This thread is not to argue whether there are any miracles in the Quran, nor is it to argue whether or not there is a god...
There are really two separate issues. The issue of whether our universe was created by a conscious act, and if it was then also the issue of whether or not this consciousness has sent us instructions (theism) or is non intervening (deism.)
I'll start from the bottom up.
RELIGION
Why I don't accept a religion
What I observe in the world though is that many people make up many religions, it still happens today - I think Muslims will agree that Mormonism is man made. The technique used is that an individual will claim that god is speaking through them (directly or indirectly) and that on that authority everyone else should listen to them. When asked to present evidence of supernatural intervention they implore people to "believe out of faith" and "to demand proof is wicked and arrogant" - because natural beings cannot provide supernatural evidence.
Keeping in mind that this is the standard strategy by which humans create religion it is therefore impossible for me to believe any religion that came about in a similar fashion. It makes no sense to me that god would create a religion by utilising the exact same techniques of fraudsters.
What would it take me to accept a religion?
If I had opened the Quran and the first thing I saw was 299,792,458 I would today be a Muslim. This is the speed of light in a vacuum. Although there are alternative extraordinary explanations as to how this information could have arrived
God told Muhammad
An alien told Muhammad
A time traveller told Muhammad
I wouldn't really see any way of deciding which was the case, but the fact that the rest of the book claimed to be authored by the creator of the universe I think I could give the benefit of the doubt and accept it was from god Apart from knowing the speed of light in a vacuum it would also demonstrate knowledge of the future, because the number is presented in kilometres per hour, a unit of measurement which was not created at the time - so it would be a kind of "two birds with one stone" scenario.
GOD
Why I don't accept there is a god
To determine the cause of something we gather evidence. In nature this is simple as we have many instances from which to gather information, but with the universe we currently only have one to gather data from. We cannot see how this universe started, if it is the first universe, the only universe, and so on.
The answer to the question "How did the universe get here" for me is a resounding "I do not know", and I'd rather have no answer than the wrong answer. Not knowing is acceptable, accepting answers as truth without evidence ("truth without proof") is unacceptable.
For example, it's easy for someone to conclude that the universe was created, but why does this automatically mean it was created by "god"? There is no more or less evidence to suggest the origin of the universe was
One god
Two gods
Lots of gods
Another universe
Energy from some other dimension
etc
And if we say that whatever created it should be named "God" because god is a role rather than a being then we have no more evidence to suggest that
God was a conscious being rather than some natural process that creates universes.
God gave up its own existence in order to create the universe (the ultimate selfless sacrifice)
So with a lack of religious conviction there is no reason for me to say there is/isn't a god, or what the attributes of such a god should be. My atheism is merely a reflection of having a complete lack of conclusive evidence. All we have is an argument from ignorance - "I don't know how the universe got here.....therefore (insert religious belief of your choice)".
What would it take me to believe in a conscious creator of the universe?
If a being appeared in front of me and resurrected the dead body of my grandmother who said "Accept that this is god" I would accept that this is a very powerful being, but I would not also automatically accept it was responsible for creating the universe. As Arthur C Clarke once put it "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic".
The only evidence I can think of that would convince me that a concious being created the universe (if I have no evidence of a credible religion) would be a message within the creation itself. There might be a way to embed a message within the fabric of the universe after the fact, but I'd expect there would be a way of determining that any slight alteration to the message would result in an infeasible universe.
If we were to find a universal law of physic for example, and it was based entirely on a binary pattern which translated to "I am the creator" then I would accept intelligence created our universe. If the message went as far as to say "I am the creator, and (religious leader of your choice) was my messenger" then needless to say I would accept that religion too.
What about you?
My position is that I have no preference as to what the truth is, I only care that I possess it. Given the right level of evidence to match the incredibility of the claim I will accept anything.
Are you also more interested in possessing the truth than you are satisfying your preference for what format the truth should take? If so, what kind of evidence do you think would convince you that
Atheists
A: The universe was created by intelligence
B: This intelligence has sent us instructions in the form of a religion
Theists
A: You are following a false religion.
B: There is no god.
PS: In the interests of interesting discussion I'm only interested from hearing from atheists and theists who do not answer that there is nothing that could convince them that they are wrong.
I am saying that anyone at the time who had ever heard the first few sentences of Genesis could have said exactly the same thing.
Now thats better.
Yes, there is no reason to look at the universe and say "It MUST be created by ONE god". How would you tell the difference between a universe created by one god and a universe created by two gods which reached an agreement on how it should be made?
What I'm saying is that If your saying that there are two Allah who thinks exactly the same then they are ONE.
Well then there is the thing that why are two gods sharing one universe and go make their own universe? Or do numbers (that there are two,three or five gods) even exists beyond this reality?
No, I am asking how you would tell the difference between a universe which god created and lived, and a universe which god ceased to exist in order to make it. You can't tell the difference just by looking at the universe.
Your statement is illogical, its like saying that a beggar produced million dollars and gave to the other people. If a god can't sustain himself then how can he make a self-sustaining universe? or rather more importantly how can a imperfect being (can't keep itself alive) can create a perfect creation (something that keeps itself alive).
So, if many mortals at the time could have said the same thing without divine revelation does that mean we can agree that someone saying the meaning of these specific words is not proof of divine revelation?
format_quote Originally Posted by Saad17
What I'm saying is that If your saying that there are two Allah who thinks exactly the same then they are ONE.
I didn't say they think exactly the same, I said "two gods which reached an agreement".
format_quote Originally Posted by Saad17
Well then there is the thing that why are two gods sharing one universe and go make their own universe? Or do numbers (that there are two,three or five gods) even exists beyond this reality?
Your argument here seems to be "I don't know why two gods would exist, therefore there must be only one." I asked how you can conclude there is only 1 god just by looking at the universe.
format_quote Originally Posted by Saad17
Your statement is illogical, its like saying that a beggar produced million dollars and gave to the other people. If a god can't sustain himself then how can he make a self-sustaining universe? or rather more importantly how can a imperfect being (can't keep itself alive) can create a perfect creation (something that keeps itself alive).
I didn't say anything about being unable to sustain itself, god might have chosen to cease to exist for personal reasons which cannot comprehend. Maybe god thought that the universe would be a better place if there wasn't an ultimate dictator.
But then, how DO you conclude just by looking at a universe created 13.7 billion years ago that the creator is still alive?
So, if many mortals at the time could have said the same thing without divine revelation does that mean we can agree that someone saying the meaning of these specific words is not proof of divine revelation?
True we could say that they are proof of divine revelation (well Torah was once the word of God) but if you say a person who is saying things in different fields and they are all coming true, thats something you can't ignore. This is how apparently Quran works , it makes itself authentic like an honest person who you would trust though of course I acknowledge the possibility of it failing about the things it doesn't prove but at least I have a good reason to follow the Quran of all things.
I didn't say they think exactly the same, I said "two gods which reached an agreement".
Could be but then I wouldn't consider them as different entities, they gotta dispute at one point to acknowledge they are two , not one planner(s).
Your argument here seems to be "I don't know why two gods would exist, therefore there must be only one." I asked how you can conclude there is only 1 god just by looking at the universe.
It is the ONE design that says that there is ONE master plan but my argument was that gods would be able to create their own universe rather than getting along over one universe.
I didn't say anything about being unable to sustain itself, god might have chosen to cease to exist for personal reasons which cannot comprehend. Maybe god thought that the universe would be a better place if there wasn't an ultimate dictator.
But everything does have a purpose , so we are trying to find that purpose which the the god did left when creating something like us who are constantly in need of someone in power.
But then, how DO you conclude just by looking at a universe created 13.7 billion years ago that the creator is still alive?
Well I don't have a good answer for that (for now) but the universe with its design and intelligent does prove the creator to be more of the one that would commit suicide.
True we could say that they are proof of divine revelation (well Torah was once the word of God)
For the sake of argument let's say I agree that the Torah is divine revelation. Any information within that book is now available to anyone who can read, and anyone who can be told something - which is just about everyone. So, if just about anyone can repeat information they have either read or heard then the act of repeating that information does not prove divine revelation does it?
Remember, in this case we are talking about those specific words (the Earth + Heavens were one and were torn apart) - not the entire Quran.
format_quote Originally Posted by Saad17
but if you say a person who is saying things in different fields and they are all coming true, thats something you can't ignore.
I am sure we can move onto this subject, you can present me with what these things are.
format_quote Originally Posted by Saad17
This is how apparently Quran works , it makes itself authentic like an honest person who you would trust
But you don't automatically trust everyone you meet, and you certainly don't automatically trust every religious book you read otherwise you'd lead a very confused life :-) First the person/book has to establish that trust.
format_quote Originally Posted by Saad17
though of course I acknowledge the possibility of it failing about the things it doesn't prove
I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean by this sentence.
format_quote Originally Posted by Saad17
Could be but then I wouldn't consider them as different entities, they gotta dispute at one point to acknowledge they are two , not one planner(s).
Just because two entities are able to agree on something it doesn't make them a single entity.
format_quote Originally Posted by Saad17
It is the ONE design that says that there is ONE master plan
Yes, one plan, but that doesn't prove one god. The laptop I am currently typing on has one design.
format_quote Originally Posted by Saad17
but my argument was that gods would be able to create their own universe rather than getting along over one universe.
But your supposition that gods do not like to collaborate on designing universes isn't self evident. I still see no evidence from looking at the universe alone that it was created by a single god with a single plan rather than two gods who managed to agree on a single plan.
format_quote Originally Posted by Saad17
But everything does have a purpose
What is the purpose of a rock? Or a virus?
format_quote Originally Posted by Saad17
so we are trying to find that purpose which the the god did left when creating something like us who are constantly in need of someone in power.
I don't need someone in power. What I need is social employees who are paid a fair wage to empty my bins, provide my house with water, and ensure that anti-social people are dealt with. I need social coherence, not someone to rule over me.
But you see to feel that you *need* someone in power over you. Maybe that is why you have chosen a religion with an authority figure whereas other people choose a religion such as Buddhism which I think has no ultimate authority figure
Well I don't have a good answer for that (for now) but the universe with its design and intelligent does prove the creator to be more of the one that would commit suicide.[/QUOTE]
Those are just appeals to authority. I didn't want to know why some other people chose their current stance
For me this is what attracted me to the Quran in the first place. I went from "Believe without proof because faith is a virtue" to thinking "Hang on, this makes sense, god WOULD leave prove that religion X is the only one that is not fake".
I read the Quran and the miracles looked quite impressive. At first I was quite convinced, but I felt that I would want to convince others too and in order to do that I had to be able to answer every "Yes but" they might throw at me, so I looked into each one by looking up a bit of history etc. Every miracle claim I looked at fell flat. By this time I was past the "Believe without proof" phase of my life (thanks Quran miracle claimants!) and finding a lack of proof in the Quran ended up being an atheist. Now there's irony for you :-)
Which miracle claim do you find the most convincing? Maybe it is one I am unaware of.
Asalaamu Alaikum(peace be with you),
If you have knowledge you can argue with anyone. If your up for reading a good book I can give you a download link to, about a non-Muslim Scientist/Doctor who wanted to prove that the Torah/Bible/Quran are all not in sync with Science. The, findings are very remarkable, and the detail he gives and the reasonings aswell are really convincing. And this is comming from a non-Muslim source (which other Intellects have also made a book about) but this is the only one I've read so far.
So if your really willing, then let me know and I'll link you.
And if that doesn't convince you... Then who knows, maybe you need some time or something. Because it is always asked, "if the proof is there, why doesn't everyone convert", well it's just down to whether they open their hearts up or not. Not to mention, conversion to Islam is a massive life changer/adjuster for many, so they always try to look at it from a negative angle if they can.
"Those who do not know say, "Why does Allah not speak to us or there come to us a sign?" Thus spoke those before them like their words. Their hearts resemble each other. We have shown clearly the signs to a people who are certain [in faith]." - (2:18)
"And [even] if We opened to them a gate from the heaven and they continued therein to ascend, They would say, "Our eyes have only been dazzled. Rather, we are a people affected by magic." (15:14-15)
"If their aversion is hard on you, then if you were able to seek a tunnel in the ground or a ladder to the sky, so that you may bring them a sign. And had Allah willed, He could have gathered them together unto true guidance, so be not you one of those who are Al-Jahilun (the ignorant). Quran" (6:35)
Even with me, I was an Athiest like you, I wanted to clear every single doubt, so I looked at everything, the Prophet(pbuh)'s life, the Quranic text in detail, the miracles etc. And Mashallah everything connected so well, leaving no room for doubts.
Ahh man, my other reply was very good, talked about everything, I should be more careful with wires.
EDIT: I read your other post about the Torah thing, you really should read this book, there's actually a big difference between what the Torah says about Creationism and what the Quran says. One is in error with Science, the other isn't. Like I said, this is why you need knowledge, did I not act as you did if not worst before I dug deep for truth?
Last edited by Perseveranze; 12-21-2010 at 03:44 PM.
If your up for reading a good book I can give you a download link to, about a non-Muslim Scientist/Doctor who wanted to prove that the Torah/Bible/Quran are all not in sync with Science.
It's not the one by Maurice Bucaille is it?
format_quote Originally Posted by Perseveranze
So if your really willing, then let me know and I'll link you.
Please do give me the link. I have a tight work deadline at the moment but should hopefully get to look at it in the near future, assuming it's not the Maurice Bucaille one that is :-)
format_quote Originally Posted by Perseveranze
And if that doesn't convince you... Then who knows, maybe you need some time or something. Because it is always asked, "if the proof is there, why doesn't everyone convert", well it's just down to whether they open their hearts up or not.
It would be utterly wrong to say that when I read the Quran I was either closed minded or had a closed heart. I wanted it to be true. I think the reason why people don't convert when presented with the evidence is because the evidence you present is subjective. The problem is, the evidence for all religions is subjective.
format_quote Originally Posted by Perseveranze
Not to mention, conversion to Islam is a massive life changer/adjuster for many, so they always try to look at it from a negative angle if they can.
I was already living the life before I read the Quran.
format_quote Originally Posted by Perseveranze
EDIT: I read your other post about the Torah thing, you really should read this book, there's actually a big difference between what the Torah says about Creationism and what the Quran says. One is in error with Science, the other isn't. Like I said, this is why you need knowledge, did I not act as you did if not worst before I dug deep for truth?
I wasn't talking about the entire creation story. I was pointing out that the phrase claimed to be "the big bang miracle in the Quran" is merely a paraphrasing of a small part of the creation story in the Torah, and that anyone at the time could have said the same thing without divine intervention.
Well I just checked and that is the author, have you read the book and didn't find it any helpful or anything? I could try to find books by other Scientists if you like?
And yeah, the Creation is what I was talking about, because the Torah/Bible have errors in it, whilst the Quran is Scientifically deemed correct. People also talk about the Embroylogy system first brought by the Greeks, however even the Greeks theory is incorrect, where as the Quran's version is by Science deemed correct. Not to mention the Quran is deemed as fact, whereas the Greeks only theorized it.
Did you not ask the question then, how if (a man) made the Quran could tell the difference between what part is right and what part is wrong?
Also, what about the retraction part? Science believes that one day the Universe will stop expanding (as the Big Bang created) and eventually retract, this is mentioned in the Quran, is this mentioned in the Torah or Bible? What about the mention of the gasoues state of the Universe? I don't know about you, but there's alot here which doesn't explain why a man would suddenly mention this stuff, not only differ from other scriptures but add new things, which today prove to be right.
format_quote Originally Posted by TheRationalizer
I was already living the life before I read the Quran.
Praying 5 times a Day? ...
Ps. I don't mean to say that your heart is closed or anything. The Quran stresses alot, that people use their intellects
The worst of all creatures, including all that walk, creep or crawl on the earth, are those who are not sensible, reasonable, and rational (who do not use their Aql or intelligence) [la yaaqiloon] [8:22].
Don't you think the whole reflection/ponder/use Intellect is stressed for a good reason? 1.7 billion people in the world accept all the Science in the Quran (many upon many non-Muslims do too), and you can't really say that all 1.7 billion are brainwashed, many used their own intellects and came to the conclusion that it could not have been man made.
Islam is really the only religion I can think of in which people solely convert because of it's Science, and by that intellects such as Doctors, Mathematicians, Scientists convert to it.
Surely they find something in it that you may not have as of yet. One thing I am very convinced off, when you round it all up, it's just impossible to explain how a man in the 7th century could've in the span of 23 years produced all of this.
Well I just checked and that is the author, have you read the book and didn't find it any helpful or anything?
I own that book. Maurice Bucaille is far from scientific in his approach. For example at one point he discusses Pharaoh Merneptah who he argues most closely fits the role of "Faruun". He performs an autopsy on the body and then writes (paraphrased)
"Although the results of the lab tests are not back yet I think they will confirm that the body has water damage and therefore died by drowning"
He is forming a conclusion based on lab results he has not yet received, that is very unscientific and very unprofessional too. But anyway, he says that signs of water damage would prove the Quran right. Then in his next book which was written after the lab results came in he concedes that the lab results show "no sign of water damage" - proving that his first analysis was utterly wrong; but does this now prove the Quran wrong? Of course not, but rather than saying "It neither corroborates nor falsifies the Quran" he then goes on to say (again paraphrased)
"The lack of water damage to the body shows that if the body was in water then it was not in there for very long, therefore proving the story in the Quran is true".
So, if the body has water damage then the Quran is true, and if it doesn't have water damage then the Quran is true. That's hardly objective writing, is it?
format_quote Originally Posted by Perseveranze
I could try to find books by other Scientists if you like?
If you know of any, yes please. I hope though the next one you present won't be "The developing human: By Dr Keith Moore" because that is equally dishonest.
format_quote Originally Posted by Perseveranze
And yeah, the Creation is what I was talking about, because the Torah/Bible have errors in it, whilst the Quran is Scientifically deemed correct.
I think it is more accurate to say - The Quran is scientifically deemed "not incorrect". There's a difference. The Torah is very detailed in its description of the forming of the universe and is therefore easily falsifiable. The Quran on the other hand is much more vague and doesn't give any concrete information against which its accuracy may be falsified.
For example, the Torah talks about 6 days of creation but when the Quran says that it took 6 "leom" people say "Leom means 'days' AND 'periods of time'". So although the Quran looks like it is merely repeating the misconception of the Torah it is not falsifiable because we cannot rule out the alternative translation "periods of time." Having said that though, in saying that the Earth was formed in "six periods of time" actually tells us absolutely nothing at all.
format_quote Originally Posted by Perseveranze
People also talk about the Embroylogy system first brought by the Greeks, however even the Greeks theory is incorrect, where as the Quran's version is by Science deemed correct. Not to mention the Quran is deemed as fact, whereas the Greeks only theorized it.
The Greeks had some information correct, and some incorrect. Again the writings by the Greeks is very detailed and therefore very easy to falsify if not 100% correct, whereas the Quran is quite vague. Also where the Quran says "Alaqa" which for many years was translated as "blood clot" there is the opportunity of using an alternative translation of "Leech like clot", removing the possibility of falsification.
Although to me it seems (and I would need more insight into the Arabic) if the alternative translation means "Leech like / clinging + clot" then it would be incorrect, because although there is a stage where the embryo clings to its host it is still never a "clot".
format_quote Originally Posted by Perseveranze
Did you not ask the question then, how if (a man) made the Quran could tell the difference between what part is right and what part is wrong?
I think I have covered this. Above, if not then let me know what you think I didn't cover and I will try to elaborate.
I own that book. Maurice Bucaille is far from scientific in his approach. For example at one point he discusses Pharaoh Merneptah who he argues most closely fits the role of "Faruun". He performs an autopsy on the body and then writes (paraphrased)
"Although the results of the lab tests are not back yet I think they will confirm that the body has water damage and therefore died by drowning"
He is forming a conclusion based on lab results he has not yet received, that is very unscientific and very unprofessional too. But anyway, he says that signs of water damage would prove the Quran right. Then in his next book which was written after the lab results came in he concedes that the lab results show "no sign of water damage" - proving that his first analysis was utterly wrong; but does this now prove the Quran wrong? Of course not, but rather than saying "It neither corroborates nor falsifies the Quran" he then goes on to say (again paraphrased)
"The lack of water damage to the body shows that if the body was in water then it was not in there for very long, therefore proving the story in the Quran is true".
So, if the body has water damage then the Quran is true, and if it doesn't have water damage then the Quran is true. That's hardly objective writing, is it?
I don't really know much about the Pharoah nor have I read that second book, so can't really comment on that. I just know that the Pharoah in the Quran is said to be preserved in Body.
Now, this Pharoah that was found, is this the Pharoah that was at the time Moses(pbuh)? And is there any evidence that shows how this Pharoah's body died?
In regards to the book, the main things I wanted to point out to you is Maurice's analytical use of explaining and comparing the verses. He didn't just go by the English translations, he actually took time in learning Arabic so he can understand the source directly. He gave direct explanations of the language and specific words used. I think it's unfair for you to dismiss his overall work because of one single instance of failed obective writing as you say.
There's alot to take from the book, in regards to the actual Science, which I'm sure he's intelligent enough to know what Science does and doesn't agree with. If you felt a man was talking a bit of jibberish, does not necassarily mean the rest of his talk is all jiberish aswell.
I find that despite your objective writing claim, that his work is still valuable and should not be something to completly dismiss.
format_quote Originally Posted by TheRationalizer
I think it is more accurate to say - The Quran is scientifically deemed "not incorrect". There's a difference. The Torah is very detailed in its description of the forming of the universe and is therefore easily falsifiable. The Quran on the other hand is much more vague and doesn't give any concrete information against which its accuracy may be falsified.
A few things you really need to understand;
1. This verse -
"And We have indeed made the Qur'an easy to understand and remember: then is there any that will receive admonition?" [54:17]
The above verse makes it clear that God intended the Quran to be easy to understand for the people of Arabia at the time. In my opinion, this explanation is good enough. If God decided to go into detail and start using words that the people would not understand or struggle to pronoucnce, wouldn't that kill the purpose of everything? The Quran, may well then in the 14 centuries become lost in translation like the Torah or the Bible has.
Next thing you need to take into consideration. It's very easy to say "Why did'nt God just say that he created the Earth in X years?" This is again very simple, imagine if the Quran did give an exact or close figure, in the 21st century the discovery becomes confirmed, would people not believe then?
If that happened, wouldn't the whole purpose of what the Quran keeps stressing; ponder, think, reflect be killed? Who needs to think when a figure so accurate about something so diverse and big was produced 1400 years ago, that is confirmed to be exactly true today.
The Vagueness is a) for man to understand, b) for man to remember easier, c) for man to have to think, ponder and reflect deeply over the verses.
2. You talk about the resemblence of the Bible/Torah and the Quran. This verse needs to be taken into consideration -
"It is He Who sent down to thee (step by step), in truth, the Book, confirming
what went before it; and He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus)
before this, as a guide to mankind, and He sent down the criterion (of judgment
between right and wrong)." [3:3]
The Muslims believe the originals of the Torah and Gospel are lost/changed etc. But there is still some word of God in there. The Quran is clearly not meant to be a new book, this is something you need to realise. The Quran is the final act of mercy for mankind from their Creator. The same message of the Quran was given before, however as mentioned above, the message got tampered or lost. This is why God specifically says;
"We have sent down the Reminder, and We will preserve it" [15:9]
"Do not move your tongue trying to hasten it. Its collection and recitation are Our affair. So when We recite it, follow its recitation. Then its explanation is Our concern." [75:16-19]
1400 years later the Quran is still in it's original revalation, if man was still left with the responsibilty of taking care/following of God's message, the same would've happend as to what happened to the original Torah and Gospels. Anyways, the point is, you will find resemblences between the Quran and the scriptures before it, however the Quran is sent down to seperate the truth from error which those scriptures contain.
Miraculously, you'll find Science in the Bible that the Quran has, yet the Quran's version or addition to it is correct whereas the Bible's isn't, indicating that maybe there was a change or corruption there. Had the Quran copied from the Bible, it would've also copied the errors and you may try to argue "vagueness", but it doesn't explain what's already clear between the Quran and the Bible and the differentiations in meaning of both, where one is correct and |the other is incorrect.
For example, the Torah talks about 6 days of creation but when the Quran says that it took 6 "leom" people say "Leom means 'days' AND 'periods of time'". So although the Quran looks like it is merely repeating the misconception of the Torah it is not falsifiable because we cannot rule out the alternative translation "periods of time." Having said that though, in saying that the Earth was formed in "six periods of time" actually tells us absolutely nothing at all.
In regards to the 6 day part, your arguement would be good if it wasn't for the word used to describe "day". That word is "yoaum". The problem with your arguement is the following;
"The verses that mention "six days" use the Arabic word "youm" (day). This word appears several other times in the Qur'an, each denoting a different measurement of time."
This is why you can't say that "day" refers directly to "24 hours of earth day", when throughout the different passages the same word for day is mentioned yet is given a different period.
Why Six periods then you ask? What does that tell you? There is actually a Scientific theory on how the universe came to be in "Six periods", although the following is a bit too analytical for my liking, it does touch up on that theory -
I personally will want to further research the theory. But, if we speak in what the Quran means, it means that God created the Heavans and the Earths in 6 periods.
format_quote Originally Posted by TheRationalizer
The Greeks had some information correct, and some incorrect. Again the writings by the Greeks is very detailed and therefore very easy to falsify if not 100% correct, whereas the Quran is quite vague. Also where the Quran says "Alaqa" which for many years was translated as "blood clot" there is the opportunity of using an alternative translation of "Leech like clot", removing the possibility of falsification.
Although to me it seems (and I would need more insight into the Arabic) if the alternative translation means "Leech like / clinging + clot" then it would be incorrect, because although there is a stage where the embryo clings to its host it is still never a "clot".
I have covered the vagueness above, i'll touch on it again with a relative quote -
There is a misunderstanding. You are absolutely right that the Qur'an is clear in its guidance. The expression "vague indications of the Qur'an" as written by the author should be seen within the context of the answer. Seeing it within the context, the author means vague indications of the Qur'an related to scientific issues. The Qur'an is clear for its purpose that is guidance. The Qur'an however is not a book of science and therefore does not need to be clear about scientific facts. The verses of the Qur'an have the a function of guiding people in matters of recognizing God, his attributes and of the path of success in the hereafter. Now if we attempt to use those verses not for guidance related to our destiny in the hereafter but to understand a scientific fact from the verse, then of course we can only see vague indications. This is not because the Qur'an is vague, this is because scientific elaboration is not the objective of the Qur'an and because we are trying to utilise the Qur'an for something that is not its purpose. This is in fact praise for the Qur'an, in that while it serves the main purpose (of guidance) it may also be used as an indicator to some scientific facts.
^Though that raises other points, my main points above still stand.
With the Greeks, you say that some of what they said was right and some of what they said was wrong. If a Muhammad(pbuh) copied directly from the Greeks, why did he not also copy that which is wrong? Do you know exactly what the Greeks believed in regards to the embrolygy system and the big bang? If so, please explain to me how the Quran, takes a part of the Greek belief, follows it through to a certain point, and at this point the greek theory goes one way which is wrong, yet the Quran doesn't stop, instead it goes the other way which is proven today to be correct.
I would invite you to watch the following videos in regards to this -
Regarding the "clot of blood", I've already read about this, Im in a hurry atm, but I'll happily answer that if I can in another post.
format_quote Originally Posted by TheRationalizer
If you know of any, yes please. I hope though the next one you present won't be "The developing human: By Dr Keith Moore" because that is equally dishonest.
I have not read the Dr Keith Moore book, but really, it's dishonest? I'm not sure why top Scientists would put their reputation on the line by being dishonest... This is just a few Scientists, are they all dishonest? (Link) Do you by any chance have links to top Scientist refuting the Quranic miracles?
Anyways, I did a quick search and this came up, I heard of this book, just havn't had the time to read it myself. This one's pretty interesting, especially given the background of the person who wrote it.
Who is Gary Miller?
Professor Gary Miller, the active Canadian preacher and mathematics and logic lecturer at Toronto University, decided to provide a great service to Christianity through exposing scientific and historical errors in the Quran in such a way that would be beneficial to him and his fellow preachers in calling Muslims to Christianity. However, the result was completely to the contrary. Miller's writings were fair and his study and comments were positive, even better than many Muslims would write about the Quran.
"We have sent down the Reminder, and We will preserve it" [15:9]
I'd like to draw therationalizer to this verse.
The verse is not just a casual statement, it is an affirmative, a strong promise.
So, if the qur'an is not preserved, we can be sure that it is not from the divine.
Now it has been proven that the qur'an alive today (fully memorised by millons muslims down to the single dot and syllable) is the same as the Qur'an 1,400 years ago.
If you really think about it, what is the odd of that happening.
Remember that the qur'an is a whole book, actively used and recited AROUND THE CLOCK in the form of text, in shalah, or in congregrations by more than a billion muslims in the world, and this has been going on for 1,400 years.
The odd that the original qur'an in 1,400 years mutated into countless different versions with various variations is enormous.
and yet, that didn't happen.
The Qur'an does not change.
You may already have closed your heart and mind to the possibility that the Qur'an is from God, but you cannot deny the above fact.
Why don't you present your answer.
I'm sure you have known the answer to your question.
no need to beat around the bush, be straight up.
We can discuss your charge then.
Why don't you present your answer.
I'm sure you have known the answer to your question.
no need to beat around the bush, be straight up.
We can discuss your charge then.
If I presented you with the book "Moby Dick", but in the book I had left the contents of every chapter perfectly preserved but I had rearranged the chapters from longest to shortest would you remark on how the book had been preserved or would you say "Why have you changed it?"
If I presented you with the book "Moby Dick", but in the book I had left the contents of every chapter perfectly preserved but I had rearranged the chapters from longest to shortest would you remark on how the book had been preserved or would you say "Why have you changed it?"
I am still not following you.
How is moby dick got to do with the Qur'an.
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Apart from knowing the speed of light in a vacuum it would also demonstrate knowledge of the future, because the number is presented in kilometres per hour, a unit of measurement which was not created at the time - so it would be a kind of "two birds with one stone" scenario.
Quote
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Bookmarks