Scientists agree Qur'aan is divinely revealed

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Actually, one of the scientists that were paid to do this study by the Saudis did revert. He's quite close to the bottom of the page, and his name is Tejatat Tejasen. Maurice Bucaille himself also said that he believes the Quran is the word of Allah, although he did not openly say he reverted.

Great. So we have so far a grand total of one scientist who has been prepared to back up the claims they've been paid handsomely to make by going the whole hog and becoming Muslim.

And even if the scientists were paid loads of money to say these things, that doesn't make what they said wrong. I admit it makes it less likely that they were being honest, but it doesn't prove that they are wrong.

It does cast serious doubt on their claims though, doesn't it? After all, this kind of (frankly pathetic) set-up is designed with one goal in mind - to find "scientific" support for the claim that the Qur'an contains knowledge that could only have arrived there through supernatural means. If what they are saying is true, and the truth stands out clearly from error, why are scientists not poring over the Qur'an as a matter of standard research? Why do they have to be paid so much money even to look at it? Surely if it did indeed contain amazing supernatural knowledge, scientists would be fascinated by it and would study it for free, out of the passion for learning as its own reward?

And from the comments I've heard, Zakir Naik completely thrashed Campbell in a debate, and refuted his book.

I've seen that debate and, quite honestly, I wasn't impressed with the debating skills on either side. Zakir Naik did appear to do better in that debate, but he's a performer, not a serious academic. His recall is impressive, but his arguments are very weak, and if Campbell had had his wits about him he could have knocked him down without breaking a sweat.

Peace

 

[lolwatever]

i've pretty much replied to your first 2 paragraphs czgibson somewhere up or on the 2nd page.

as for your 3rd.. lol then why not invite zakir to debate you? im sure he'd be more than happy... he didn't have a problemw ith campbell saying that "ill get back to you on the topic"... if he thrashes you too, you can offer to reply in the form of a book to which he will give a response...

just an idea..

all the best

 

[Fishman]

Greetings,


Great. So we have so far a grand total of one scientist who has been prepared to back up the claims they've been paid handsomely to make by going the whole hog and becoming Muslim.



It does cast serious doubt on their claims though, doesn't it? After all, this kind of (frankly pathetic) set-up is designed with one goal in mind - to find "scientific" support for the claim that the Qur'an contains knowledge that could only have arrived there through supernatural means. If what they are saying is true, and the truth stands out clearly from error, why are scientists not poring over the Qur'an as a matter of standard research? Why do they have to be paid so much money even to look at it? Surely if it did indeed contain amazing supernatural knowledge, scientists would be fascinated by it and would study it for free, out of the passion for learning as its own reward?



I've seen that debate and, quite honestly, I wasn't impressed with the debating skills on either side. Zakir Naik did appear to do better in that debate, but he's a performer, not a serious academic. His recall is impressive, but his arguments are very weak, and if Campbell had had his wits about him he could have knocked him down without breaking a sweat.

Peace

So far we have also had only one of these scientists say that he was conned. Your argument works both ways.

I did admit that it did cast doubt on their findings, but it is not asolute proof. And the only way you can get most scientists to work on something like this is to pay them. They probably face riducule for the statements they made even now.
The reason why we don't have scientists working on the Quran very often is because most atheist scientists think it has the same flaws as the Bible does, and should be ignored. I once had that opinion of the Quran myself, I was ignorant of it and just assumed that it had the same faults as all the other religions.
If you want some scientists who aren't bribed, I might be able to find some. I already know one person who said that the Quran's references to life coming from water were interesting.

 

[root]

All Qoutes by Fishman -

It's a good job you can post such a loose post. No worries about providing facts or sources:

So far we have also had only one of these scientists say that he was conned. Your argument works both ways.

I only looked at one, why assume he is the only one along with the other two who were paid a vast ammount of money.

I did admit that it did cast doubt on their findings, but it is not asolute proof.

Absolute proof from science. hmmmm :giggling:

And the only way you can get most scientists to work on something like this is to pay them.

According to you only.

They probably face riducule for the statements they made even now.

Now we have nothing more than an unsubstantiated "Probably", according to you.

The reason why we don't have scientists working on the Quran very often is because most atheist scientists think it has the same flaws as the Bible does, and should be ignored. I once had that opinion of the Quran myself,

More scientists have a faith than do not, how can your point be valid.

I was ignorant of it and just assumed that it had the same faults as all the other religions.

Then you found faith, that is the ability to accept what you logically know not to be correct, as being correct.

If you want some scientists who aren't bribed, I might be able to find some. I already know one person who said that the Quran's references to life coming from water were interesting.

What happened to creation from clay!

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Then you found faith, that is the ability to accept what you logically know not to be correct, as being correct.

Is this meant to be a joke? Faith is not accepting something that is illogical; in Islam, faith is constructed upon logical reasoning and rationality. See the following threads:
http://www.islamicboard.com/comparative-religion/13658-prove-quran-not-word-god.html
http://www.islamicboard.com/comparative-religion/13998-prove-quran-word-god.html

 

[root]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith

The word faith has various uses; its central meaning is similar to "belief" , "trust" or "confidence", but unlike these terms, "faith" tends to imply a transpersonal rather than interpersonal relationship – with God or a higher power. The object of faith can be a person (or even an inanimate object or state of affairs) or a proposition (or body of propositions, such as a religious credo). In each case, however, faith is in an aspect of the object and cannot be logically proven or objectively known. Faith can also be defined as accepting as true something which one has been told by someone who is believed to be trustworthy. It can also mean believing unconditionally. In its proper sense faith means trusting the word of another

Classic example is Islam's parting of the moon fairy-tale. Logically, this is not possible yet most muslims accept it as fact, so it's no joke Ansar.

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith

Faith can also be defined as accepting as true something which one has been told by someone who is believed to be trustworthy.

All you've done is post multiple meanings of the english word 'faith' and ignore what I've told you about the Islamic concept of faith. And the above definition is talking about having faith (i.e. trust or confidence) in someone. Saying "I believe God" and saying "I believe in God" are not the same thing. In the Qur'an the first connotation is referred to as amana lahu (believe) and the second is amana bihi (believe in).

Classic example is Islam's parting of the moon fairy-tale.

The parting of the moon is a miraculous occurance, by definition a suspension of the laws which govern the universe. That it is 'illogical' or a 'fairy-tale' is nothing more than a figment of your imagination and crumbles under the standard of objectivity. I can challenge you to provide evidence to substantiate your claim that the moon splitting is logically impossible, can you do it?

 

[Fishman]

All Qoutes by Fishman -

It's a good job you can post such a loose post. No worries about providing facts or sources:



I only looked at one, why assume he is the only one along with the other two who were paid a vast ammount of money.



Absolute proof from science. hmmmm :giggling:



According to you only.



Now we have nothing more than an unsubstantiated "Probably", according to you.



More scientists have a faith than do not, how can your point be valid.



Then you found faith, that is the ability to accept what you logically know not to be correct, as being correct.



What happened to creation from clay!

I only looked at one, why assume he is the only one along with the other two who were paid a vast ammount of money.

I wasn't saying that the others weren't paid vast amounts of money.

Absolute proof from science. hmmmm :giggling:

What do you mean by these sarcastic comments?

According to you only.

Scientists don't like to do work on things that they think are rediculous (I can prove that with a source, if you want). Would you work on a project about ghosts or UFOs?

Now we have nothing more than an unsubstantiated "Probably", according to you.

Scientists who say pro-supernatural things usually end up being called cranks.

More scientists have a faith than do not, how can your point be valid.

I have never met a scientist who believes in God, and my father (who is a very important scientist at BGS, BTW) even said that most of the scientists he knows don't believe in any extranatural things.

Then you found faith, that is the ability to accept what you logically know not to be correct, as being correct.

Then I found a faith, the only one that does require me to accept what I logically know not to be correct, as being correct. By using the difinitions you gave me, you also have a faith.
See Ansar Al-'Adl's posts for details on faith.

What happened to creation from clay!

All animals and pants were created from wet clay (or possibly a substance physically, not chemically, similar to clay), and water. They then evolved into the animals and plants we have today. Homo Sapiens Sapiens was created later, from the same substances.

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

i've pretty much replied to your first 2 paragraphs czgibson somewhere up or on the 2nd page.

Sorry, I don't see where.

as for your 3rd.. lol then why not invite zakir to debate you? im sure he'd be more than happy... he didn't have a problemw ith campbell saying that "ill get back to you on the topic"... if he thrashes you too, you can offer to reply in the form of a book to which he will give a response...

I would quite happily debate with Zakir Naik if I had the time, or if he was interested in doing it. If you know how to contact him, why not invite him to the forum and we can take each other on over the summer? As I've said, he is a performer, not a serious academic.

Peace

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

What do you mean by these sarcastic comments?

Root's referring to the fact that science doesn't actually provide absolute proof, even though lots of non-scientists seem to think it does.

I have never met a scientist who believes in God, and my father (who is a very important scientist at BGS, BTW) even said that most of the scientists he knows don't believe in any extranatural things.

It's difficult to find reliable statistics on this, as it is for adherents of any religious belief. Some studies say most scientists do believe in god, some say the opposite.

Then I found a faith, the only one that does require me to accept what I logically know not to be correct, as being correct.

Looks like you're completely agreeing then.

Peace

 

[Fishman]

Greetings,


Root's referring to the fact that science doesn't actually provide absolute proof, even though lots of non-scientists seem to think it does.



It's difficult to find reliable statistics on this, as it is for adherents of any religious belief. Some studies say most scientists do believe in god, some say the opposite.



Looks like you're completely agreeing then.

Peace

I wasn't saying that science provides absolute proof. I was saying that it does not provide absolute proof that they were all lying.

D'oh!!! I meant to write 'Then I found a faith, the only one that does not require me to accept what I logically know not to be correct, as being correct. '