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.
Hmm, I am surprised. The reason is that this is something easily achievable by humans. Just get loads of Quran's printed and ship them off to very poor + mostly illiterate places in the world, pay some people to teach the modified versions. After a few decades you'd end up with quite a few people following a modified Quran. That's why it would be enough for *me*, because the effects are man-made.
Do you not see the irony in your statement above?
It seems very very easy to falsify the Qur'an and make many different versions of it, and teach many people to memorise different versions of it, and the time is 1,400 years, not a few decades.
HOWEVER,
the fact is: it never happened.
the Qur'an recited around the clock by more than a billion muslims and fully memorised by millions of muslims remains the same, unchanged, from the one 1,400 years ago.
Do you not see how miraculous that is? the odd and everything?
Maybe you can start your own experiment, and see how it goes.
I'm sure many (enemies of Islams) have tried before.
It seems very very easy to falsify the Qur'an and make many different versions of it, and teach many people to memorise different versions of it, and the time is 1,400 years, not a few decades.
HOWEVER,
the fact is: it never happened.
the Qur'an recited around the clock by more than a billion muslims and fully memorised by millions of muslims remains the same, unchanged, from the one 1,400 years ago.
Do you not see how miraculous that is? the odd and everything?
Maybe you can start your own experiment, and see how it goes.
I'm sure many (enemies of Islams) have tried before.
No, I see no irony. This is something I wouldn't do because ultimately I suspect it would end with sectarian violence. I don't find the fact that a book is unaltered a miracle at all. I am sure there are many books in the world which have not changed since they were first published. Even if the Quran is the oldest book that has never been altered I see it as no reason to claim a miracle, if the Quran had never existed then some other book would be the oldest book in the world that had never changed.
No, I see no irony. This is something I wouldn't do because ultimately I suspect it would end with sectarian violence. I don't find the fact that a book is unaltered a miracle at all. I am sure there are many books in the world which have not changed since they were first published. Even if the Quran is the oldest book that has never been altered I see it as no reason to claim a miracle, if the Quran had never existed then some other book would be the oldest book in the world that had never changed.
Has any other book has thrown a challenge to produce something like it, and on top of that a strong promise to guide it from corruption, and on top of that a guidance to live, written as literary miracle, containing many amazing facts?
Anyway, i am glad that you finally admit that the Qur'an is unaltered.
See, this is why I said you keep shifting yours
First you said it would be easy to create many different versions of the qur'an
and now you backtrack and saying that the fact the qur'an is unaltered is no miracle.
No, I see no irony. This is something I wouldn't do because ultimately I suspect it would end with sectarian violence. I don't find the fact that a book is unaltered a miracle at all. I am sure there are many books in the world which have not changed since they were first published. Even if the Quran is the oldest book that has never been altered I see it as no reason to claim a miracle, if the Quran had never existed then some other book would be the oldest book in the world that had never changed.
One thing you will find is that everyone has their own reasons for believing, you can't really scrutinise the fact that we find the Quran being unaltered as a miracle. Something I find miraculous another person may not. Miracles are not the only reason to believe, they are their to assist your belief, increase your faith.
He it is Who sends blessings on you, as do His angels, that He may bring you out from the depths of Darkness into Light: and He is Full of Mercy to the Believers. [Quran {33:43}] www.QuranicAudio.com www.Quran.com
Has any other book has thrown a challenge to produce something like it, and on top of that a strong promise to guide it from corruption, and on top of that a guidance to live, written as literary miracle, containing many amazing facts?
Anyway, i am glad that you finally admit that the Qur'an is unaltered.
See, this is why I said you keep shifting yours
First you said it would be easy to create many different versions of the qur'an
and now you backtrack and saying that the fact the qur'an is unaltered is no miracle.
what's next?
I haven't said that the Quran is unaltered. The best I'd be able to manage (which is what I would have said from the start) is that I am currently aware of no conclusive evidence that it has been altered. One cannot prove a negative. In fact if the story regarding the Sana'a manuscripts are correct then that would be proof that one of the earliest known copies of the Quran has been altered; but I can't see anyone accepting that as a faith-destroying revelation because I'd expect people simply to say "but that wasn't a genuine Quran".
And I have not back-tracked on the miracle status either. I see no reason to think that an unaltered book is a miracle. There is an Estruscan book in a museum in Bulgaria which is over 2.5 thousand years old written on gold plates. If nobody finds evidence that the words in it were copied and modified would you consider that to be "a miracle"?
I haven't said that the Quran is unaltered. The best I'd be able to manage (which is what I would have said from the start) is that I am currently aware of no conclusive evidence that it has been altered. One cannot prove a negative. In fact if the story regarding the Sana'a manuscripts are correct then that would be proof that one of the earliest known copies of the Quran has been altered; but I can't see anyone accepting that as a faith-destroying revelation because I'd expect people simply to say "but that wasn't a genuine Quran".
I've thrown you a challenge based on your own hypotheses (about making different versions of the Qur'an), and you backtracked.
You keep mentioning Sana'a mansucripts, and yet never show us why/what/how that it was a different set of the Qur'an.
Can you for a moment talk about logic, facts and evidence, which should be easy for someone who chose "therationalizer" as the nickname?
format_quote Originally Posted by TheRationalizer
And I have not back-tracked on the miracle status either. I see no reason to think that an unaltered book is a miracle. There is an Estruscan book in a museum in Bulgaria which is over 2.5 thousand years old written on gold plates. If nobody finds evidence that the words in it were copied and modified would you consider that to be "a miracle"?
I will give you something else older: one of those 4,000 years old egyptian or babylonian tablets.
Maybe I am behind news, but are those plates/tablets have been living, in constant use, in circulation, recited by, memorised by millions of people in the past 4,000 years, instead buried in the sand/ground?
I've thrown you a challenge based on your own hypotheses (about making different versions of the Qur'an), and you backtracked.
I said two things
1: I don't think most people would accept it (even though you claim you would)
2: It's not something I would do even if I had the money because it would result in sectarian violence
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
You keep mentioning Sana'a mansucripts, and yet never show us why/what/how that it was a different set of the Qur'an.
At no point did I claim they conclusively showed that they were a different version of the Quran. I clearly said that I am currently not aware of conclusive evidence, I wouldn't make such a claim until I had researched it fully and I haven't. I was just wondering what people's reactions would be if the claims about them were true...
youtube com / watch?v=JJyeuXtZFuQ&t=3m20s
Most of the video is a load of hype, but I have linked to the point at which the statement is made about the Sana'a scripts having evidence of being modified.
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
Can you for a moment talk about logic, facts and evidence, which should be easy for someone who chose "therationalizer" as the nickname?
Hmm, I sense some hostility here, there really is no need. I try to be as logical as I can, and I will present evidence to back up any claims I make - although I haven't actually made any claims as far as I recall. If I have made a specific claim for which you would like to see evidence then please quote it and I will either provide the evidence or withdraw the claim.
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
I will give you something else older: one of those 4,000 years old egyptian or babylonian tablets.
Maybe I am behind news, but are those plates/tablets have been living, in constant use, in circulation, recited by, memorised by millions of people in the past 4,000 years, instead buried in the sand/ground?
And they remain despite being duplicated over the years?
I said two things
1: I don't think most people would accept it (even though you claim you would)
That's your hypothesis. Not proven until tried, right?
2: It's not something I would do even if I had the money because it would result in sectarian violence
There have been countless attempts to do exactly what you proposed.
The result: Unaltered qur'an
Therefore: your hypothesis failed.
format_quote Originally Posted by TheRationalizer
At no point did I claim they conclusively showed that they were a different version of the Quran. I clearly said that I am currently not aware of conclusive evidence, I wouldn't make such a claim until I had researched it fully and I haven't. I was just wondering what people's reactions would be if the claims about them were true...
youtube com / watch?v=JJyeuXtZFuQ&t=3m20s
Most of the video is a load of hype, but I have linked to the point at which the statement is made about the Sana'a scripts having evidence of being modified.
So another hypothesis and hearsay.
format_quote Originally Posted by TheRationalizer
Hmm, I sense some hostility here, there really is no need. I try to be as logical as I can, and I will present evidence to back up any claims I make - although I haven't actually made any claims as far as I recall. If I have made a specific claim for which you would like to see evidence then please quote it and I will either provide the evidence or withdraw the claim.
even when I am logically and proven right (about the preservation of the qur'an and God's promise), you refuse to accept it anyway.
For you, being rational and logical seem subjective.
format_quote Originally Posted by TheRationalizer
And they remain despite being duplicated over the years?
when were they unearthed after buried for 4,000 years?
Did they contain the promise of their makers to guard it from corruption?
were they a guidance to live, written as literary miracle, containing many amazing science and numerical facts (and proven predictions)?
That's your hypothesis. Not proven until tried, right?
That indeed is what a hypothesis is.
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
There have been countless attempts to do exactly what you proposed.
The result: Unaltered qur'an
I am unaware of them, can you give me historical references?
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
So another hypothesis and hearsay
Not if the results of the tests are reproduced. If others are able to shine florescent light on the scripts and see the same evidence then it would be factual evidence. I was wondering if it would be enough for people to apostatise - I think maybe some would but most would not.
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
even when I am logically and proven right (about the preservation of the qur'an and God's promise), you refuse to accept it anyway.
So what are you saying? I am unable to copy the Quran and make a single change? Or that if I made this change not a single person would fall for it?
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
For you, being rational and logical seem subjective.
No, I am willing to be convinced of anything. Even if for the sake of argument I said that the Quran has definitely remained unaltered I have already said that I wouldn't consider it to be proof of divinity. It should be a method of falsification, but as I said I don't think most people would see it that way.
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
when were they unearthed after buried for 4,000 years?
Your English wasn't very good so I wasn't exactly sure what you were saying.
Correct.
which cannot be used as the basis for conviction.
Otherwise it is only pure faith/belief.
of which yours is.
format_quote Originally Posted by TheRationalizer
I am unaware of them, can you give me historical references?
I am starting to doubt your claim in the op that you have researched Islam in-depth when you are not even unaware that there have been countless attempts to create fake qur'ans in the past 1,400 years.
For example: http://haram.wordpress.com/2007/04/1...century-quran/
In Indonesia alone, every year the department for religious affairs found fake copies of the qur'an through complaints by communities, those were normally distributed by christians missionaries or fundies.
So, again, do you not find it amazing that more than a billion of muslims recite and millions of muslims fully memorised one same qur'an even after 1,400 years and even after such attempts to introduce fake qur'ans?
let's talk about logic and facts, shall we?
format_quote Originally Posted by TheRationalizer
Not if the results of the tests are reproduced. If others are able to shine florescent light on the scripts and see the same evidence then it would be factual evidence. I was wondering if it would be enough for people to apostatise - I think maybe some would but most would not.
And yet, it IS still your hypothesis, whether you like it or not.
format_quote Originally Posted by TheRationalizer
So what are you saying? I am unable to copy the Quran and make a single change? Or that if I made this change not a single person would fall for it?
I am saying that Allah has made the promise to preserve the Qur'an (as in the Qur'an itself),
and I am saying that so far the promise has been fully kept.
format_quote Originally Posted by TheRationalizer
No, I am willing to be convinced of anything. Even if for the sake of argument I said that the Quran has definitely remained unaltered I have already said that I wouldn't consider it to be proof of divinity. It should be a method of falsification, but as I said I don't think most people would see it that way.
You asked ME what I considered as a measure to stop believing, and I DID give you that.
God has made a promise.
And if the promise is not kept, then the one who made the promise cannot be God.
but God has kept the promise.
So I do not stop believing.
No one has asked YOU what you consider as a method of falsification, and I CERTAINLY did not.
Correct.
which cannot be used as the basis for conviction.
Otherwise it is only pure faith/belief.
of which yours is.
I don't believe anything in faith.
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
I am starting to doubt your claim in the op that you have researched Islam in-depth when you are not even unaware that there have been countless attempts to create fake qur'ans in the past 1,400 years.
I'm not at all sure why you think someone looking at Islam with the view of becoming a Muslim would certainly go and look for instances of faked Qurans. It's just not something that occurred to me.
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
So, again, do you not find it amazing that more than a billion of muslims recite and millions of muslims fully memorised one same qur'an even after 1,400 years and even after such attempts to introduce fake qur'ans?
I don't find it miraculous at all. There is nothing about this which defies the laws of physics and therefore it is a perfectly natural phenomenon.
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
And yet, it IS still your hypothesis, whether you like it or not.
Yes, but I don't believe the hypothesis.
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
You asked ME what I considered as a measure to stop believing, and I DID give you that.
God has made a promise.
And if the promise is not kept, then the one who made the promise cannot be God.
but God has kept the promise.
So I do not stop believing.
So to break the promise not only does there have to be a different version of the Quran, but lots of people have to be using it? So if the Sana'a Quranic scripts showed the verses of the Quran were different in the past that would not count because nobody today is using that version? I am just trying to establish your position completely accurately.
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
No one has asked YOU what you consider as a method of falsification, and I CERTAINLY did not.
I'm not sure if you understood me or not. I would consider this to be a statement worthy of scientific falsification in the Quran, but I am not so sure that everyone else would.
But from what your replies, it seems you believe in your conjectures.
format_quote Originally Posted by TheRationalizer
I'm not at all sure why you think someone looking at Islam with the view of becoming a Muslim would certainly go and look for instances of faked Qurans. It's just not something that occurred to me.
unlike other religions, there is nothing to hide or cover in Islam.
You asked me whether it would be easy to falsify the qur'an and you did not know there have been attempts to do so.
And I give you facts and examples.
BUT,
strangely,
those attempts always failed in the end.
Even after 1,400 years and billions of muslims later, we still recite and memorise one same qur'an.
I am showing you how odd that is.
If you don't believe me, have a look at the state of bible for contrast.
AND, you still seem to be unable to accept this fact.
This is why I said you prefer to believe in your own conjectures and hypotheses than reason and facts.
Remember when Allah promise to guard the Qur'an?
and the fact that the promise is still being kept although the odd against it is super enormous?
format_quote Originally Posted by TheRationalizer
So to break the promise not only does there have to be a different version of the Quran, but lots of people have to be using it? So if the Sana'a Quranic scripts showed the verses of the Quran were different in the past that would not count because nobody today is using that version? I am just trying to establish your position completely accurately.
Anyone can write anything, but will people use it, will it lasting?
likewise, anyone can produce fake qurans, but will muslims use it, will it be used more than a few days, a few weeks?
You don't have to go to the past.
Even today, continuous attempts (as I have shown you) are being made by enemies of Islam to distort the message of Islam, to create different versions of Qur'an.
and YET, they all have failed.
Billons of muslims are still reciting and memorising one Qur'an around the clock. Billions of muslims are still using the (one) Qur'an as guidance of life.
you kept saying sana'a scripts, and yet I have NOT seen you tell us how/what/why it is.
I wish you stop throwing around conjectures, hypothesis, and come up with reason, logic and evidence, as your username would suggest.
But from what your replies, it seems you believe in your conjectures.
I have experienced many times people saying things like "prove X to me and I will reject Islam", then I show them conclusive proof and they just grin and ignore it.
From my experience this has happened every time someone has given me a "prove X" scenario, but seeing as this is only a small sample size I am not willing to extrapolate it - instead I retain it as a hypothesis.
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
You asked me whether it would be easy to falsify the qur'an and you did not know there have been attempts to do so.
And I give you facts and examples.
BUT,
strangely,
those attempts always failed in the end.
Even after 1,400 years and billions of muslims later, we still recite and memorise one same qur'an.
I didn't actually want this thread to turn into "and then I will try to present you with the evidence you require" - I was more interested in a higher level discussion about what level of evidence people required - it just seems to have slipped.
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
If you don't believe me, have a look at the state of bible for contrast.
I am aware of the various manuscripts which were found that contradict the Bible. The thing is that the Bible wasn't canonised until the 4th century (if my memory is correct - but a significant time afterwards anyway), this gave Christianity much more time to evolve whereas Uthman canonised the Quran within a few decades and burned all the other copies.
What strikes me as odd about this is
1: If there was only 1 version of the Quran, why did it need to be canonized?
2: If the other Qurans were the same as the one Uthman had why did they need to be burned?
3: Why did Uthman rearrange the Quran? That would be changing it from the Quran apparently held in heaven by Allah.
4: How did Uthman know which order to put the chapters in? Surely Allah didn't send him a message.
But then the diacritical dots weren't added until the 7th/8th centuries. This gives more time for evolving of the Quran, small variations such as Ta or Ya to emerge.
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
AND, you still seem to be unable to accept this fact.
Well I am not going to accept it on your authority. I'd need to investigate it and see all the evidence first before making my decision. But as I said, a book that hasn't changed isn't proof of a divine origin - but I accept that if anyone can find a single Quran out there in use today which differs even by a single diacritic dot it would falsify the claim in the Quran.
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
This is why I said you prefer to believe in your own conjectures and hypotheses than reason and facts.
You are under the misapprehension that I have a preference for what the truth should be. I only care that I possess it - if someone proved to me today that Zeus was real and gave me the evidence that I should bow down and worship him otherwise I would be killed by a bold of lightening if I didn't then I would at this point be on my knees worshipping him.
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
Remember when Allah promise to guard the Qur'an?
and the fact that the promise is still being kept although the odd against it is super enormous?
You seem to find it more enormous than I do. As I said, there are plenty of books in existence that remain unaltered. But at least it shows me that you are willing to reject the Quran based on a piece of evidence which should be easy to present if it exists. If I can find a version of the Quran which is commonly used which has a single omitted/additional word, or has a single diacritical dot difference then you would accept that we have no way of knowing which one is correct and would also accept that Allah has not honoured his promise to provide all Muslims with exactly the same Quran. That's quite rare in my experience.
tinyurl com / Jalalayan-28-37
He mentions that this verse starts either with Qaala or Waqaala. This is a whole new word. If this is correct then there was at least one Quran in use at the time which varied. Meaning that although they were very close they were not exactly the same.
Does this show that not all Muslims follow the same Quran? Or do I have to find a Quran that is still in use today by a large number of Muslims which differs from the one you have?
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
you kept saying sana'a scripts, and yet I have NOT seen you tell us how/what/why it is.
Sorry, I thought they were well known enough for just about everyone to have heard of them. They were discovered by builders in 1972 in the Sana'a mosque. In 1979 some of the pages were taken to Germany for restoration and carbon dating showed them to originate between 650-700CE.
You can see photos of some of the pages here:
tinyurl com / SanaaQuranicManuscripts
I linked to a video on youtube too. It raises the question of whether the text was written, washed off, and rewritten - but I tend not to believe stuff I see on youtube videos so it's on my to-do list of things to look into in the future :-)
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
I wish you stop throwing around conjectures, hypothesis, and come up with reason, logic and evidence, as your username would suggest.
At the point I wish to try to prove something then I shall do my best to live up to your expectations.
Last edited by TheRationalizer; 12-24-2010 at 10:36 AM.
I have experienced many times people saying things like "prove X to me and I will reject Islam", then I show them conclusive proof and they just grin and ignore it.
or maybe you just have not shown them conclusive proof.
You have not shown me how the qur'an fully memorised down to the single syllable by millions of muslims today differ than that taught by prophet Muhammad SAW.
I am waiting for your proof and evidence.
Not conjectures and hypothesis that you keep throwing around.
Please show us.
You have the time in the world until I die.
Or until you die, which will be a little bit too late for you.
or maybe you just have not shown them conclusive proof.
Me: There is a hadith in Sahih Bukhari which says X
Her: Show me that in Bukhari and I will renounce Islam.
Me: Here it is
Her: Looked in disbelief, then just walked away.
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
You have not shown me how the qur'an fully memorised down to the single syllable by millions of muslims today differ than that taught by prophet Muhammad SAW.
what motives did adam have to lie?
did eve not believe? ...dont answer that lol
anyway whatever motivation or agenda you would think adam had, he was most content until he left his ways for someone elses.
so yeah i believe in muhammed saw and the word of god because i have left my ways and eve i dont even know about... and im better for it... or worse of, dont know where you find contentment.
ps
nobodies perfect so every act of submission is a test from the lord (i remain ever fearfull, but not in any way you would understand) but the way i act my scenes is straight from another script (i would hope).
if you want the quran to mimic science and its progression i dont think it ever will, if you want physical miracels manafest like the speed of light then just read what the angels are made out of.
you obviously want the quran to reflect something you already believe in, the quran is life wiping the hard drive and starting again...brainwashing as many as will follow...just like every other ideology, proposition, theory, political or religious viewpoint...eyc etc etc etc like every word uttered that floats through your ears and gets desiphered by your brain.
this only leaves one thing and that is that its all well and good to think god influences everybody from the shadows.. but that is not who we speak of.. we speak of those that would protect the weak of mind and fight the strong willed.. ultimately the rule book states how to do so in the correct manner and when things happen they happen on such an epic scale (six billion people, countless molecules) then god is manifest and on that day.. you will want to know the rules like its not a game.
for yourself, for your family, for your friends, for everyone you will ever lay your eyes on..
you would want to know how to act on that day.
ps the bullets are always real by the way.
if you would think people gave there lives for honour, power, political gain, fame, wealth... well thats your oppinion... nobody knows what the carrot on the stick is.
what motives did adam have to lie?
did eve not believe? ...dont answer that lol
anyway whatever motivation or agenda you would think adam had, he was most content until he left his ways for someone elses.
so yeah i believe in muhammed saw and the word of god because i have left my ways and eve i dont even know about... and im better for it... or worse of, dont know where you find contentment.
ps
nobodies perfect so every act of submission is a test from the lord (i remain ever fearfull, but not in any way you would understand) but the way i act my scenes is straight from another script (i would hope).
if you want the quran to mimic science and its progression i dont think it ever will, if you want physical miracels manafest like the speed of light then just read what the angels are made out of.
you obviously want the quran to reflect something you already believe in, the quran is life wiping the hard drive and starting again...brainwashing as many as will follow...just like every other ideology, proposition, theory, political or religious viewpoint...eyc etc etc etc like every word uttered that floats through your ears and gets desiphered by your brain.
this only leaves one thing and that is that its all well and good to think god influences everybody from the shadows.. but that is not who we speak of.. we speak of those that would protect the weak of mind and fight the strong willed.. ultimately the rule book states how to do so in the correct manner and when things happen they happen on such an epic scale (six billion people, countless molecules) then god is manifest and on that day.. you will want to know the rules like its not a game.
for yourself, for your family, for your friends, for everyone you will ever lay your eyes on..
you would want to know how to act on that day.
ps the bullets are always real by the way.
if you would think people gave there lives for honour, power, political gain, fame, wealth... well thats your oppinion... nobody knows what the carrot on the stick is.
Good I didn't want this thread to be "and then I will give you your evidence" - I only want it to be a discussion about different levels of proof people require to believe/disbelieve something.
So....anyone else? What would make you believe/disbelieve in god/religion?
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