Alleged Qu'ran errors/mistakes

[Kt007]

Really? Is that why the Masjid al haram exists till this day, with millions visiting every year, with individuals reverting to Islaam..

It is in fact only your own opinion, it does not change the facts.

Am not convinced.

Dude, the verse is explaining that we (all of muslims) cannot force one to be a muslim, there are those who choose not to, we cannot do anything about them,

But if someone knows the truth, and chooses to ignore it knowing the punishment is eternal hell, seems a little too far fetched. That is like saying you know Islam is true 100% and yet you choose to disbelieve in it, noone is going to do that. The punishment is so great that even all of the wealth of the planet would still not be enough to reject it. Even if all of the wealth of the earth was offered to me to reject Islam (If I knew it was true) I wouldn't do it.

it is their CHOICE! They have been invited to the truth in the best of manners via Muhammad (pbuh), which you would know as muslims we believe is our role model, they still do not wish to.

They don't believe Islam to be true, you seem to think, not believing something to be true is the same as being against it. You can't believe in something you don't acknowledge to begin with. Its like me saying, if you don't believe in a flying unicorn which rules the universe then you'll be punished for eternity, you're going laugh right? because you don't believe the flying unicorn exists. But if you knew it did then you wouldn't reject it.

Even his uncle abu talib, was he forced to become Muslim? rest of his companions, relatives? Have you studied enough to call this pointless. Again, it is you and your opinion, and does not change the facts which you've no knowledge of ,as it seems.

They didn't believe he was telling the truth. You can't commit a crime against something you don't even acknowledged exists. It's a logical paradox.

 

[Ğħαrєєвαħ]

Right, so their weren't any lamps until the lower heaven was decked with lamps? Or did the lamps exist? the verses clearly seem to imply that the lamps came after the earth do you agree with this or do you disagree with this?

According to the verses and tafsir they were created 'seperately', not going to get into which was created first or last.

Although, the verses 12 clearly states:

"Then He completed and finished from their creation (as) seven heavens in two Days and He made in each heaven its affair. And We adorned the nearest (lowest) heaven with lamps (stars) to be an adornment as well as to guard (from the devils by using them as missiles against the devils). Such is the Decree of Him the All-Mighty, the All-Knower."

Meaning the heavens were completed with 2 last days, adorned with lamps which 'shine' on the people of 'earth'.. etc...Perhaps you should read the tafsir - Explanation of this verse to understand further, inshaa'Allaah, I sincerely hope you do take the time to do so..

Well their are number of argument for this main one being that those who memorised the Qu'ran were dying, so there was a need to compile it

Okay we are getting there...

About 23 years.

Alhamdulilaah

Some of the chapters are though. Sometimes Qu'ran switches topic mid way through.

So, as a muslim did you not see it important to seek knowledge as to why this may have been so?

It isn't a story book, Allaah revealed verses concerning certain events in the life of Muhammad (SAW)

So you're trying to say Ibn Majah is unreliable.

Do you have evidence I do?

This is not the reason I asked the question, I asked wanting to know whether you've read all of his other sources..

 

[Ğħαrєєвαħ]

Am not convinced.

That is fine, i'm not here to convince you, i'm simply trying to answer some questions..

But if someone knows the truth, and chooses to ignore it knowing the punishment is eternal hell, seems a little too far fetched. That is like saying you know Islam is true 100% and yet you choose to disbelieve in it, noone is going to do that. The punishment is so great that even all of the wealth of the planet would still not be enough to reject it. Even if all of the wealth of the earth was offered to me to reject Islam (If I knew it was true) I wouldn't do it.

I believe Islaam is 100% the truth, and I do not choose to disbelieve it, if your choosing to believe it but then your not accepting it's 100% truth, you either have some doubts.. Or let's say, you recieved an answer that makes sense, or is clear, but you still reject it, then this is just doesn't make sense, at least not to me.

There are some things one may not have knowledge of, they should go study, making them a student, a student of knowledge, but then someone comes along states something which they've never heard of, would you think they'd believe it or actually go study, ask the learned etc etc?

An example, we know air exists, but choose not to believe it as we do not see it, does this make sense? or make sense to deny? but there is proof that something is there and keeping us alive.. hmm, i'm not good with explanations.. hopefully, someone can explain..

If you wouldn't reject islaam though you were given all wealth, this would make you a believer, but it would be your faith/belief, it would rely upon you, accepting or not accepting, you are only benefiting yourself and nobody, you are not affecting the kingdom of the creator, this is your choice whether to take or not.. Or say if you did take it, but then you realised it was wrong of you, perhaps your greed got the better of you, perhaps materialistic? later you realised it's wrong, you'd repent with it's conditions i.e. sincerety, truth etc and inshaa'Allaah forgiven, indeed Allaah is all-mercyful..

They don't believe Islam to be true, you seem to think, not believing something to be true is the same as being against it. You can't believe in something you don't acknowledge to begin with. Its like me saying, if you don't believe in a flying unicorn which rules the universe then you'll be punished for eternity, you're going laugh right? because you don't believe the flying unicorn exists. But if you knew it did then you wouldn't reject it.

This isn't about unicorns, it is about choice to believe in God and his messenger and that which was revealed unto him 'The Qur'aan', to have sincerety to at least learn or have the intention to do. Perhaps just in order to gain knowledge.

They didn't believe he was telling the truth. You can't commit a crime against something you don't even acknowledged exists. It's a logical paradox

Whose commiting a crime? One of reasons he (Abu Talib) didn't accept was because he felt he was going to lower himself in society by rejecting the religion of his forefathers.. Did Muhammad (P) commit a crime against him? In fact it is known as the year of sorrow, where his uncle, and wife passed away.

 

[Perseveranze]

Well what was the point of sending a prophet then? You tell me? You think this makes Allah look good?

Your first post is a mess and hard to understand, so I'm just quoting the next clear thing you said. You said the above in regards to this verse;

---

Verily, those who disbelieve, it is the same to them whether you (O Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم) warn them or do not warn them, they will not believe [Al Qur'aan 36:10]

---

Unfortunatly, your lack of Islamic knowledge is quite big. The verse above has a context, it is referring to people like Abu Jahl, as that's when the verse was revealed. Abu Jahl, no matter what, would always disbelieve, regardless of the signs and proofs and would always redicule the Prophet(pbuh) and his message of monotheism.

And this verse goes in relation to these verses;

---

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)

---

Meaning there will be a group of people who will remain delluded by their own account for the whole of their life, and that even if you gave them the greatest of proofs they would still not believe.

And this is true, especially when I used to ask atheists; "If you saw Jesus(pbuh) perform a miracle right in front of you, like raising someone from the dead, would you believe?" - And the Atheist replied; "I'd thing it was some kind of special effects/trick".

 

[Muhammad]

Greetings,

I came across something relevant to what you posted in your previous thread, so I'll share it here.

Personally, I feel that Muhammed used to have epileptic attacks, and from this he believed angels were speaking to him, eventually after the death of his first wife Kadijah he became more eccentric and erratic,

Taken from, The Messengers and the Messages in the Light of the Qur'an and Sunnah, 'Umar S. al-Ashqar.

Among the claims which those who disbelieve in the Messengers make is that what happened to the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) was some kind of epilepsy, or that the devils made some kind of contact with him. This is a lie, for these are two entirely different matters. The one who suffers an epileptic fit turns yellow, becomes light and loses his balance, as also happens to the one who is afflicted by the Shaytaan (Satan); as the Shaytaan may speak through his mouth and address the people present, and when he recovers from his loss of consciousness the person is unaware and does not remember anything that the Shaytaan (Satan) said on his lips to the people present. But in the case of the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), when the angel contacted him, caused his body to increase in size and his face was filled with light. Moreover, people sitting with him did not hear anything that was said, rather they heard a sound like the buzzing of bees around his head [1]. Afterwards the Messenger would stand up and he would be aware of everything that the angel had told him, and he was the one who would tell his Companions what had been revealed to him.

'Aa'ishah (may Allah be pleased with her and with her father) told us that, 'The Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) would receive revelation on an intensely cold day, and by the time it departed from him, his forehead would be dripping with sweat.' [2]

And she told us that his camel - if he received revelation whilst riding on it - would almost sink to its knees because of his weight [3]. One of the Sahaabah (Companions of the Prophet) mentioned that his thigh was beneath the thigh of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) when revelation came to him. At the moment when revelation was coming to him, the thigh of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) almost crushed the thigh of the Sahabi (the Companion) [4].

Ya'laa ibn Umayyah told us that he witnessed an occasion when revelation came to the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him); before that he had wished that he could witness that (situation and) condition. He said: 'I came in and he was red in the face. He stayed like that for a while, then (this condition) departed from him.' [5]

[1] Tirmidhi, see Jaami' al-Usool, 12/41.
[2] Bukhari: Kitab Badu'al Wahy (See Fath al-Baari, 1/18).
[3] This has been referred to by Al-Bayhaqi in Ad-Dalaa'il, quoting from 'Aa'ishah. See Fath al-Baari, 1/21.
[4] Bukhari: Salaah, 12; Jihaad, 31; Nasaa'i: Jihaad, 4; Ahmad: 5/184.
[5] The hadith of Ya'laa is narrated by Bukhari and others. Bukhari: Kitaab Fadaa'il al-Qur'an. Fath al-Baari, 9/9.


You can also see:
The Prophet Muhammad(P) and the Slander of Epilepsy

Scientific investigation therefore reveals that the case of Muhammad(P) was not one of epilepsy. For this reason very few Orientalists have upheld this claim and these turn out to be the same authors who upheld the charge of forgery against the Qur’an. Obviously, in charging Muhammad (P) with epilepsy, their motivation was not the establishment of historical fact but the derogation of the Prophet(P) in the eyes of his Muslim followers. Perhaps, they thought, propagation of such views would cast some suspicion upon his revelation, for it was precisely the revelation that came as a result of the so-called epileptic fits. This, of course, makes them all the more blameworthy and, from the standpoint of science, positively in error.

 

[Scimitar]

Bro KT007, why are you here again?

Scimi

 

[CosmicPathos]

Moreover, one cannot make the diagnosis of epilepsy restrospectively without any physical exam, without any EEG ... without even taking patient's history. Yet how sure are these idiots of their diagnosis!

 

[جوري]

Moreover, one cannot make the diagnosis of epilepsy restrospectively without any physical exam, without any EEG ... without even taking patient's history. Yet how sure are these idiots of their diagnosis!

You don't need testing for an isolated seizure as it is often a one time thing. Also very difficult for seizures to be diagnosed in adulthood, as it often presents in childhood unless of course a patient is a known alcoholic or has developed a space occupying lesion in which case( focal deficits or death) ensue shortly after or a short prodrome before hand and it is often olfactory (burning tires and such) not auditory or visual hallucination and if said hallucinations they don't last more than a few seconds to minutes certainly wouldn't give you suret al baqara in one setting. And lastly what does having a seizure prove under any circumstance? I'd actually like to follow that atheist epiphany through and chop of its head with one swift move-- you know how much I love the hunt!

 

[Kt007]

According to the verses and tafsir they were created 'seperately', not going to get into which was created first or last.

Although, the verses 12 clearly states:

"Then He completed and finished from their creation (as) seven heavens in two Days and He made in each heaven its affair. And We adorned the nearest (lowest) heaven with lamps (stars) to be an adornment as well as to guard (from the devils by using them as missiles against the devils). Such is the Decree of Him the All-Mighty, the All-Knower."

Meaning the heavens were completed with 2 last days, adorned with lamps which 'shine' on the people of 'earth'.. etc...Perhaps you should read the tafsir - Explanation of this verse to understand further, inshaa'Allaah, I sincerely hope you do take the time to do so..

So they were created separately, the earth was created first and then the stars (lamps) were created. Which is wrong scientifically speaking since the sun (lamp) was formed shot time before the earth. And even if you say, well it was simultaneously since it was within the two day time frame then it is still wrong too. There is a gap, the earth was created about 4.5 billion years ago, the oldest star (lamp) in the universe is about 11 billion years old, so that means there is a huge gap of 6.5 billion years which is unaccounted for. Also not to mention Allah is mistaking meteoroids (presumably, because stars are not shooting around) as missiles which are fired against devils. So Allah is using stars (lamps) interchangeable with meteoroids, so this clearly implies a mistake in the understanding of cosmology they thought the stars are small objects when in reality stars are MASSIVE objects, and are no way similar size to meteoroids.

It isn't a story book, Allaah revealed verses concerning certain events in the life of Muhammad (SAW)

How do those verses benefit modern humans?

This is not the reason I asked the question, I asked wanting to know whether you've read all of his other sources..

Now I haven't read all his other sources.

 

[جوري]

So they were created separately, the earth was created first and then the stars (lamps) were created. Which is wrong scientifically speaking since the sun (lamp) was formed shot time before the earth. And even if you say, well it was simultaneously since it was within the two day time frame then it is still wrong too. There is a gap, the earth was created about 4.5 billion years ago, the oldest star (lamp) in the universe is about 11 billion years old, so that means there is a huge gap of 6.5 billion years which is unaccounted for. Also not to mention Allah is mistaking meteoroids (presumably, because stars are not shooting around) as missiles which are fired against devils. So Allah is using stars (lamps) interchangeable with meteoroids, so this clearly implies a mistake in the understanding of cosmology they thought the stars are small objects when in reality stars are MASSIVE objects, and are no way similar size to meteoroids.

Ansar Al 'Adl​

​

The allegation is as follows:

Heavens or Earth? Which was created first? First earth and then heaven [2:29], heaven and after that earth [79:27-30].


Verses in question:


2:29 It is He Who hath created for you all things that are on earth; Thumma (Then/Moreover) His design comprehended the heavens, for He gave order and perfection to the seven firmaments; and of all things He hath perfect knowledge.
And
79:27-30. What! Are ye the more difficult to create or the heaven (above)? ((Allah)) hath constructed it: On high hath He raised its canopy, and He hath equally ordered it. Its night doth He endow with darkness, and its splendour doth He bring out (with light). And the earth, moreover, hath He extended (to a wide expanse)
1. At first sight, it may seem as though these verses contradict because 2:29 mentions the earth before the heavens, while in 79:27-21, the situation is reversed. However, on closer inspection, we discover some significant differences:
A) 2:29 mentions the development of the heavens into seven layers, not their initial creation which is described in 79:27-31.
B) 2:29 describes the creation of the earth and its features while 79:27-31 only descibres the spreading of the earth

Thus, based on the two verses we know two things:

1. The creation of the earth preceded the formation of the heavens into seven layers
2. The creation of the heavens preceded the 'spreading' of the earth.
And a third point is logically concluded from the above:
3. The creation of the heavens preceded their formation into seven layers

However, it is not know from the verses whether the creation of the heavens preceded the creation of the earth or vice versa, or whether they occurred simultaneously. Some Qur'anic commentators took one view while others took another. What we do know is that the heavens and the earth were created and then subsequently the earth was spread and the heavens formed into seven layers. This interpretation is supported by the classical commentaries of the Qur'an. As Imaam Abu Abdullah Al-Qurtubi (d. 1273CE) states in his monumental Al-Jaami` le Ahkaam al-Qur'an when giving his opinion on the Qur'anic description:

I believe that what Qatada said is sound Allah willing: that Allah first created the smoke of heaven and then created the earth and directed Himself to heaven, which was smoke and [He] arranged it and then He smoothed out the earth. (Tafsir Al-Qurtubi Classical Commentary of the Holy Qur'an, Dar Al-Taqwa Ltd. 2003, vol. 1, p.200, emphasis added)

Imaam Ibn Kathir Ad-Damishqi (d. 1372CE) also distinguishes between the different stages in his renowned Tafsir Al-Qur'an Al-Azim, while presenting a slightly different view:

It already has been mentioned previously in [the Tafsir of] Surat Ha Mim As-Sajdah that the earth was created before the heaven was created, but it was only spread out after the creation of the heaven. This means that He brought out what was in it with a forceful action. This is the meaning of what was said by Ibn Abbas and others, and it was the explanation preferred by Ibn Jarir [At-Tabari (d. 923CE)] (fn. At-Tabari 24:208). (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Abridged, Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, 2000, vol. 10, p. 350, emphasis added)

Thus, the commentators are agreed that the difference in verse 2:29 and verses 79:27-31 relates to the different stages in the creation of the heavens and the earth, with the earth's 'spreading' occurring after the creation of the heavens and the development of the heavens occurring after the creation of the earth. The commentators only differ regarding the creation of the earth preceding the creation of the heavens, or vice versa, or if they were both created simultaneously.

Scientific research describes the creation and formation of the earth in the following stages:

Differentiation in the first few 100's of millions of years led to the formation of the core and the mantle and a crust, and initiated the escape of gases from the moving interior that eventually led to the formation of the atmosphere and oceans.

The earliest Earth was probably an unsorted conglomeration, mostly of silicon compounds, iron and magnesium oxides, and smaller amounts of all the natural elements. It became increasingly hotter as the protoplanet grew.

...After loss of the hydrogen, helium and other hydrogen-containing gases from early Earth due to the Sun's radiation, primitive Earth was devoid of an atmosphere. The first atmosphere was formed by outgassing of gases trapped in the interior of the early Earth, which still goes on today in volcanoes.

For the Early Earth, extreme volcanism occurred during differentiation, when massive heating and fluid-like motion in the mantle occurred. It is likely that the bulk of the atmosphere was derived from degassing early in the Earth's history.

...Lava flowing from the partially molten interior spread over the surface and solidified to form a thin crust. This crust would have melted and solidified repeatedly, with the lighter compounds moving to the surface. This is called differentiation. Weathering by rainfall broke up and altered the rocks. The end result of these processes was a continental land mass, which would have grown over time. The most popular theory limits the growth of continents to the first two billion years of the Earth. (SOURCE)

The above description informs us that the earth was initially one mass and through differentiation and volcanic out-gassing, the early atmosphere formed. Then, cooling of the earth resulted in the formation of land mass.

These descriptions concur with the Qur'anic description that the earth (2:29) and the heaven (79:27) were created and were originally one mass and then separated (verse 21:30), the heavens were then developed into seven layers (verse 2:29) and the earth's crust was later spread out (79:30). The last description may be a reference to the cooling of the earth's crust, or it may be a reference to continental drift.

Thus, we find that the Qur'an does not contradict itself here, but instead contains accurate details regarding the formation of the earth in the stages.

2. According to an alternative interpretation, verse 2:29 is rendered as follows:
He is the One who created for you all that's inside earth (Matter), then turned to the sky and perfected seven universes therein, and He is fully aware of all things.
Therefore, verse 2:29 is taken to refer to the creation of the universe and it is not the creation of the earth being described here, but rather what is in the earth, or matter. And verse 79:30 is referring to the spreading of the earth, which has been defined before.

3. A third explanation argues on the understanding of thumma, which does not always indicate sequential order. The meaning of Thumma is explained very well by Moiz Amjad in his article entitled The Meaning of "Thumma" & "Yawm". Therefore, when verse 2:29 says that Allah created the earth and thumma He turned to the heavens, this could also be read as "Furthermore He turned to the heavens" which does not necessarily imply that the creation of the heavens is after the creation of earth. Critics argue that when it says God turned towards the heaven, this implies a sequential act. But this is not entirely true, as God could have turned to the heaven at any point in the past, not necessarily after the creation of the heavens. This point is emphasized in the classical tafsirs as well. Imaam Qurtubi writes:

In His words "then directed", the word "then" is simply a narrative aid and does not imply any time sequence in the matetrs referred to. (Tafsir Al-Qurtubi Classical Commentary of the Holy Qur'an, Dar Al-Taqwa Ltd. 2003, vol. 1, p.199)

Similarly, Imaam Ibn Kathir writes:

It is said that "Then" in the Ayah (2:29) relates only to the order of reciting the information being given, it does not relate to the order that the events being mentioned took place, this was reported from Ibn 'Abbas by 'Ali bin Abi Talhah. (fn. At-Tabari 1:437). (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Abridged, Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, 2000, vol. 1, p. 180)

Thus, this explanation is not in conflict with the traditional understanding of the earlier Muslims.

From the above points, it should be clear that these verses do not in any way constitute a contradiction.

http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/which_was_created_first__the_heavens_or_earth___by_ansar_al__adl

WHEN YOU MAKE A 'SCIENTIFIC CLAIM' BACK IT UP WITH SCIENCE!

How do those verses benefit modern humans?

They serve as one of numerous examples to the transcendence & miraculous nature of the Quran.

 

[Kt007]

There are some things one may not have knowledge of, they should go study, making them a student, a student of knowledge, but then someone comes along states something which they've never heard of, would you think they'd believe it or actually go study, ask the learned etc etc?

Ask, that is what I am doing here right, I am asking. I've asked scholars before too.

An example, we know air exists, but choose not to believe it as we do not see it, does this make sense? or make sense to deny? but there is proof that something is there and keeping us alive.. hmm, i'm not good with explanations.. hopefully, someone can explain..

We know air exists, because we can prove it. The key point being proof.

If you wouldn't reject islaam though you were given all wealth, this would make you a believer, but it would be your faith/belief, it would rely upon you, accepting or not accepting, you are only benefiting yourself and nobody, you are not affecting the kingdom of the creator, this is your choice whether to take or not.. Or say if you did take it, but then you realised it was wrong of you, perhaps your greed got the better of you, perhaps materialistic? later you realised it's wrong, you'd repent with it's conditions i.e. sincerety, truth etc and inshaa'Allaah forgiven, indeed Allaah is all-mercyful..

Yeah I understand that, but I was saying something else.

This isn't about unicorns, it is about choice to believe in God and his messenger and that which was revealed unto him 'The Qur'aan', to have sincerety to at least learn or have the intention to do. Perhaps just in order to gain knowledge.

You can't believe in something without proof is my point, I am not convinced about the proof of Islam.

Whose commiting a crime? One of reasons he (Abu Talib) didn't accept was because he felt he was going to lower himself in society by rejecting the religion of his forefathers.. Did Muhammad (P) commit a crime against him? In fact it is known as the year of sorrow, where his uncle, and wife passed away.

Well Allah thinks it s a crime, if not believe in Allah wasn't a crime then why would he punish you for not believe in him? So, can you imagine, that is like me saying to you, that If you don't believe in the flying spaghetti monster then you'll be punished for eternity, you're going to laugh right, since you don't believe in the flying spaghetti monster. To say Abu Talib didn't believe in Islam despite him knowing it was true, is just a Muslim narrative i.e. a spin on the story, there is no other option for a person to say anything but that to justify it.

 

[جوري]

Well Allah thinks it s a crime, if not believe in Allah wasn't a crime then why would he punish you for not believe in him? So, can you imagine, that is like me saying to you, that If you don't believe in the flying spaghetti monster then you'll be punished for eternity, you're going to laugh right, since you don't believe in the flying spaghetti monster. To say Abu Talib didn't believe in Islam despite him knowing it was true, is just a Muslim narrative i.e. a spin on the story, there is no other option for a person to say anything but that to justify it.

Celestial Teapots, Flying Spaghetti Monsters, and Other Silly Atheist Arguments
Saturday, May 15, 2010, 1:40 AM
Joe Carter

[Note: While I had intended to avoid writing any more about atheism for a long, long time, I thought I'd add just a couple of more posts on the topic. It tends to be a bit slow around here on the weekend so I thought it couldn't hurt to extend the conversation for one more day.]
You have to pity the modern atheist who attempts to present arguments for her cause. Unmoored from any respectable intellectual tradition, each generation is forced to recreate anti-theistic arguments from scratch. The result is that the claims which they believe to be clever and ****ing often turn out to be—to use a technical philosophical phrase—just plain silly.

Take for example, the Flying Spaghetti Monster. According to Wikipedia, The Flying Spaghetti Monster is the deity of a parody religion founded in 2005 by Oregon State University physics graduate Bobby Henderson to protest the decision by the Kansas State Board of Education to require the teaching of intelligent design as an alternative to biological evolution. In an open letter sent to the education board, Henderson professes belief in a supernatural Creator called the Flying Spaghetti Monster, which resembles spaghetti and meatballs. He furthermore calls for the “Pastafarian” theory of creation to be taught in science classrooms, essentially invoking a reductio ad absurdum argument against the teaching of intelligent design. (The FSM has been popularized by the otherwise charming and intelligent folks at BoingBoing.)
What Henderson actually showed was (a) a profound ignorance of the design argument, (b) a profound ignorance of what the Kansas board was actually proposing, and (c) that OSU should require physics graduates to take courses in philosophy. But what Henderson was trying to get at, though he doesn’t seem clever enough to grasp his own point, is similar to what Bertrand Russell was arguing with his “celestial teapot” analogy. In the famous passage from “Is There a God?”, Russell writes:

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.
​

Russell’s rather unoriginal argument has recently rehashed by atheism’s most unoriginal apologist, Richard Dawkins. Both Russell and Dawkins (and everyone else who uses this line of reasoning) attempt to argue along the lines that “If the existence of X (celestial teapots, FSMs, God) has not been disproven, it does not follow that X exists, or even that it is reasonable to believe that X exists.”
This point is both obvious and uncontroversial. The problem comes when they try to suggest, as philosopher William Vallicella says, “that belief in God (i.e., belief that God exists) is epistemically on a par with believing in a celestial teapot. Just as we have no reason to believe in celestial teapots, irate lunar unicorns (lunicorns?), flying spaghetti monsters, and the like, we have no reason to believe in God.”
Vallicella points out the key problem with this thinking: we have all sorts of reasons for believing that God exists. True, atheists may not find them compelling. But so what? “The issue is whether a reasoned case can be made for theism, and the answer is in the affirmative,” says Vallicella. “Belief in God and in Russell’s teapot are therefore not on a par since there are no empirical or theoretical reasons for believing in his teapot.”
Celestial teapots and FSMs do, however, differ on one key point. The celestial teapot is a contingent being, its coming into being and continued existence is contingent on the existence of something else (namely the universe). The teapot is a physical being whose existence is radically dependent on the existence of matter. The teapot could cease to exist without affecting the universe. But if the universe ceased to exist, so would the celestial teapot.
The Flying Spaghetti Monster, however, is akin to God in that it is posited as a being that creates contingent beings. As Henderson claims in his letter, “We have evidence that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe.” If the FSM created the universe then the universe is radically dependent on the FSM. As I pointed out in my previous post, if the universe was created into existence then it is possible for the entire universe to go out of existence, to simply cease to exist. Its continued existence therefore requires a causal agent to keep it from ceasing to exist, to prevent its exnihilation. (Note: This would be true even if the universe has always existed and was uncaused (i.e., the view of steady-state cosmology).)
In his attempt to be clever, Henderson misses the point that his FSM is more philosophically plausible than what (I suspect) he actually believes. Presumably since he is a physicist, Henderson believes either that the universe was created from nothing (everything from nothingness) or that he subscribes to some alternate view such as the multiverse theory. The idea that (a) absolute nothingness (non-existence) created the universe and that (b) this nothingness sustains the universe from exnihilation (complete non-existence) is philosophically and scientifically absurd.
That leaves us with the second option, that the universe was created by something else, such as a Perpetual Universe Generator (PUG). In essence, the PUG plays the same roles as God or the FSM. Each is an entity that exists non-contingently and resides outside of the normal laws of the known physical universe. (The FSM is a creature comprised of stringy noodles while the PUG is a construct comprised of noodly theories about strings.) The only difference is that Henderson is positing an un-intelligent designer (nothingness, the PUG) while the alternatives are intelligent designers (the FSM, God).
Why exactly we are to prefer an unintelligent designer to an intelligent one is one of the questions that remains unanswered. Obviously, not all atheists believe that arguments must be intelligently designed; but that does not mean that all arguments for intelligent design* are without merit. Perhaps if they used their noodles for something other than creating spaghetti creatures they’d see that obvious point for themselves.
(Note: By “arguments for intelligent design” I do not mean merely argument for Intelligent Design theory but all arguments that claim that the the universe was created and sustained by a self-existing Being who possesses intelligence (or, a minimum, a Being that possesses teleological intention and the ability to act in accordance with that self-willed intention). In other words, arguments that are made by almost all forms of theism and deism.)
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/fi...i-monsters-and-other-silly-atheist-arguments/


Sadly you lose credibility when your 'logic' as an atheist is borrowed and in an of itself its own form of indoctrination rather than borne out of free thought; and that was actually apparent from the get go anyway.
Usually a true free thinker contemplate, philosophizes, has impartiality, and open to possibility, not one who concocts, borrows, plagiarizes, condescends and professes accolades that are already born silly to somebody else.

 

[Kt007]

Greetings,

Salaam.

Among the claims which those who disbelieve in the Messengers make is that what happened to the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) was some kind of epilepsy, or that the devils made some kind of contact with him.

It was my opinion, since that is very hard to prove weather he had temporal lope epilepsy or not.

This is a lie, for these are two entirely different matters. The one who suffers an epileptic fit turns yellow, becomes light and loses his balance, as also happens to the one who is afflicted by the Shaytaan (Satan); as the Shaytaan may speak through his mouth and address the people present, and when he recovers from his loss of consciousness the person is unaware and does not remember anything that the Shaytaan (Satan) said on his lips to the people present. But in the case of the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), when the angel contacted him, caused his body to increase in size and his face was filled with light. Moreover, people sitting with him did not hear anything that was said, rather they heard a sound like the buzzing of bees around his head [1]. Afterwards the Messenger would stand up and he would be aware of everything that the angel had told him, and he was the one who would tell his Companions what had been revealed to him.

'Aa'ishah (may Allah be pleased with her and with her father) told us that, 'The Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) would receive revelation on an intensely cold day, and by the time it departed from him, his forehead would be dripping with sweat.' [2]

And she told us that his camel - if he received revelation whilst riding on it - would almost sink to its knees because of his weight [3]. One of the Sahaabah (Companions of the Prophet) mentioned that his thigh was beneath the thigh of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) when revelation came to him. At the moment when revelation was coming to him, the thigh of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) almost crushed the thigh of the Sahabi (the Companion) [4].

Ya'laa ibn Umayyah told us that he witnessed an occasion when revelation came to the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him); before that he had wished that he could witness that (situation and) condition. He said: 'I came in and he was red in the face. He stayed like that for a while, then (this condition) departed from him.' [5]

[1] Tirmidhi, see Jaami' al-Usool, 12/41.
[2] Bukhari: Kitab Badu'al Wahy (See Fath al-Baari, 1/18).
[3] This has been referred to by Al-Bayhaqi in Ad-Dalaa'il, quoting from 'Aa'ishah. See Fath al-Baari, 1/21.
[4] Bukhari: Salaah, 12; Jihaad, 31; Nasaa'i: Jihaad, 4; Ahmad: 5/184.
[5] The hadith of Ya'laa is narrated by Bukhari and others. Bukhari: Kitaab Fadaa'il al-Qur'an. Fath al-Baari, 9/9.


You can also see:
The Prophet Muhammad(P) and the Slander of Epilepsy

I am sorry, but this is so non-scientific any silly that is is beyond addressing, it's going into the realms of the supernatural. Satan speaking through someone mouth, I mean this person believes Satan exists and Satan can take over the body of a human being and speak from their body, am I supposed to take this person seriously? How naive are Muslims that they are so gullible to believe anything another Muslim writes, do you not understand that this kind of thing doesn't give credible to Islam it makes it look more silly. I had one Muslim tell me Muhammed was the first man in space, because Muhammed said he went to the 7 heavens on a magic horse, am sure you know about that story.

 

[جوري]

It was my opinion, since that is very hard to prove weather he had temporal lope epilepsy or not.

You should back your opinion up or don't post it all together, in fact I delight in the opportunity of you going ahead with that thought. hearsay doesn't a logical argument make!

 

[جوري]

I am sorry, but this is so non-scientific any silly

You don't actually know how science works do you?
at any rate just so you're up to speed I have covered it a a little here:

the logic of statistics is you can never prove anything all you can do is disprove something!
if I want to prove a drug works, I can't, but what I can do is disprove that the drug doesn't work! Ahhhhhh the (double negative) that is the way to get to where you wanted!

we have a double blind randomized design to prove that a new wonder drug works, one half of the participants gets the wonder drug, the other half gets placebo
follow both groups and see when they will have relief from their symptoms,

1- the research design isn't flawed

now let's discuss the null hypothesis ..the 'null hypothesis is the opposite of what you want to find. group A fails to get over the sx. faster than group B.
with the null hypothesis we state it and then leave it alone .. we pass out pills and collect data next .. take the data feed it into the computer ..
what comes out T as in a t test, x^2, f etc etc.
we should only focus on the P value is key for making statistical decisions
we make decisions by putting a standard in place and comparing empirical evidence to it .. so that is what the P value is, the standard and the summary of the data .
this alpha criterion is something you decide before you make your research, you can set the value high or low, it is your discretion
people put the value of P at less than or equal to .05
a confidence interval of 95% means one is correct 95% of the time .. the other five percent is the time when one is wrong
a confidence interval of 95% corresponds exactly to a P value of </=0.05
95% chance of being right, 5 % chance of being wrong

outcomes for our study p=.02
.02 is under the bar which is very good because it means we get to 'reject the null hypothesis' because the null hypothesis is the opposite of what we are looking for .. if we reject the null hypothesis, the drug works!

is it possible that the drug works in the study but not out in the world?
yes possible though unlikely..

what this means is that we have made a type one error, or alpha error, this type of error basically states we rejected the null hypothesis but we shouldn't have . You'll never know for sure if you have made a type one error, all you know is the chance that you made a type one error that chance is found in the p value a .02 i.e a 2% chance .
p value is type one error
if the number for the p value gets too low, we'll take that chance

2nd outcome for the study, p=1.3 we are now above the bar, we can't reject the null hypothesis, we fail to reject the null hypothesis..
you never 'accept the null hypothesis'
same as 'jury logic' not that you are innocent, just that there isn't enough evidence to convict you . the chance for a type one error here? = 0 why? because to make a type one error you must first reject the null hypothesis.
however in this case we could have made a beta type error means, I didn't reject the null hypothesis but I should have .. in other words in the study the drug is crap, but out in the real world, it works well..
chance of making a type two error? we don't know.. can't look at P value because P value only tells us a type one error ONLY!

type one error is considered worse ..
which is worse looking at you and lying or simply forgetting to tell you something?
lying is worse, that is a type one error a 'sin of commission' because first do no harm is a physician's oath.

now you are giving this new drug because it has been approved and works great, the patient is now asking this drug works great in research, what is the chance it will work for me? best response is 'I don't know' this gives you statistical significance not clinical significance!

you can answer the patient by looking at the table the one that tells you, who got the drug, who didn't get the drug, got better, didn't get better
got drug got better 70%
got drug didn't get better 30%
no drug better 30%
not better no drug 70%

pt.s chance of getting better on drug
the answer here is 70% chance of getting better out of one hundred people that got the drug 70% of them got better!

http://www.islamicboard.com/health-science/134270536-medical-student-review-7.html#post1337181

best,

 

[Kt007]

Sadly you lose credibility when your 'logic' as an atheist is borrowed and in an of itself its own form of indoctrination rather than borne out of free thought; and that was actually apparent from the get go anyway.
Usually a true free thinker contemplate, philosophizes, has impartiality, and open to possibility, not one who concocts, borrows, plagiarizes, condescends and professes accolades that are already born silly to somebody else.

You can't even think for yourself, you're quoting a blog and a post by a non-Muslim, you really think that refutes everything, almost 1 millennia of philosophical thought? stop reading nonsense are try to actually pick something up which will increase your understand, stop reading these terribly badly written blog posts.

Do you have any idea of how stupid and weak that argument is he says, that Russles teapot and God or not on the same par, and his argument for this is, that God has empirical evidence which is utter-nonsense, since belief in God is based on faith, and not on empirical evidence. David Koresh, convinced his followers to commit mass suicide on the basis of that he was a messenger from God, yet folks believed him, since their belief was based on faith. So you're quoting sources, which don't understand logic or epistemology, and in his deluded mindset he believes he has debunked it. Please don't spam me with such nonsense, I am not going to waste my time with such logically fallacious content.

 

[Kt007]

You don't actually know how science works do you?
at any rate just so you're up to speed I have covered it a a little here:

the logic of statistics is you can never prove anything all you can do is disprove something!
if I want to prove a drug works, I can't, but what I can do is disprove that the drug doesn't work! Ahhhhhh the (double negative) that is the way to get to where you wanted!

we have a double blind randomized design to prove that a new wonder drug works, one half of the participants gets the wonder drug, the other half gets placebo
follow both groups and see when they will have relief from their symptoms,

1- the research design isn't flawed

now let's discuss the null hypothesis ..the 'null hypothesis is the opposite of what you want to find. group A fails to get over the sx. faster than group B.
with the null hypothesis we state it and then leave it alone .. we pass out pills and collect data next .. take the data feed it into the computer ..
what comes out T as in a t test, x^2, f etc etc.
we should only focus on the P value is key for making statistical decisions
we make decisions by putting a standard in place and comparing empirical evidence to it .. so that is what the P value is, the standard and the summary of the data .
this alpha criterion is something you decide before you make your research, you can set the value high or low, it is your discretion
people put the value of P at less than or equal to .05
a confidence interval of 95% means one is correct 95% of the time .. the other five percent is the time when one is wrong
a confidence interval of 95% corresponds exactly to a P value of </=0.05
95% chance of being right, 5 % chance of being wrong

outcomes for our study p=.02
.02 is under the bar which is very good because it means we get to 'reject the null hypothesis' because the null hypothesis is the opposite of what we are looking for .. if we reject the null hypothesis, the drug works!

is it possible that the drug works in the study but not out in the world?
yes possible though unlikely..

what this means is that we have made a type one error, or alpha error, this type of error basically states we rejected the null hypothesis but we shouldn't have . You'll never know for sure if you have made a type one error, all you know is the chance that you made a type one error that chance is found in the p value a .02 i.e a 2% chance .
p value is type one error
if the number for the p value gets too low, we'll take that chance

2nd outcome for the study, p=1.3 we are now above the bar, we can't reject the null hypothesis, we fail to reject the null hypothesis..
you never 'accept the null hypothesis'
same as 'jury logic' not that you are innocent, just that there isn't enough evidence to convict you . the chance for a type one error here? = 0 why? because to make a type one error you must first reject the null hypothesis.
however in this case we could have made a beta type error means, I didn't reject the null hypothesis but I should have .. in other words in the study the drug is crap, but out in the real world, it works well..
chance of making a type two error? we don't know.. can't look at P value because P value only tells us a type one error ONLY!

type one error is considered worse ..
which is worse looking at you and lying or simply forgetting to tell you something?
lying is worse, that is a type one error a 'sin of commission' because first do no harm is a physician's oath.

now you are giving this new drug because it has been approved and works great, the patient is now asking this drug works great in research, what is the chance it will work for me? best response is 'I don't know' this gives you statistical significance not clinical significance!

you can answer the patient by looking at the table the one that tells you, who got the drug, who didn't get the drug, got better, didn't get better
got drug got better 70%
got drug didn't get better 30%
no drug better 30%
not better no drug 70%

pt.s chance of getting better on drug
the answer here is 70% chance of getting better out of one hundred people that got the drug 70% of them got better!

best,

Right I am not going to address any more of your copy and pastes, since you clearly don't know what you're talking about. I said Allah says something which is non-scientific. That means it contradicts science, therefore it is wrong. And your response was to post something which does not even address that. If you don't know what I am talking about then don't just start copy and pasting stuff to me, I am going to start ignoring it.

---

dicnce

 

[جوري]

You can't even think for yourself, you're quoting a blog and a post by a non-Muslim, you really think that refutes everything, almost 1 millennia of philosophical thought? stop reading nonsense are try to actually pick something up which will increase your understand, stop reading these terribly badly written blog posts.

Who can and can't think for themselves is really left up to the reader.
I am still waiting for you to backup what you say with what you claim to know!

Do you have any idea of how stupid and weak that argument is he says, that Russles teapot and God or not on the same par, and his argument for this is, that God has empirical evidence which is utter-nonsense, since belief in God is based on faith, and not on empirical evidence. David Koresh, convinced his followers to commit mass suicide on the basis of that he was a messenger from God, yet folks believed him, since their belief was based on faith. So you're quoting sources, which don't understand logic or epistemology, and in his deluded mindset he believes he has debunked it. Please don't spam me with such nonsense, I am not going to waste my time with such logically fallacious content.

Go back and read my post above on the null hypothesis, and double negatives and when you become familiar a little bit with science and less exasperated can you come & discuss with me 'scientifically' what can be or can't be proven. & what a golden opportunity - don't you want to prove to everyone how smart you're and how stupid I am.. I am totally up for that.. go ahead and give me the best you got!

 

[جوري]

Right I am not going to address any more of your copy and pastes, since you clearly don't know what you're talking about. I said Allah says something which is non-scientific. That means it contradicts science, therefore it is wrong. And your response was to post something which does not even address that. If you don't know what I am talking about then don't just start copy and pasting stuff to me, I am going to start ignoring it.

---

dicnce

Your whole argument against the Quran and the prophet is a cut & paste. If you don't want to read or unable to refute what is written it is a different story all together and I can accept that. I have already read both sides, I have added my own points as you can see the statistics thread is authored by me-so what's your counter rebuttal outside of personal insults directed toward my person?
Like I said I'll be waiting!

best,

 

[Kt007]

Your whole argument against the Quran and the prophet is a cut & paste. If you don't want to read or unable to refute what is written it is a different story all together and I can accept that. I have already read both sides, I have added my own points as you can see the statistics thread is authored by me-so what's your counter rebuttal outside of personal insults directed toward my person?
Like I said I'll be waiting!

best,

No, you seem to misunderstand, I don't appreciate content being copy and pasted to me, which has nothing to do with what I am actually talking about. Those contents deal with different subject matters. I can copy and past counter arguments to those, but I am not going to do that, since it will only end up in a copy and past war. I am not obliged to answer any of your posts so bear that in mind next time. The Qu'ran is simply wrong, even a Harry Potter book actually makes more sense. believing talking rocks Thats about the zenith of your intellect.