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

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Greetings,
Please check out our discussion on the qur'anic verses concerning ocean waves:
http://www.islamicboard.com/compara...ts-agree-evidence-based-facts.html#post376442 (steve initiates discussion)
http://www.islamicboard.com/compara...ts-agree-evidence-based-facts.html#post380736 (my post, currently the last in the discussion)

Regards

 

[Pygoscelis]

You quoted this of my text, and then asked when it is too much accurate prediction to be called a fluke

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

First of all, I'm with Trumble that it isn't a fluke. The Quran simply doesn't make all of these wonderfuly accurate and specific claims that you seem to believe it does.

Second, how does that relate to the text you quoted? I wrote that even if they got it right we still don't know why they got it right. Maybe somebody knew it before they did, as with the sun and moon example reference above. It is a MASSIVE leap to go from "they got it right" to "so God must exist as we claim him and our religion is flawless" etc.

 

[Joe98]

Blessed is He Who made constellations in the skies, and placed therein a Lamp......

So, Muslims believe there is a lamp in the sun!

eace: Its nice discussing with you

 

[------]

So, Muslims believe there is a lamp in the sun!

Erm no thats just a metaphor :rollseyes

 

[Trumble]

Erm no thats just a metaphor :rollseyes

Referring to sun as a 'lamp' is indeed a metaphor, and not one unique to the Qur'an! But that raises another question, how can the same phrase be an admitted metaphor one minute and then claimed to be a scientific fact 'proving' that the Qur'an is the Word of God the next?

Perhaps all these 'proofs' that, according to Ansar, we need to examine with such linguistic care are 'metaphors' as well? Not only is it unclear what they may mean, but they may indeed be a metaphor for something totally different! Are they? ... well, that's all down to 'interpretation' again, presumably. And who does it, and who their intended audience is.

 

[Pygoscelis]

Erm no thats just a metaphor :rollseyes

Can you prove that? How do you know there isn't a giant lamp hiding inside the sun as the Quran claims? Its not like we've ever been close enough to look. Maybe all that fire is just hiding the lamp? ;D

 

[Rou]

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




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



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

so you have no answer? so therefore you too are beleiving in something you do not understand? fair enough...

you dont like the fact that there were armies involved? well if it makes you feel better they were raised in defense not offence..

but i guess to you this matters not?

as stated your opinion is yours i was only intrested..

but the fact of life that some people need to realise is that when we are all living happily all fine and dandy then raising an army indeed would be pointless and violent..

on the other hand when your living in fear and under attack its called defence and if you dont defend yourself you end up dead...

but each to there own...

you state the verses have been interprted so that they make sense in this way? as i stated these are the meanings in araboc aswell thats where they have been understood first and even after looking at difrrent types of translations you will see that they still say the same..

to truly deny something you must first understand it fully so all the facts have been looked at i doubt you know the other verses or information that has been proved in the quran so you are going upon one verse that probably isnt the best form of finding truth but as stated your opinion is yours as is your fate...

 

[Trumble]

so you have no answer? so therefore you too are beleiving in something you do not understand? fair enough...

I neither claim to have an answer, nor indeed that yours is necessarily wrong. All I have been disputing is the idea that there are 'scientific facts' in the Qur'an that prove yours is right.

you state the verses have been interprted so that they make sense in this way? as i stated these are the meanings in araboc aswell thats where they have been understood first and even after looking at difrrent types of translations you will see that they still say the same

All words are interpreted in some form or other, and these are no different. I doubt very much the original understanding in Arabic included anything about thermoclines and solitons. There is no 'one' meaning, those versus could be interpreted in any number of ways. They were not interpreted as has been presented here until the associated scientific discoveries were made so talking about any long-term fixed meaning is nonsense.

to truly deny something you must first understand it fully so all the facts have been looked at i doubt you know the other verses or information that has been proved in the quran so you are going upon one verse that probably isnt the best form of finding truth but as stated your opinion is yours as is your fate...

Indeed. Except that I am aware of most of what is supposed to have been 'proved' in the Qur'an. Needless to say, I don't believe it 'proves' anything unless you want it to. You could take a scientific historian's 'snapshot' of what was believed at any point in time over the last thousand years, whether we still believe it or not. The same sort of 'interpretation' would come up with the same 'proofs' in relation to that knowledge if you looked hard enough.

It's all a matter of faith, not 'proof'. I have faith too, just in something else. In my opinion recent work in cosmology and quantum physics provides far more support that Buddhism is 'right' than these so called Qur'anic facts provide support Islam is 'right'. That said, I would never claim those developments prove Buddhism is right, they most certainly don't.

 

[Rou]

I neither claim to have an answer, nor indeed that yours is necessarily wrong. All I have been disputing is the idea that there are 'scientific facts' in the Qur'an that prove yours is right.



All words are interpreted in some form or other, and these are no different. I doubt very much the original understanding in Arabic included anything about thermoclines and solitons. There is no 'one' meaning, those versus could be interpreted in any number of ways. They were not interpreted as has been presented here until the associated scientific discoveries were made so talking about any long-term fixed meaning is nonsense.



Indeed. Except that I am aware of most of what is supposed to have been 'proved' in the Qur'an. Needless to say, I don't believe it 'proves' anything unless you want it to. You could take a scientific historian's 'snapshot' of what was believed at any point in time over the last thousand years, whether we still believe it or not. The same sort of 'interpretation' would come up with the same 'proofs' in relation to that knowledge if you looked hard enough.

It's all a matter of faith, not 'proof'. I have faith too, just in something else. In my opinion recent work in cosmology and quantum physics provides far more support that Buddhism is 'right' than these so called Qur'anic facts provide support Islam is 'right'. That said, I would never claim those developments prove Buddhism is right, they most certainly don't.

We each have our opinion and indeed faith does have a lot to do with it but after having read the quran and seeing the many things that are stated i do see them as a message from the divine and proof of that which is within nature allahs creations that show me that indeed there is certain statments within the quran that prove its divinity and just as you stated that faith gives you belif and disbelif gives you that edge not to beleive...

overall i have read the forms of verses in the quran and it leads be to beleive that that which is mentioned is by no mistake...

guess all we can do is wait for that day to come when we will realise the truth...

 

[muslim786]

(Al-Baqara [The Cow]) 002.210 Will they wait until Allah comes to them in canopies of clouds, with angels (in His train) and the question is (thus) settled? but to Allah do all questions go back (for decision).

 

[Pygoscelis]

to truly deny something you must first understand it fully so all the facts have been looked at i doubt you know the other verses or information that has been proved in the quran so you are going upon one verse that probably isnt the best form of finding truth but as stated your opinion is yours as is your fate...

Well this seems the perfect opportunity for you to enlighten us as to these other so called proofs. What are they?

 

[Rou]

Well this seems the perfect opportunity for you to enlighten us as to these other so called proofs. What are they?

have you watched the clip at the start of the thread yet?

i suggest you do it will help..

some are of why mountains are important and how they help keep the earth stable the other is how the universe was created with the big bang another states how the fetus stages are in the womb of a mother there are many how about you do research on miracles of the quran that will show you all the proof to go through each one would take some time...

quite easy to find the miracles i refer to just do research...

 

[IbnAbdulHakim]

A very good discussion has taken place, but all i keep thinking is how can a man who existed 1400 years ago have such knowledge. Ok, even if you want to say that scholars only interpret it to fit modern science then we say that it still fits does it not? Therefore how can we find almost every scientific verse and fit it in with modern science? Do you realise thats over a 1000 verses ! Isnt that a little impossible?




Please interpret the following verse for me so i can see how you go about doing it:

"The heaven, We have built it with power. Verily. We are expanding it."

The word "samaa" has been translated into heaven and is exactly the extra-terrestrial world that is meant. Samaa can also mean sky's.


How can a man from 1400 years ago even think that the universe is forever expanding?

eace: Nice discussing with you

 

[Pygoscelis]

Please interpret the following verse for me so i can see how you go about doing it:

"The heaven, We have built it with power. Verily. We are expanding it."

How can a man from 1400 years ago even think that the universe is forever expanding?

It could mean SO MANY things.

Why MUST we equate "The Heaven" to the whole Universe? Isn't heavan supposed to be some spiritual higher realm, not including where we're currently at? I think interpreting "Heaven" as the whole universe is just one interpretation and an unlikely one at that.

Furthermore, it says "We are expanding it", not "We shall always be expanding it" or "We've always been expanding it". Maybe they were just exapnding it at the time and only for a couple of days.



Somewhat beside the point, who is this "we" it refers to? Isn't Islam monotheistic?

 

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

I could answer that for u but not sure how to go about it. Like u know how Kings claimed in the past that they had the divine right to rule, meaning permission by God. They used to refer to themselves as "We" because they considered themselves royalty or divine. Also how we use He for God. As we know, English doesn't completely support the Arabic language. Using the word "We" isnt being literal just like we aren't literal in using "He." I'm still unable to get my point across, maybe someone else can tell you better, InshAllah. I hope u get the idea a bit.

Peace

 

[IbnAbdulHakim]

"We" is just a majestic form of addressing a member as a third party.

Tayyaba has done a good job of explaining already.

eace:

 

[lolwatever]

Why MUST we equate "The Heaven" to the whole Universe? Isn't heavan supposed to be some spiritual higher realm, not including where we're currently at? I think interpreting "Heaven" as the whole universe is just one interpretation and an unlikely one at that.

No heaven isn't nothign to do with spirtual realms or whatever you call it... Muslims aren't mystics. the Heaven is referrign to what some would like to think as "universe boundary".... it's different to sky (that's called sahaab, heaven is called samaa)

The heaven is defined clearly to be the univesre from the hadith which describes the magnitude of this universe compared to the heavens above it (as a ring thrown in a vast expanse, and the heaven above it compared to the one above it as a ring thrown in a vast desert etc..)

So there's no room for other interpretations.. if you have another one, you need to provide proof for it. That's one consistant problem with your "interpretations" of the quran.... they don't have any proof and they're not even in teh context of the chapter where the verse is located.

Furthermore, it says "We are expanding it", not "We shall always be expanding it" or "We've always been expanding it". Maybe they were just exapnding it at the time and only for a couple of days.

:lol: ddue If that's not stubborness i dont know what is.

We are expanding it, how more explicit can that get? knowing that it is being expanded at the moment, as well as the fact that Allah will bring this universe to an end. So why should he say 'we'll shall always be expadning it' :?

Somewhat beside the point, who is this "we" it refers to? Isn't Islam monotheistic?

In arabic (and english too i guess) 'we' is used as a term of pride... like when you say 'give it to us' even tho ur referring to itself... u kno wat i mean? Yusuf estes gave a really good explanation of it... gave an analogy from english.

 

[lolwatever]

ps: pygo im not sure where the greek aztec thing is.. maybe im missing it here? can u giv me the post number ill find it myself? (its written on the top corner of the post)

 

[Les_Nubian]

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

And your response is just the usual rebuttal. We can go on all day with this.

 

[Les_Nubian]

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




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



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

And about that last line, "achieve their objectives without violence", that's very easy for you to say with you sitting behind your computer screen and all.

Different situations call for different measures. You have no right to sit here and judge the actions of someone long, long ago before or during a war or a battle. Surely there have been peaople who have been more passive, peaceful "activists" (kind of a contradiction, but nevertheless...). But not everyone is in the same situation. Not everyone is in the same mindset, and not everyone has the same resources. It's very easy to say, but it's time to be a little realistic here. This is not a world filled with unicorns and lollypops, seriously. Oh, if only it were that way, but it isn't. If someone were to get away with slaughtering someone very close to you, like a family member, would you knock on their door and offer them chocolate and flowers?

When YOU'RE in a situation like that yourself, everything suddenly isn't so zen.