undisputed miracles of the Holy Quraan

[wth1257]

My screen name is a dichotomy. It may refer to the teachings of Zarathustra, it may refer to Zarathustra in Nietzches "Thus spoke Zarathustra", who is clearly not anything of the sort. Point is, there is no middleground, either god exists or he doesn't, I wish to find out which.

Well I don't recall Zarathustra having a profession so I am probably referring to Nietzsche, who was an accomplished philologist before parting ways with his University. Yes, you could have been referring to the founder of Zoroastrianism, but he is usually known in the West as Zoroaster.

Regardless, the origins of your title were incidental to my point, namely that the two sentences are clearly out of context. Perhaps your connotation is correct, that also is irrelevant to my point; however, seeing as it was more whimsical than anything else, I fair to see why we must remain hung up on it.

It hasn't stopped other muslims I've debated with from doing it, these people haven't done that yet though, so I'll give them the benefit of doubt.

The benefit of what doubt? That they are using their own religious texts correctly?

Like what?

Like what, what?

I don't know what you want an example of.

It clearly says that people who believe God is the messiah, son of Mary (aka Jesus) are unbelievers.

It is an innovation and they have assigned partners to God is the message I believe. The Qur'an very clearly says that in it's accounting of events Jesus would have fervently denied any claims to divinity.

That means any christian who believe in the trinity is an unbeliever.

I suppose, but being a non Muslim I am hesitant to say so definitively

I mean, either it's a contradiction in verses

I think it clearly is not if one reads it carefully and pays attention

or it's a contradiction to reality

That is possible, but a distinct claim from the one you advanced previously

since christians historically has always considered Jesus to be the lord, and of the same nature as god.

False. A Christian may argue that the Trinity goes back to the teachings of Jesus, but no one could argue that the early body of "Christians" was a homogenous sect. Even within the Gospels we see changes and differences of understanding, for example the more prophetic, human Jesus of Mark as opposed to the more divine Jesus of John. Whether the trinity was organic to Jesus’ message or the result of Paulism and the infusion of Hellenism in a Jewish religious movement is debatable, but such a blanket statement of the beliefs of "Christians" is unfounded.

 

[wth1257]

Of education I am a philosopher (you know, the guys who discovered how LOGIC works almost a 1000 years before the Quran went to print).

I hate to be a bug however Aristotelian logic did not "discover how logic works". His accounting of logic was far from definitive and could only represent very basic propositional logic. Moreover it was not on a solid foundation. The "logical renaissance" began with Leibniz or Boole who were both born some time after the Muhammad. Frege, who introduced a coherent quantification of logic, and Cantor, who introduced set theory, were both men of the late 19th century and early 20th centuries. "Philosophers" may have held sole custody of "logic" for a long time, but it was impotent, ineffectual, and utterly primitive to what we would now call logic, which is as much the intellectual property, if not more so, of mathematicians as philosophers.

And no, I haven't read the Quran because it (like the bible) basically goes "The Quran is the message Allah because it says so in the Quran, and because of that Allah must exist" which is circular reasoning and not proof of anything.

Lol. I should switch to a philosophy major, I suppose they could teach me how to derive the contents of a text without reading it.

MAGIC!

And fyi Islam while the Qur'an does refer to itself as proof of it's divine origins I am not aware of any such claims that are solely authoritarian, and it utilizes teleological appeals much more.

 

[Hamayun]

Thanks wth1257 you have more patience than I do.

I was hoping ZarathustraDK could do better than that.

He picked the two most shallow and lame questions from some Anti-Islamic website. It proves his true intentions behind coming here.

I wouldn't waste my breath on him since he doesn't even know the basics of Islam. Leave him alone and he will soon get bored and leave.

Also wth1257 its good you know so much even though you are not a Muslim. I admire that

 

[wth1257]

Thanks wth1257 you have more patience than I do.

I was hoping ZarathustraDK could do better than that.

He picked the two most shallow and lame questions from some Anti-Islamic website. It proves his true intentions behind coming here.

I wouldn't waste my breath on him since he doesn't even know the basics of Islam. Leave him alone and he will soon get bored and leave.

we'll see:blind:

Also wth1257 its good you know so much even though you are not a Muslim. I admire that

Thank you: )

But I don't know that much.

 

[Trumble]

I hate to be a bug however Aristotelian logic did not "discover how logic works". His accounting of logic was far from definitive and could only represent very basic propositional logic. Moreover it was not on a solid foundation. The "logical renaissance" began with Leibniz or Boole who were both born some time after the Muhammad. Frege, who introduced a coherent quantification of logic, and Cantor, who introduced set theory, were both men of the late 19th century and early 20th centuries. "Philosophers" may have held sole custody of "logic" for a long time, but it was impotent, ineffectual, and utterly primitive to what we would now call logic, which is as much the intellectual property, if not more so, of mathematicians as philosophers.

Yes. And (mostly) no. The vast majority of successful argumentation involves nothing more complicated than just that 'basic propositional logic'; maybe a hypothetical syllogism here or a modus ponens there. Those, and similar basic forms, were well known to both Greeks and Romans. Far from being "impotent" and "ineffectual" (where on earth did you get that from?) they are immensely powerful and perfectly adequate for most philosophical and general arguments. Are you a mathematician, by any chance? :rollseyes

 

[wth1257]

Yes. And (mostly) no. The vast majority of successful argumentation involves nothing more complicated than just that 'basic propositional logic'; maybe a hypothetical syllogism here or a modus ponens there. Those, and similar basic forms, were well known to both Greeks and Romans. Far from being "impotent" and "ineffectual" (where on earth did you get that from?) they are immensely powerful and perfectly adequate for most philosophical and general arguments.

"Impotent and ineffectual" as compared to contemporary mathematical logic. I would disagree about the utility of propositional logic. While it is perfectly apt for some common discussions it has severe limitations, as the classical example goes "All men are mortal, Socrates is a man, therefore Socrates is mortal" exceeds the powers of propositional logic. Similarly, beginning algebra and Euclidian geometry are apt for most situations the average individual to come into contact with. But 16th century algebra is comparable to Aristotelian logic. Both can be used to great utility and most people can get by using little more, but compared to modern mathematics 16th century algebra is incredibly weak and impotent. Brahe and Kepler used contemporary mathematics to great ends, but most of their work could have been done much, much, much more quickly with Calculus.

The comparison is simply enough; get a contemporary text on Mathematical Logic and compare it to Aristotle's. It's like comparing a middle school physical science text to a grad student's text on quantum mechanics.

Not to mention meta logic or a sound theory of logistics systems.

Are you a mathematician, by any chance? :rollseyes

no

 

[wth1257]

Yes. And (mostly) no. The vast majority of successful argumentation involves nothing more complicated than just that 'basic propositional logic'; maybe a hypothetical syllogism here or a modus ponens there. Those, and similar basic forms, were well known to both Greeks and Romans. Far from being "impotent" and "ineffectual" (where on earth did you get that from?) they are immensely powerful and perfectly adequate for most philosophical and general arguments.

"Impotent and ineffectual" as compared to contemporary mathematical logic. I would disagree about the utility of propositional logic. While it is perfectly apt for some common discussions it has severe limitations, as the classical example goes "All men are mortal, Socrates is a man, therefore Socrates is mortal" exceeds the powers of propositional logic. Similarly, beginning algebra and Euclidian geometry are apt for most situations the average individual to come into contact with. But 16th century algebra is comparable to Aristotelian logic. Both can be used to great utility and most people can get by using little more, but compared to modern mathematics 16th century algebra is incredibly weak and impotent. Brahe and Kepler used contemporary mathematics to great ends, but most of their work could have been done much, much, much more quickly with Calculus.

The comparison is simply enough; get a contemporary text on Mathematical Logic and compare it to Aristotle's. It's like comparing a middle school physical science text to a grad student's text on quantum mechanics.

Not to mention meta logic or a sound theory of logistics systems.

Are you a mathematician, by any chance? :rollseyes

no

 

[ZarathustraDK]

Thanks wth1257 you have more patience than I do.

I was hoping ZarathustraDK could do better than that.

He picked the two most shallow and lame questions from some Anti-Islamic website. It proves his true intentions behind coming here.

I simply googled "Quran" and "contradictions", as that was what you asked for, try it yourself. It proves nothing of my inentions, only your own paranoia. I don't understand your antipathy towards me Hamayuun, I've said it once already, I'm only looking for the truth. If you somehow know that Allah exists through some private revelation which is not possible to put into plenum, then simply take heart in the fact that I'm searching for that which you already know to be true; I don't see the reason for you to discourage that.

Lol. I should switch to a philosophy major, I suppose they could teach me how to derive the contents of a text without reading it.

It's very easy, simply study the utterings of the adherents of the given text. Question these, and you are less likely to fall victim to any rhetoric a given text might contain.

As for the whole "history of logic"-lesson, well, Trumble kind of scooped that one up. It makes no difference anyway, it was simply an appeal to antiquity used as a reply to one of its own kind, utterly ridiculous and fallacious, I know. It just seems that since that kind of argument flies in here (what with the whole "we're 2 billion muslims and our book is very old"), I wouldn't want to be left out.

And fyi Islam while the Qur'an does refer to itself as proof of it's divine origins I am not aware of any such claims that are solely authoritarian, and it utilizes teleological appeals much more.

In other words it uses "proof" not considered proof nowadays. Merely translating here.

False. A Christian may argue that the Trinity goes back to the teachings of Jesus, but no one could argue that the early body of "Christians" was a homogenous sect. Even within the Gospels we see changes and differences of understanding, for example the more prophetic, human Jesus of Mark as opposed to the more divine Jesus of John. Whether the trinity was organic to Jesus’ message or the result of Paulism and the infusion of Hellenism in a Jewish religious movement is debatable, but such a blanket statement of the beliefs of "Christians" is unfounded.

True. So, the answer to the riddle is "pretty much all christians nowadays will go to hell if the Quran is true"? I admit I picked the two verses partly because I was interested in getting to know Islams stance on that.

Regardless, the origins of your title were incidental to my point, namely that the two sentences are clearly out of context. Perhaps your connotation is correct, that also is irrelevant to my point; however, seeing as it was more whimsical than anything else, I fair to see why we must remain hung up on it.

Agree.

we'll see :blind:

I'mmmmm back The duck tasted wonderful, thank you very much, and I got a couple of tickets to an ABBA-musical weeeee.... :thumbs_up

 

[wth1257]

I simply googled "Quran" and "contradictions", as that was what you asked for, try it yourself.

As you are a Philosopher, if not occupationally then "by education" I would hope you see why this is a poor research method.

It proves nothing of my inentions, only your own paranoia.

I would posit that it says a lot about your willingness to put in the hard work necessary to judge the merits of a religion. This does reflect your intentions to some degree. If you are truly seeking to understand things, Islam in this instance, I suspect you would read the Qur'an thoroughly and seek to understand it, rather than Google "Qur'an contradictions".

I don't understand your antipathy towards me Hamayuun, I've said it once already, I'm only looking for the truth. If you somehow know that Allah exists through some private revelation which is not possible to put into plenum, then simply take heart in the fact that I'm searching for that which you already know to be true; I don't see the reason for you to discourage that.

Good luck

It's very easy, simply study the utterings of the adherents of the given text. Question these, and you are less likely to fall victim to any rhetoric a given text might contain.

Well that's just silly. So if I argue with a philosophy major for a few minutes over Heidegger's hermetical turn I am better able to avoid falling into the rhetorical appeal of Being and Time, and have an adequate understanding of Heidegger's philosophy? You cannot seriously be maintaining that you can understand the contents of the Qur'an by some posts on an internet forum. Never mind the epistemic challenge of how you would know you understand it if you do not read the text and hence have nothing to compare the claims here to.

As for the whole "history of logic"-lesson, well, Trumble kind of scooped that one up.

Hardly, with all due respect to her. I mean that if Trumble reads this, I have no problems with you whatsoever; I just think your argument was incorrect.

It makes no difference anyway, it was simply an appeal to antiquity used as a reply to one of its own kind, utterly ridiculous and fallacious, I know. It just seems that since that kind of argument flies in here (what with the whole "we're 2 billion muslims and our book is very old"), I wouldn't want to be left out.

Alright

In other words it uses "proof" not considered proof nowadays. Merely translating here.

Well I don't know exactly how you understand the contemporary meaning of "proof". Certainly what a mathematician means by proof is distinct from what a philosopher, for the most part, would mean. I don't think the Qur'an intends to claim that it presents deductively valid arguments in a strictly logical sense. Generally the appeals, as I understand them, seem to be surrounding an individual's need to "reflect" on the presented "signs" and more intuitive than strictly rational.

True. So, the answer to the riddle is "pretty much all christians nowadays will go to hell if the Quran is true"? I admit I picked the two verses partly because I was interested in getting to know Islam’s stance on that.

Islam has a somewhat different eschatology and view of salvation/the afterlife than Christianity. You may want to read up on that before asking this particular question.

I'mmmmm back The duck tasted wonderful, thank you very much, and I got a couple of tickets to an ABBA-musical weeeee.... :thumbs_up

Merry Christmass

 

[ZarathustraDK]

As you are a Philosopher, if not occupationally then "by education" I would hope you see why this is a poor research method.

I'm merely discussing, not writing a Ph.d. I figured writing the suras' numbers and chapters would be enough.

I would posit that it says a lot about your willingness to put in the hard work necessary to judge the merits of a religion. This does reflect your intentions to some degree. If you are truly seeking to understand things, Islam in this instance, I suspect you would read the Qur'an thoroughly and seek to understand it, rather than Google "Qur'an contradictions".

If I read the Quran I would likely understand Islam better from the point of view that the Quran is true. That is not what I am seeking though. I seek to know IF the Quran is true, a much simpler task in comparison which does not require me to accept the book as the ultimate truth before I doubt the contents of it. Anything can be made true if you assume you have a magic wand from the beginning, it's a subjective can of begging the question I will not open up, I'll leave that for the religion-historians.

Well that's just silly. So if I argue with a philosophy major for a few minutes over Heidegger's hermetical turn I am better able to avoid falling into the rhetorical appeal of Being and Time, and have an adequate understanding of Heidegger's philosophy?

Of course not, but you'd likely understand more about Heidegger's hermetical turn afterwards. I'm simply saying "learning by doing" here.

Well I don't know exactly how you understand the contemporary meaning of "proof". Certainly what a mathematician means by proof is distinct from what a philosopher, for the most part, would mean. I don't think the Qur'an intends to claim that it presents deductively valid arguments in a strictly logical sense. Generally the appeals, as I understand them, seem to be surrounding an individual's need to "reflect" on the presented "signs" and more intuitive than strictly rational.

In other words, convince oneself that intricate things in nature were designed, and down subjectivity-road we go.
Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. In this case the claim concerns a supposed omnipotent being who created the entire universe, which I'd say would be quite extraordinary. However much one "reflects" on "signs" the only thing that will change is ones own subjective opinion on the matter. This, in turn, will kick the ball on to people stating "it's a matter of belief", which would all well and good if it wasn't for the miniscule fact that practical decisions are made on the basis of this belief every single day.

Suppose i did read the Quran, memorized it, and developed my own opinion of it; what irrevocably true knowledge would I gain from it apart from the trivial? Nothing, because it all the "good stuff" rests on the assumption that Allah exists and that the Quran is his user-manual. I might as well read Harry Potter and assume that magic exists, it'd be the same deal; only I will not be told to read it in latin afterwards to understand the quasi-linguistic mechanics of spell-incantation, or be called a "Muggle" because I opine against Mr. Potters' magnificence.

 

[Hamayun]

What did you expect to find when you googled "Quran contradictions"? Its not surprising you got those off some evalengical anti-Islamic site.

This is my last reply to you and I would advise everyone else to stop wasting their time on you too...

If you really wanted to know the truth you would read the Quran. Your intentions and character are quite clear by your googling. Lazy and arrogant...

Here's some friendly advice.... why dont you google all your questions rather than ask them here?

Shoo troll....

 

[ZarathustraDK]

What did you expect to find when you googled "Quran contradictions"? Its not surprising you got those off some evalengical anti-Islamic site.

When it concerns criticism what better place to go to than somewhere critical? I could have gotten the verses from the KKK's homepage for all I care, it wouldn't make a bleeping difference as long as the argument is sound.

This is my last reply to you and I would advise everyone else to stop wasting their time on you too...

If you really wanted to know the truth you would read the Quran. Your intentions and character are quite clear by your googling. Lazy and arrogant...

Again with the assumptions about my character. I bet if the debate was about hair-lotion you would divine my hair-color from a few google-searches.

Here's some friendly advice.... why dont you google all your questions rather than ask them here?

Here's some friendly advice... why don't you just stop replying if you have nothing to say other than criticizing my character? Your tactics are below contempt, all you've been doing from the beginning is trying to sully me by calling me : lazy, uneducated, immature, arrogant, crusading, and a whole slew of other things while grasping for straws in the dark about my motives and how I'm basically Shaitan incarnate (paid by the CIA) coming to put mischief on your little forum.

Seriously if you want to disgrace me, do it by argumentation not by rhetoric. You could rightfully bash me around if we were discussing the Quran from the assumed premise that it is correct and flawless, but we're NOT. We're talking about miracles happening in intersubjective space which happen to be a place we all share, and so the opinions on the Quran vary, suck it up. If you need reassurance of your faith then I'm pretty sure there are other subforums here that will cater to your needs.

 

[Hamayun]

You want someone to reply to your lame googling attempt? :? Do a search it has been answered at least 50 times. What you posted was nothing more than Anti Islamic propaganda used by Anti-Islamic websites that has no credibility or evidence.

If you are demanding anwers to questions that have already been answered several times, rather than use the search feature then yes! you are lazy and arrogant! I don't have to say this, it is quite apparent from your attitude.

What is your question? :?

State your question clearly with clear references and verses (I mean complete verses, not bits of them taken out of context)

Come back when you have a real question or stop wasting everyone's time.

 

[Najm]

Peace....

Just reminded me of these verses.....

O you who believe! If you help (in the cause of) Allâh, He will help you, and make your foothold firm. (47:7)

But those who disbelieve (in the Oneness of Allâh Islâmic Monotheism), for them is destruction, and (Allâh) will make their deeds vain. (47:8)

That is because they hate that which Allâh has sent down (this Qur'ân and Islâmic laws etc.), so He has made their deeds fruitless. (47:9)

Peace

 

[wth1257]

I'm merely discussing, not writing a Ph.d. I figured writing the suras' numbers and chapters would be enough.

Sure, if you’re just shooting the breeze or batting ideas around that's fine. If your talking about serious discussion and honestly understanding a point of view goggling "Qur'an contradictions" is a bad idea. It would be akin to me goggling "Heidegger Contradictions" finding statements espousing his agnosticism and conjoin that with his assertive and unqualified statement that "God does not exist". Of course without the requisite background this appears to be a blatant contradiction. Once I immerse myself in Heidegger's philosophy, however, I quickly see that no such contradiction is present and that Heidegger could make his statement even if he were an avowed theist.

If I read the Quran I would likely understand Islam better from the point of view that the Quran is true.

No, just yesterday I was reading Daniel Dennett's "Consciousness Explained". I think his materialism and reductionist ontology is one of the silliest things I've ever read. In reading his book I was making no presupposition that his philosophy was correct, rather I was simply reading it to understand the content and his point of view. Actually reading the Qur'an as opposed to picking up tid bits on an internet forum is the difference between reading "The Brothers Karamazov" and the spark notes of "The Brothers Karamazov"

That is not what I am seeking though. I seek to know IF the Quran is true, a much simpler task in comparison which does not require me to accept the book as the ultimate truth before I doubt the contents of it.

I sought to know if Daniel Dennett's philosophy was correct. So I started to read the book. I want to know if the Qur'an is true so I read the text to understand it's philosophy, it's various claims, look for absurdities and contradictions.

Anything can be made true if you assume you have a magic wand from the beginning, it's a subjective can of begging the question I will not open up, I'll leave that for the religion-historians.

I know what question begging is, I also know that it is irrelevant to this matter. No question begging is apparent absent your apparent quixotic claim that there is some logical necessity to presuppose a text is true when reading it.

Of course not, but you'd likely understand more about Heidegger's hermetical turn afterwards. I'm simply saying "learning by doing" here.

Assuming the individual actually understood Heidegger. I don't think that anyone here is a great Islamic Scholar nor do they present themselves as such. If I want to understand Heidegger I go to his texts and experts on his philosophy, and I certainly don't limit my research to chatting with philosophy majors in between classes. Yes they can be helpful but to confine oneself to their guidance is a bad idea.

In other words, convince oneself that intricate things in nature were designed, and down subjectivity-road we go.

Not really

Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.

As much as I like 18th century French Mathematicians it's best not to take paraphrasing of their quotes as dogma. Why? What constitutes an "extraordinary claim" and what suffices as "extraordinary evidence"?

In this case the claim concerns a supposed omnipotent being who created the entire universe, which I'd say would be quite extraordinary.

Perhaps. I find it extraordinary that there are infinitely many prime numbers. I don't know if Euclid's proof constitutes "extraordinary" evidence. I would posit that a claim's being "extraordinary" is relative to the psychology of the assessor. Mathematicians and logicians certainly found Gödel’s incompleteness theorems "extraordinary" yet Gödel didn't understand what all the fuss was about, he said it seemed to be an intuitive and obvious observation.

However much one "reflects" on "signs" the only thing that will change is ones own subjective opinion on the matter.

Except Islam views faith as the result of undeserved God given grace. As I said it is not intended to be a discursive and deductive but intuitive. You’re arguing against the deductive validity of an argument that was never supposed to be deductive.

This, in turn, will kick the ball on to people stating "it's a matter of belief", which would all well and good if it wasn't for the miniscule fact that practical decisions are made on the basis of this belief every single day.

what?

Suppose i did read the Quran, memorized it, and developed my own opinion of it; what irrevocably true knowledge would I gain from it apart from the trivial?

I said you would better understand it. I never said "read the Qur'an and you will immediately receive irrevocably true knowledge"

Nothing, because it all the "good stuff" rests on the assumption that Allah exists and that the Quran is his user-manual.

no

I might as well read Harry Potter and assume that magic exists, it'd be the same deal

No, what would be the "same deal" is if you claimed that Harry Potter contradicts itself because of X and Y. Upon pointing out that X and Y only seem to contradict each other in absence of proper back ground knowledge of the contents of Mrs. Rowling’s work I suggest you read the Harry Potter book series to understand it better rather than picking up tid bits from Google and Harry Potter enthusiasts.

only I will not be told to read it in latin afterwards to understand the quasi-linguistic mechanics of spell-incantation

It would be a good idea if you wanted to better understand some of the connotations present in her spells that become apparent if one knows the Latin behind them.

or be called a "Muggle" because I opine against Mr. Potters' magnificence.

holla!

 

[ZarathustraDK]

Sure, if you’re just shooting the breeze or batting ideas around that's fine. If your talking about serious discussion and honestly understanding a point of view goggling "Qur'an contradictions" is a bad idea. It would be akin to me goggling "Heidegger Contradictions" finding statements espousing his agnosticism and conjoin that with his assertive and unqualified statement that "God does not exist". Of course without the requisite background this appears to be a blatant contradiction. Once I immerse myself in Heidegger's philosophy, however, I quickly see that no such contradiction is present and that Heidegger could make his statement even if he were an avowed theist.

My reason for shooting the breeze on this is simple. Even if I had the "proper" background, whatever argumentation I'd put forth would be shot down by "it's a misinterpretation" or "read it in arabic" or "you have ulterior motives". It would be, as you so eloquently put it yourself, like discussing spell-incantations with Harry Potter fans; nothing will amount from it except a subjectively induced shoutfest of boo's and hooray's.

No, just yesterday I was reading Daniel Dennett's "Consciousness Explained". I think his materialism and reductionist ontology is one of the silliest things I've ever read. In reading his book I was making no presupposition that his philosophy was correct, rather I was simply reading it to understand the content and his point of view. Actually reading the Qur'an as opposed to picking up tid bits on an internet forum is the difference between reading "The Brothers Karamazov" and the spark notes of "The Brothers Karamazov"

And would your reading of Dennet had made any difference if it said "this book is true" on the cover? I don't think so.

I sought to know if Daniel Dennett's philosophy was correct. So I started to read the book. I want to know if the Qur'an is true so I read the text to understand it's philosophy, it's various claims, look for absurdities and contradictions.

You can correctly read Dennet's book and aptly scour it for absurdities, contradictions etc. However you cannot do the same with the Quran because you presuppose Allah to be above logic. Hence all attempts to find contradictions and absurdities, or any other attempt to use logic against the Quran will inevitably fail. It is tantamount to arguing against the ridiculous magic of Harry Potter, you simply can't do that because it is a self-contained fiction which is not supposed to have any likeness to the real world.

I know what question begging is, I also know that it is irrelevant to this matter. No question begging is apparent absent your apparent quixotic claim that there is some logical necessity to presuppose a text is true when reading it.

You misunderstand. I do not believe there is a logical necessity to presuppose a text is true in order to read it, at the contrary. However, as I said before, any criticism levelled against the Quran and/or islam is swiftly countered with the "Harry Potter fan response", and thus dragged into the morass of subjective interpretation. This is why I say it is painfully obvious that one has to read the Quran from the perspective that it is true before any semi-meaningful discourse can take place, and any positive response gained. It is all made moot though, since the barb of criticism is eradicated by this procedure.

As much as I like 18th century French Mathematicians it's best not to take paraphrasing of their quotes as dogma. Why? What constitutes an "extraordinary claim" and what suffices as "extraordinary evidence"?

Perhaps. I find it extraordinary that there are infinitely many prime numbers. I don't know if Euclid's proof constitutes "extraordinary" evidence. I would posit that a claim's being "extraordinary" is relative to the psychology of the assessor. Mathematicians and logicians certainly found Gödel’s incompleteness theorems "extraordinary" yet Gödel didn't understand what all the fuss was about, he said it seemed to be an intuitive and obvious observation.

We can discuss where the border between trivial and extraordinary goes for eternity, can we at least agree that the "Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything" is an extraordinary claim? And yes, I know that's Douglas Adams.

Except Islam views faith as the result of undeserved God given grace. As I said it is not intended to be a discursive and deductive but intuitive. You’re arguing against the deductive validity of an argument that was never supposed to be deductive.

Well, good for them. I shall remember that when these intuitions have ramifications on aspects of my everyday which are tuned to the optimal deductively derived result. I don't mind islam or the Quran as an introspective discipline, but when dead people on broomsticks start littering my frontlawn, then I think it's time to have a reality-check (and lock off the door to my roof).

I said you would better understand it. I never said "read the Qur'an and you will immediately receive irrevocably true knowledge"

I understand that I'll understand the motives of Voldemort and the constantly tested character, his begoggled magnificence, Harry Potter. It will not make me better at magic.

No, what would be the "same deal" is if you claimed that Harry Potter contradicts itself because of X and Y. Upon pointing out that X and Y only seem to contradict each other in absence of proper back ground knowledge of the contents of Mrs. Rowling’s work I suggest you read the Harry Potter book series to understand it better rather than picking up tid bits from Google and Harry Potter enthusiasts.

Yes, and why is that? Because Harry Potter is a self-contained work of fiction that has no root in reality. It would always be a fan-on-fan-discussion. Had it been a philosophical treatise then one could apply logic to it, had it been a biological report then one could apply molecular biology to it (+ a dozen other established disciplines). However that is not the case with Harry Potter because it is a complete description of a universe containing magic, muggles, Hogwarts, evil wizards, hooded witches, magical pecking-orders, stone-set worldview etc. Beautiful and romantic I'm sure, but not a dogma that can be succesfully carried into the real world.

It would be a good idea if you wanted to better understand some of the connotations present in her spells that become apparent if one knows the Latin behind them.

I wave my wand and yell "Petrificus!" proudly and loudly, but am only petrified by the lack of desired result. Oh my god, it works!

 

[Hamayun]

What a pointless and fruitless discussion...

Have you actually got any relevant questions or are you just going to constantly throw out red herrings?

I think a mod needs to clear up this thread as it has gone way off topic...

 

[ZarathustraDK]

What a pointless and fruitless discussion...

Have you actually got any relevant questions or are you just going to constantly throw out red herrings?

I think a mod needs to clear up this thread as it has gone way off topic...

It is indeed a major digression, but not one I purposefully perpetrated in order to draw attention away from something, hence it is not a red herring.

My original claim still stands. Kneeling at the altar of an opposing worldview does not automatically make that worldview proven or valid. All hell broke loose just because I mentioned Ayaan Hirsi Ali in an allegory to explain that single point, and show how ridiculous that mode of argumentation can be if not adressed, which was not my intention.

 

[Wilma_Hum]

What a pointless and fruitless discussion...

Have you actually got any relevant questions or are you just going to constantly throw out red herrings?

I think a mod needs to clear up this thread as it has gone way off topic...

Thinks, I have been looking at this thread for some time, just waiting for the right moment.

My first thought when I saw the title was:

As long as there are atheists, there will never be an “undisputed” religious statement.

 

[Hamayun]

It is indeed a major digression, but not one I purposefully perpetrated in order to draw attention away from something, hence it is not a red herring.

My original claim still stands. Kneeling at the altar of an opposing worldview does not automatically make that worldview proven or valid. All hell broke loose just because I mentioned Ayaan Hirsi Ali in an allegory to explain that single point, and show how ridiculous that mode of argumentation can be if not adressed, which was not my intention.

Even still... all I see is a lot of assorted words which in no way relate to this thread.

If you have a valid question regarding the Quran please ask... if not please stop spamming this thread with irrelevant arguments.