
Hana