The Life of Muhammad |
Post Reply | Page <1 3456> |
Author | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
SpamValiant
P/UT Joined: 22 Mar 2009 Location: UK Points: 126 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Well he certainly convinced me.
OK, so maybe not. This thread is getting a little long what with all the 'give us a miracle', and 'I've already given you a miracle, I'm not doing it again' stuff, so for those playing along at home I thought I'd just trog through it all and find out exactly what has been written (assuming that this isn't a private party and we're all allowed to play). Sooo, it turns out that Odai hasn't really mentioned any miracles in this thread per se, though he did link to a thread where he has, and he helpfully copypasta'd a little bit of it for us to be stunned by (hint - it's on page 2). In the pasted section he mentions... 1) 'Man' and 'woman' both mentioned 23 times in the Quran, clearly a reference to our chromosomes. Except of course as any fule kno, playing numerology games is for mugs, since you can just look through your book for any coincidences that show up, and ignore all the other words that don't pan out. If the incidences of the word 'man' came to 12 people would say 'ooh, one for every sign of the zodiac, spooky'. You can do this stuff all day if you want to, and it would be a pretty poor book that didn't have some incidences of this kind of coincidence if you look hard enough - don't believe me? Look at the numerology work that's been done on that famously spiritual text, Moby Donk. In addition, 23 is a spectacularly poor choice of number to play this particular game with - it has been recognised as a mystical number by all sorts of people from the ancient Chinese and Egyptians to the Discordians, and is certainly believed to hold some sort of woo-significance in the Bible, so assuming that it's appearance int he Quran isn't just coincidence, it's likely to just be a holdover from other people's belief in the power of 23. Also additionally, have you actually counted the appearances of these words yourself? I'm not being funny, but for a book of this size I'd expect to see the word man appear more often.* [*Oh, hey, guess what? I found a searchable Quran online, and in English I'm getting only 18 hits for the word 'woman', whereas 'man' turns up, wait for it, 128 times. Now, ok you might not like the translation, but I'd be amazed if a different translation can change that 128 into 23. Ask yourself this question (I won't ask you to reply out loud, I don't want you to feel embarassed, just to be honest with yourself regarding your belief) - "When I read that the words man and woman appeared 23 times each in the Quran and that this was a miracle, did I bother to count them myself, or did I just accept that such an amzing thing was true?" Now ask yourself the same question about all the other so called miracles.] 2) The appearances of the word Land and Sea are approximately in the right proportions of land and sea by surface area on the Earth. Now, again, this is number crunching rubbish, or as it's more properly called, 'confirmation bias'. That means that when you see something that fits with your view (eg some numbers that seem heaven-sent) you pay attention, but on all the other occasions where the numbers are non-significant you ignore them. If you happened upon a close approximation of the thickness of the atmosphere compared to the radius of the Earth, shown by the words 'air' and 'land' in the Quran, you'd shout Eureka! and add it to your list of miracles - but if the ratio of those words didn't match, you wouldn't say 'oh noes, the Quran is wrong about the atmosphere', you'd just assume that there was no message there and ignore it -in other words you're only watching for the hits, not the misses, and if you play number games with any book of this size you're going to get a few hits. But of course, there's a deeper problem here. You give 'land' 13 times and 'sea' 32 times, giving 28.88% and 71.11% (no need for all the extra digits dude, they don't prove it's a miracle, just that you can use a calculator). Problem is, the actual percentage of land surface is 29.2%. Now, you might say that that's pretty close, but the honest truth is that if I were an almighty deity hiding miracles in my holy book, I'd know enough to use 'land' once more and 'sea' twice more so that I got the right bloody answer. Pretty slapdash stuff for an almighty being if you ask me.* [I just checked the numbers in my searchable Quran and guess what? 'Land' comes up 114 times and 'sea' only 37 - looks like we need to reclaim about 46% of the Earth's surface, maybe that means the Dutch are god's chosen people? Use whatever translation you like, but good luck making those numbers work out] 3) "and verily, it is We Who are steadily expanding it." - good one, but of course, it all depends on your translation. Now, I know what you're going to say, that the one you quote is the right one, but it's worth being aware that the word 'expanding' only appeared in English translations in the 20th century - nobody had bothered to translate it this way before, so it's fair to question why they translate it this way now. It seems likely that it's to ride on the coat-tails of science. Previously the line talked about making the space vast or ample, rather than implying that it still expanded. It's also worth pointing out that the next verse suggests that the Earth is flat ("And the earth, We have made it a wide extent; how well have We then spread it out") and that other verses suggest that the universe will one day collapse, which of course we now know it won't. 4) "by heaven furnished with paths" - honestly? That's your argument? That somehow it's impossible that in the 600s someone could write about heavenly bodies having paths in the sky unless they were told by the Archangel Gabriel? This fact that was recognised by the earliest civilisations doesn't worry you? Not concerned that even the builders of Stonehenge about 3000BC, or the pueblo peoples about 1200BC, understood this well enough to build their monuments? Seems a bit deperate to mention this really. 5) "The Seven Heavens" - Really? The ancient idea of the seven heavens which was well known through jewish, christian, hindu and other traditions, you're claiming it as a divine revelation that nobody could have written down in the 600s without magical guidance? What's that? You're saying that only the Quran has it as a description of the layers of the sky rather than the heavens? Well, ok, but I'll have to get you to explain how Mohammed travelled through these seven layers of the sky and met, in order, Adam, Jesus and John the Baptist, Joseph, Idris, Aaron, Moses and Abraham. And of course this... "See you not how Allah has created the seven heavens one above another, and made the moon a light in their midst"... is going to take some explaining, unless you want to dismiss an inaccuracy of a quarter of a million miles. Sorry about the massive text block, but seriously, anyone who can read this stuff and believe that it's miraculous, is someone who wanted to believe in miracles before they started reading. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
737Chris
Chief Pilot Joined: 04 Apr 2009 Location: The Abyss Points: 2247 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Great post! Thanks for putting the time in to explain some condradictions you found with the claimed "miracles" (I use that term lightly in this context ) Love the end bit, think it pretty much sums everything up perfectly. The religious find these things because they want to. I think its a dead topic though, nobody will get anywhere with it at the end of the day, especially because of the fact its about religion. . .
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Generic forum signature
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MartinW
Moderator in Command Joined: 31 Mar 2008 Location: United Kingdom Points: 26722 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
10/10
But be prepared for a lengthy diatribe with you know who.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Slopey
Moderator in Command AirHauler Developer Joined: 11 Jun 2008 Points: 8280 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AirHauler Developer
For AH2 queries - PLEASE USE THE EA Forums as the first port of call. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Magic Man
Chief Pilot Joined: 02 Apr 2008 Location: South Wales Points: 5336 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Thanks for taking the time to post and analyse very well those 'miracles'...
Shame we are still waiting for the one who actually posted those to reiterate and explain why he feels any one of them proves to him that god exists...
Perhaps Odai himself is our miracle...?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
SpamValiant
P/UT Joined: 22 Mar 2009 Location: UK Points: 126 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The problem is that the interesting part of the discussion is always the bit that you never get to have, the bit that comes next, the bit where someone says, "hang on, I can see where you're coming from, but your analysis is wrong, and here's why", and goes on to provide new information as to why these things are actually miraculous. In turn you can dig deeper, probably expose another layer of incorrect supposition but, who knows, maybe come across something genuinely difficult to explain away. But in almost every case, what actually happens next is either handwaving ("you're analysis is wrong, but I'm not going to give you a reason why, or at least not say anything which hasn't already been covered, I'll just keep telling you that you don't really understand") or diversion ("I'm not going to admit that you're right, but I'm not going to defend my viewpoint, instead I'll just give you another two thousand words on what's so great about my philosophy" - as seen in this very thread) or belligerence.
The only exception I ever came across personally was about ten years ago - I used to work with a nurse who was a devout christian, and had no fears about an open and honest discussion of her faith. Every Tuesday night she went to a bible study class, and every wednesday morning in theatre we'd discuss what she'd been taught, with no equivocation, ego or browbeating. It made for a very enlightening and educational friendship, I only wish more of the divinely-gullible were as nice as her.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MartinW
Moderator in Command Joined: 31 Mar 2008 Location: United Kingdom Points: 26722 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I used to work with a nurse who was a devout christian, and had no fears about an open and honest discussion of her faith. Had a similar experience myself. Way back on the old forum, we had a mammoth debate that resulted in certain forum members behaving exactly as you describe. The result was that the topic was locked. However, one particular individual PM’d me to express his disappointment that I had locked the topic. Turned out he was a theologian. Unlike the others, who had accused those with opposing views of “trashing their religion” and attempted to have such discussions banned from the forum, he was mightily disappointed that he could no longer continue the discussion. I ended up having an email debate with him that lasted for weeks. We were two individuals with diametrically opposing views, but there was no nonsense at all, and we both learnt something from the experience. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
VulcanB2
Chief Pilot Joined: 02 Apr 2008 Points: 13365 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I think I remember it! Best regards, Vulcan. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Odai
Chief Pilot Joined: 05 Apr 2008 Location: NW England Points: 3731 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nice. So you ignore the post I made earlier that was filled with examples? Tell you what, if you're so lazy, why don't you just ignore my "mammoth" post and go back to the beginning of the thread where I quoted plenty? It's astonishing you have this much time to argue, but not any time to quickly skim through the examples towards the beginning of the thread. You need to get yourself a hobby.
That question wasn't aimed at you... Although, feel free to answer it.
Because, on point of principle, I stubbornly refuse to repeat what I've already posted several times before, in order to avoid encouraging further "trolling". If people don't read my earlier posts, why would they read these?
So first you insist I didn't post any examples. Then you admit I did, but you want me to pick them out again. Now you're back to the former. This is a waste of time man. What is it that puts you off having an open debate about this? Why is it you come up with these bizarre excuses in order to avoid answering my points? Do you not have any answers to what I point out, is that why you quickly attack my posts as "diatribes"? You're not convincing anyone, it's clear you simply want to avoid the debate. This is edvidenced by how you repeatedly (and conveniently) ignore selected points in my posts, your personal attacks to try and derail the thread, and your attempts to accuse me of such. A more respectable person would have just said outright that they did not want to take the debate any further. Wimp.
The point is, as I said before, you cannot dismiss it as a coincidence in the way you have there due to the number of examples in the Qur'an. The Qur'an is a lengthy text, and as a result, it is therefore likely you'll get singular examples of such "coincidences". As there are so many "opportunities" for things like this to pop up. It's like playing a lottery in which you have a 1 in a 1000 chance of winning. Winning once after playing 1000 times isn't very impressive. Winning repeatedly in those 1000 plays however, say 500 times, is. And that's my point regarding the Qur'an. Looking individually at each miracle (referring exclusively to the scientific miracles here, the ones you dismiss as coincidences), the fact that so many occur in the same text is evidence that the book is not written by a man. Ie, it's akin to the scenario of winning the lottery many times in the relatively small number of plays.
Then why don't you post a link to it, if you reckon Muslims have gotten it wrong?
Sorry, in case you didn't pick up on it, I am a Muslim myself. I do read the Qur'an. In it's original Arabic too. So no, the latter part of your question is completely false.
No, they're in exactly the write proportions. 32/45=71.11111111111%.
Again, refer to my argument above.
Errr... That's not true. Where did you get that from? 28.8% (recurring) and 71.1% (recurring) are the correct ratios. And even if what you said was true... The Qur'an mentions the words "land" and "sea" 45 times. For your numbers to be correct, land would have to be mentioned 13 times. 0.292x45=13.14 If my numbers were correct, then land would have to be mentioned 13 times. 0.288x45=12.96 So, the same ratio of "land":"sea". So even if you were correct, your point would be completely invalid.
Again, link it.
You're making these arguments, but not backing them up with any evidence. Again, what is your source? Once again, translation is irrelevant, for the reasons I mentioned earlier (but which have been repeatedly ignored).
How does "wide" and "spread out" imply the Earth is flat? Again, also include your sources for the actual text. And where does the Qur'an suggest the universe will collapse? Further, why do you think that "we now know" the universe will not collapse?
If you were to consider it with other similar verses, and avoided taking such a comment out of context, you'd realise it would be pretty difficult for someone in the 600s to realise that each celestial body did indeed have its own path, mostly independent of the Earths, considering the common mentality at the time that the geocentric model was correct.
Once again, you're suggesting it is a coincidence based on how it is a supposedly common theme in religion. But, as I said, considering the number of "coincidences" in the Qur'an, you cannot consider the whole thing to be a coincidence. And if you read my original post properly, you'd have seen I also pointed out the fact that God mentions in the Qur'an how each layer of the atmosphere has it's own "purpose" ("mandate") in protecting us here on Earth.
Firstly, that is highly inaccurate. Secondly, what exactly does it have to do with this? Something that is generally accepted to be, along with the rest of the Mira'j, a spiritual experience? I don't see whatsoever how it credits or discredits the idea that the structure of the atmosphere is mentioned in the Qur'an.
It is going to need some explaining I'm afraid, what exactly is wrong with that statement? Sure, individually, some of these examples may seem "iffy" to some people, but, once again (I feel I've repeated this endlessly, but it is conveniently ignored, endlessly), when you consider how many of them there are in the Qur'an, in all the forms I've mentioned, it's an incredible stretch to dismiss them all using the same, tired, old logic. Here is a good summation: People believe in the Qur'an for different reasons. No one person could possibly have a perfect knowledge or understanding of the Qur'an. But there is absolutely a reason 1.6 billion people believe so strongly in Islam, and why many millions every year embrace it. "Indoctrination" does not come into it, as I have shown. Until now, no one has bothered to address those points or try and discredit them. I'm not surprised. On how the immensely complicated (and "woven") nature of the mechanical motion of celestial bodies is mentioned in the Qur'an: On the expiration of the sun: More on orbits: The roundness of the Earth (incidentally, this link also illustrates the need for a comprehensive explanation of the translation, to be able to properly interpret it): Again on the shape of the Earth (which shows how you were incorrect earlier in interpreting the translation to mean the Earth is flat) : On the layers of the Earth: On the movement of mountains due to the dynamic nature of the Earth's formation: On how seas can remain discrete bodies due to their properties: On the existence of animal "societies": Predicting the Byzantine victory: Predicting Space exploration: Comments from various scholars regarding the Qur'an: As you can see, I'm simply firing off links to various pages on the same site. You can visit and browse the site yourself, better than trawling through links on a forum. In addition to the above, there is the general structure and the literary aspect to the miraculous nature of the Qur'an. The way it reads, the rhyme, the rhythm for example. That, and the way various words, letters, and numbers are used together to produce incredibly patterns (or "codes") in the text. Again, an easy google will allow you to find more. The Qur'an itself contains an open challenge, for anyone to produce anything like the sections ("suras") in it. You'd be doing yourself a favour if you were to do your own research or just read the Qur'an. Anyone who can read the Qur'an and not believe it is miraculous, is someone who is terrified of believing the truth to begin with and does not want to believe it is miraculous before even reading it. I'll ask this question again, as it was no one answered it last time. What exactly would you accept as evidence/proof of God's existence?
Agreed. Take for example Martin's posts. When he feels he is not capable of answering my points, he instead has to resort to launching into attacks on myself, some completely off topic. Otherwise, he has to insist religious people must be indoctrinated into their beliefs as he cannot accept that Muslims are so as a result of logic and rational thought. Or, he just outright pretends I didn't post selected points and ignores them. For example, one of his earlier posts:
Wish people would just stick on topic instead of launching personal attacks.
Haven't I already explained that? Or are you denying this too?
Was there really any need for that? |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ʎɐqǝ uo pɹɐoqʎǝʞ ɐ ʎnq ı ǝɯıʇ ʇsɐן ǝɥʇ sı sıɥʇ
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
SpamValiant
P/UT Joined: 22 Mar 2009 Location: UK Points: 126 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
OK, I can see this getting a bit circular, and we can rapidly reach a point where there are too many seperate bits to give each one its due attention, but I'll at least make a start. Really sorry about the size of this, feel free to ignore but there's a lot to cover. My patience for silliness is quite low, so I'll apologise if I don't show what you feel is due reverence for the more ridiculous bits. In return I'll credit you with enough intelligence to know which points I'm addressing without me pasting whole quotes - I'll try to keep it in some sort of order if that helps... 1) The 23 Conundrum - actually I can just dismiss it as coincidence. As it happens I didn't (I gave you a perfectly good explanation of how these beliefs can take hold in any text, an example of a book famously used to prove exactly this point, an explanation of why, in the case of the number 23, we shouldn't be at all surprised by its appearance, and finally went on to show that in fact there is no conundrum, its been made up - for you to gloss over this with "you cannot just dismiss it as a coincidence" is a gross strawman), but I could have. Your example of the lottery is hugely flawed - the quran doesn't get 500 wins out of 1000 plays, it gets some hits from a vast number of possible tries. As I explained in the 'parable of the ratio of appearances of the words land and air', when true believers don't get a match they don't put it as a tick in the 'miss' column, they just assume it isn't part of the game. It's confirmation bias, pure and simple. The total number of possible ratios of this type that could be drawn from a text the size of the quran is mindboggling, but you're only noticing the ones that appear to have a relevant result, and totally ignoring the thousands upon thousands that don't. How many times do the words 'bird' and 'beast' appear in the text? Does their ratio match the ratios of bird and mammal species on the earth? If it did, you can bet someone somewhere would be beating their drum about it, but since it doesn't nobody gives it a second glance. The only way to increase the 'value' of these particular coincidences is if the numerology crud were to appear in a way pertinent to the text, for example if the 23 conundrum turned up in a book about human evolution, or the land:sea ratio were found in a geography book - that is clearly not the case here, the true believers are merely on the look out for anything that appears to be a hit because it gives them that special thrill that only the bolstering their belief in an imaginary friend can provide. Moreover, to argue that every time I deconstruct a miracle I should still respect it because of the sheer number of them is ridiculous - if none of them stand up to scrutiny (and none have so far) then the number of them is irrelevant.To return to the 'parable of the miraculous lottery', even if you did have 500 wins with 1000 tickets, that wouldn't mean anything if upon scrutiny it turned out that the randomising machine was broken, or that you had cheated, that someone else had cheated for you, or that you had in fact just lied about having a winning ticket. I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to match these explanations to the ones I've already given to the 23 conundrum.
"I do read the Qur'an. In it's original Arabic too. So no, the latter part of your question is completely false" - no, it isn't. I didn't ask you if you'd read the quran, I asked you if, when told about the 23 conundrum, you counted the words yourself (in the language of your choice), or just accepted it as a miracle. It's a question which cuts to the core of your beliefs, probably the most important part of the whole post, and yet you seem to have not read or understood it. Did you, in fact, bother to check the facts on this extraordinary claim, as any rational person would, or did you just file it away as a true miracle without deeper examination? Have you, having had this point raised now, gone and checked in your own copy, or just decided that my version must have errors because it disagrees with the tale you've been told? This is exactly the point of my posts, that all these miracles are pretty easy to debunk, unless you want to believe in them.
As for posting a link to the quran I used, it was the first or second hit I got on google for 'searchable quran', I didn't go looking for an anti-islamic site, and as far as I could see it was just a quran. I also made the point that even if it's not your favoured translation, the numbers seem so far off that it doesn't seem at all likely for another version to make much of a difference, though of course if you can provide one with the right numbers I'd be interested to see it. There's a deeper point here - "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". I've been doing the legwork here, but actually you're the one making the extraordinary claim. In point of fact if you want to convince me it's your job to find a version of the text that supports your claim, and explain why this is the right version (hint - it can't be 'because it's the version that gives the right answer', that's confirmation bias again). And don't give me that "Then why don't you post a link to it, if you reckon Muslims have gotten it wrong?" rubbish - this isn't about attacking muslims, it's about you claiming that the 23 conundrum exists and 2 minutes on google being enough to show that it doesn't. That's not an attack on muslims, it's an attack on gullible people - when I was a kid I had a teacher who told me that the Sargasso sea was where wrecked ships went to die, and a vicar who told me that there was as much documentary evidence for jesus as for Julius Caesar. Both those claims are easy to disprove with the barest of research, and so anyone who believes them in this day and age is gullible, and anyone who spreads them is eithe gullible or lying. Nothing to do with religion, everything to do with whether you care about truth.
2) " No, they're in exactly the write (sic) proportions. 32/45=71.11111111111%" - I'm not disputing that 32/45=72.11%, I'm saying that that's not the actual ratio of land to sea on the earth. The real number is 29.2% land to 70.8% ocean (http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/8o.html), and that's exactly my point - if this 'miracle' is the result of people looking for 'hits' in the text (as discussed at far too much length for the benefit of the remedial logic class) then it's pretty close. But if I were a god with a penchant for hiding little riddles in my holy texts for the titillation of anal-retentive word counters, it would have been easy to use 14 lands and 34 seas, so that my 'miraculous' answer was bang on (actually I only did the maths to get to 29.16%, I'm sure you could get it closer than that if you were a conscientious deity but of course it would require more and more words to get more accurate, and I was trying to show how childishly easy it would have been to add 3 extra words to make the result more accurate, if I was a deity who already knew the right answer. Interestingly, the fact that you think that "28.8% (recurring) and 71.1% (recurring) are the correct ratios" is very telling - it's trivially easy to check this, as I did but clearly you didn't, and the idea that the actual land surface of the earth would be any number as consistent as 28.8 recurring is obviously silly. In truth it won't be 29.2% but rather something like 29.18245892414356etc% or(or whatever) because nothing in the real world is quite as pat as you seem to accept. These two facts clearly show that you are very happy to ignore obviously wrong and easily checked facts.
The maths you then show (0.292x45=13.14 and 0.288x45=12.96) misses the point - you've clearly shown that neither comes to exactly 13, so we must be able to make the 'miracle' more accurate by massaging the text slightly. The equation you're after is 0.292x48=14.01, a suitably accurate result for a mere mortal, though I'm sure a deity with a calaculator and 30 mins to spare could make it better - the question, again, is why didn't she? Why did the immortal creator of all decide to hide this miraculous ratio in her holy book, and then not take the time to get the numbers right? 14 lands and 34 seas clearly gives a much better answer. The rational answer is that your 13/32 ratio isn't mairaculous or holy, it's just a coincidence, or in fact it's been made up anyway as I showed by counting land 114 times and sea only 37 with 2 minutes of research. This is from the same quran as last time, again I see no reason for it to be wrong, but if you can link me to a quran with the 'right' numbers (or at least right with the margin of error you seem happy to allow in your perfect religion) I'll happily read it. Again, the pertinent question here might be "instead of assuming that my numbes or my randomly chosen translation must be wrong, have you ever bothered to go to your own text and count the words? There are searchable arabic qurans on the internet, I didn't use them because I no speeky the lingo senor, but presumably it would take you two minutes to check on this. Have you? Ever? Conceivably the translation I've searched might be inaccurate - I'd be amazed if any translation was that far off over fairly basic words like land and sea, but I'm willing to see evidence to the contrary - the really interesting question for the wider world is, what sort of person hears about such an easily tested 'miracle' and chooses not to check it, but just to repeat it? Answer - someone who wants it to be true.
3) the explanding universe - the translation is pertinent, despite your protests. Different. translations of any text exist for one simple reason - no one language can be directly translated into another and carry over every nuance and variation of the phraseology. So the attempt to render meaning in English from an Arabic original requires the translator to walk a fine line. I'm no quran scholar (despite seeming happier to word check it than you do), but google gives multiple references to the fact that until the 20th century the phrase was translated as "With power and skill did We construct the Firmament: for it is We Who create the vastness of space" or "and We it is Who make the vast extent (thereof)" or "We raised it high with power, and most surely We are the makers of things ample". The expansion translation only appeared after the expansion of the universe had been posited in the 20th century. Whatever the phrase is in arabic, it obviously doesn't neatly translate into english, but for centuries it was rendered with no suggestion of ongoing expansion, an idea that only took hold after science had discovered it. You can repeat as often as you like that 'that's what it says in arabic', but clearly that isn't what it says exactly, otherwise it would always have been translated as such. Obviously the next verse doesn't explicitly state that the earth is flat, I mentioned that in a tongue in cheek way to point out that it's easy to read things into the text if you want to - imagine a world in which the earth had always been thought to be spherical, but was suddenly discovered to be flat; do you think for one moment that muslim 'scholars' wouldn't be shouting that verse from the rooftops as proof of the quran's perfection? The situation with the preceding verse is just a false. As for the contraction of the universe, for a long time we heard about the verse "That Day We will fold up heaven like folding up the pages of a book. As We originated the first creation so We will regenerate it. It is a promise binding on Us. That is what We will do." (Surah 21:104), or "The whole earth will be a mere handful for Him on the Day of Rising the heavens folded up in His right hand" (from 39.67). Now, obviously these can be interpreted spiritually, but many people playing the same game as you cited themm as evidence that the quran knew that eventually our expanding universe would slow down due to gravity, then collpase back on itself. Of course, at the time a lot of scientists belived this, so it was a nice 'miraculous' prediction. Unfortunately, in the late 90s astronomers turned up an unexpected result - the expansion of the universe was speeding up rather than slowing down - something was working against gravity to push space apart, meaning that it would never slow and then collapse. Now, fortunately this was discovered by scientists instead of theologians, so rather than burn their results as being heretical, they threw them out to other researchers who confirmed their findings. The best evidence we now have tells us that out universe will continue accelerating forever, faster and faster and faster. Bad luck. Your question - "Further, why do you think that "we now know" the universe will not collapse?" My answer - I can read.
4) it would have been no problem for someone in the 600s to conceive of heavenly bodies following paths - sure, they thought that planets and comets etc circled the earth rather than the sun, but they still followed predictable paths in the sky. The chinese, greeks, romans, egyptians, babylonians etc all had this covered, and to try to claim otherwise is utterly ridiculous. Adding in the "mostly independant of the Earth's" part is cheating - nothing I saw in the links you gave referred specifically to heliocentrism rather than geoocentrism. TBH even if they had it wouldn't be miraculous, since Aristarchus of samos posited a heliocentric univese in the 3rd century bc. oops. 5) the 7 heavens - I did not suggest it was a coincidence, I said it was an idea held by cultures predating islam, and therefore its appearance in the quran is in no way miraculous. If anyone had a direct line to god it was the jews, hindus or christians who you copied it off. I quite agree that the tale as told in the Miraj makes more sense spiritually, but you're the one trying to claim that the '7 heavens' refers not to mythical places but to the scientific layers of the atmosphere. Without that it's not a miracle, just a mystical tale. If you want to claim the 7 heavens as atmospheric layers, you need to explain how that relates to the people that mohammed met, how they were suspended there (balloons?) etc. If you're happy for it to be a spiritual tale that's fine, but don't claim it as evidence of scientific accuracy (and therefore miracles) at the same time. (Also, if my understanding of the tale is 'highly inaccurate', which I accept is possible, please explain or reference why, rather than just telling me I'm wrong. I've helped you see your errors clearly, please afford me the same courtesy). Finally, if you can't see why 'the 7 scientifically accurate atmospheric layers' having 'the moon a light in their midst' is a bit of a screw up, I can't help you. Of course, if the 7 heavens refers to actual heavens rathe than atmospheric layers, then the moon poses no problem. But of coursem, all you're left with then is the same myth that earlier cultures had, and thus no miracle. Sorry. I'll probably get shot if I try to address all your new miracles right now (though kudos for at least expanding the list, that shows spirit), but there's one part I must quickly respond to - "But there is absolutely a reason 1.6 billion people believe so strongly in Islam, and why many millions every year embrace it. "Indoctrination" does not come into it, as I have shown. Until now, no one has bothered to address those points or try and discredit them. I'm not surprised." Look, there are more christians than muslims, so by your reasoning you should abandon your beliefs and embrace theirs because there just has to be a reason they think that way, right? Obviously not. People as a mass just aren't very bright, they're prone to believing odd things about the world, and the fact that 1.6billion muslims and 2.6 billion christians believe fervently in different things (and they do, don't try to pass off christianity as just 'part of the great tapestry of islam') clearly can't be used to prove jack. As for the question of indoctrination, you clearly overestimate the rate of conversions. It remains true that the vast majority of people retain the religion they grew up with. Most muslims are people born in muslim countries or communities, likewise christians, hindus, buddhists etc. Some convert, but the numbers are miniscule compared to the numbers that are just raised that way. The rapid conversions of large numbers of people to islam in the early days were due to it spreading by conquest, which is a totally different thing, just like the babylonians, greeks and romans spreading their gods with their empires, or the later decisions by roman emperors to just make the whole empire christian. These are different events, and to claim (as you seem to) that a modern muslim in algeria is a 'convert' because he can't claim direct descent from mohammed is ridiculous - his ancestors have probably been muslims for 1200 years. You have not shown that 'indoctrination has nothing to do with it', and certainly not in the face of vast amounts of data saying the opposite, not to mention the fairly clear and obvious fact that most muslims are born in muslimy families, most hindus in hinduey families, etc etc etc. If you have some data to show that some massice percentage of muslims re converts, please show it (hint - don't quote growth numbers, they're mainly down to birthrates). Also, you've alluded a couple of times to a large number of scientists and scholars converting to islam - an obvious counter is that atheists and agnostics form a larger percentage of the scientific community that of the general population - if the learned and rational are converting anywhere, it's to us. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MartinW
Moderator in Command Joined: 31 Mar 2008 Location: United Kingdom Points: 26722 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
So first you insist I didn't post any examples. Then you admit I did,
No Odai, thats not true. As you know! The point, is that none of us are prepared, to analysis in great detail the multitude of examples you mention, and provide a 6000 word reply. Instead, we would prefer to address each claimed miracle individually. in detail.
You wont do this, because you know that once we focus on each miracle individually, we will be able to provide a very plausible counter argument.
Again in your latest mamouth post you offer a plethroa of links to many cliamed miracles. Knowing that there's little chance that any of us will be willing to wade through all of them and provide 6000 word counter argumnts for all of them... PICK ONE!
I have already offered counter arguments to some of those claimed miracles earlier in the thread. We would like your choice as to the best SINGLE example of a miracle.
Martin was not willing to answer my various points regarding belief
Rubbish! I went to great length to provide a separate post answering your points. A specific post for all to see.
Post 15, page 4...
If I got the wrong questions, point me in the right direction. Wish people would just stick on topic instead of launching personal attacks.
To claim it was a personal attack is merely an attempt to use emotional blackmail as a debating tool. To regard my comments as a personal attack is ridiculous. Stck to the topic!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MartinW
Moderator in Command Joined: 31 Mar 2008 Location: United Kingdom Points: 26722 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hear we go. All of us on the forum, that have had many years of experience of debating with Odai, will be seeing the trend. A quick search will reveal the tactics. As said previously, forget physics, you should be a politician.
What is it that puts you off having an open debate about this?
5 pages of it my boy, thats what we've been having! Many words posted by me. Not one person on this forum would regard the claim as "i won't debate" as plausible.
Why is it you come up with these bizarre excuses in order to avoid answering my points?
Page 5 post 15. Your points specifically answered... got another? let me know.
You're not convincing anyone,
Really! How many people on this forum are convinced by your arguments? Shall we run a poll? ZERO actually!
it's clear you simply want to avoid the debate.
Utter nonsense, how can the multitude of posts I've made, dating back to 12th July be avoiding the debate?
This is evidenced by how you repeatedly (and conveniently) ignore selected points in my posts,
Nonsense! unless they have already been answered... give me one example and I'll answer it next time I post.
your personal attacks to try and derail the thread,
More nonsense, a ploy to divert the thread. Stick to the debate! Don't attack me, stick to the debate!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MartinW
Moderator in Command Joined: 31 Mar 2008 Location: United Kingdom Points: 26722 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Odai... SpamValiant has gone to the trouble of providing another superb post that pretty much destroys your argument... address it. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Magic Man
Chief Pilot Joined: 02 Apr 2008 Location: South Wales Points: 5336 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
As repeatedly asked Odai, I was looking for you to state just one example. As said above, I didn't want to wade through your huge postings looking for something I assumed was an example. I requested that you post a single 'miracle' as you saw it that proved the existence of god TO YOU.
I'm the lazy one? I asked for you to reiterate a single miracle, as an example, that you considered proved the existence of god.
It's astonishing you have this much time to argue and post mammoth replies, but not any time to quickly state a single miracle that proves the existence of the god you believe in.
I have no idea. When I witness or discover a 'miracle' as I see it and have no other explaination available to me other than to consider it must have been the result of some kind of 'outside' intervention, then I'll consider... I'm still waiting for that miracle... So, let me get this right and pick one of your examples for you. One 'proof' that god exists to you is the fact that the words 'man' and 'woman' appear so many times in the texts and that is "evidence that the book is not written by a man" Really...? How does that 'proof' and the evidence for it stack up against any physics laws you have studied and take as fact given the amount of proof each of those required to be taken as such...? Great nods to SpamValiant for such outstanding replies...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
737Chris
Chief Pilot Joined: 04 Apr 2009 Location: The Abyss Points: 2247 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
He wont. People of his religious nature don't. Fact. It is a shame because I dont think I've seen a post as brilliant as Spam's but thats the way it is. Again SV, excellent post!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Generic forum signature
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
VulcanB2
Chief Pilot Joined: 02 Apr 2008 Points: 13365 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I haven't read it yet but if your first post on this page was anything to go by it will be another epic read.
Best regards, Vulcan. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MartinW
Moderator in Command Joined: 31 Mar 2008 Location: United Kingdom Points: 26722 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I've been desperately trying to find an image of tumbleweed to post.
Can't find one anywhere.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Magic Man
Chief Pilot Joined: 02 Apr 2008 Location: South Wales Points: 5336 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Odai
Chief Pilot Joined: 05 Apr 2008 Location: NW England Points: 3731 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
No offense, but I find it somewhat hypocritical to post about how you find some people to be narrow minded about debating, and how you wish people would be more open when debating, only to then go and claim parts of my posts are "silly" or "ridiculous". How do you think I regard your posts? I don't have a problem at all with threads getting a bit heated, just found what you said to be a hypocritical.
Also, the miracles of the Qur'an are only one part of a Muslim's faith. There can be many reasons for a Muslims faith. I have tried to go some way in explaining these, but unfortunately have been sidetracked by this sillyness.
And how does that in any way effect the significance of the other instances? It's a moot point. I know what the argument is, I acknowledged it before you even thought about posting. No need to try and explain in such detail.
That's complete and utter rubbish. To claim this would imply that each of the instances are mentioned out of any meaningful context. No idea what you were thinking when you wrote this man.
Then you really haven't grasped the most basic principles of probability in the slightest. When you "deconstruct" a miracle, you don't disprove it. You just put forward evidence to suggest it's a coincidence. So no, you absolutely cannot disregard all of them based on that premise. If a person wins a 1 in a 1000 lottery 500 times, without cheating, then obviously each of those times are down to luck (coincidences). However, you'd be insane to then suggest as a result that the person is simply lucky when considering all 500 wins together. The chances are that there is something allowing the player to win other than luck.
But that's obviously not the case here, unless the hypothetical forgerer of the Qur'an somehow managed to "cheat" their way into figuring out the ratio of land to sea, or the number of yet-to-be-realised tiny coloured helixes in our cells that dictate our every characteristic.
Yes, not only by own knowledge of the Qur'an, but also by checking plenty of other sources online. As I said above, the fact that these exist in the Qur'an is widespread knowledge. And that's what I said before, so yes, I did answer your question.
As I explained earlier, you'll either have to trust the wide variety of sources I have mentioned, or be prepared to do a lot more "legwork". I'll say it again here for clarity, for obvious reasons you cannot verify this specific claim by simply using the search function on an online copy of the Qur'an. The only way you're going to be able to do it is by reading every word of the Qur'an, and counting the number of times "man" is mentioned. Only that way will you be able to verify the claim.
I know what you're saying, I acknowledged that. And I disputed it. I'm saying the percentage of water on the Earth's surface is around 71.1%(recurring). As it is, it is difficult to verify any of the numbers posted WRT this as most of the links I've found give very rough estimates only, with 71% being the most exact I can find, other than these links: Not going to waste my time searching for any more, it's just not worth it.
Does it matter? At the end of the day, any of those ratios would give you a percentage corresponding to 32/45. However, you are trying your best to find the most tiny, tiny detail to try and disregard this instance, instead of considering the much more significant fact. That the actual ratio of land to sea corresponds to the number of times they are mentioned in the Qur'an. Only someone who would be desperate to avoid the truth of the Qur'an would focus on the small and ignore the big, as it were. And again, get as focused with this as you want, but there is a lot more to the Qur'an.
Again, read what I said above. There are multiple words in Arabic that can mean land or sea, depending on the context. However, a translator may not choose to translate it this way as it may be more appropriate to use another English word instead, to better try and convey the meaning of that part of the Qur'an. Obviously, this would be the main concern of the translator, they would not be interested in making sure someone gets the right number of hits for the words "sea" and "land" in the context of proving/disproving this specific miracle. Once again, the only way you can prove/disprove it is to read (and understand) the Qur'an yourself. An automated search function isn't going to do very well I'm afraid....
Once again, I cannot follow these arguments and take them to be true unless you back them up with some sort of sources. You refer to them, but you never bother to share them with us?
Or maybe, you've simply posted incomplete translations, and posted only the initial reference of the vastness of space, but not the part which refers to the actual thing being done, the expanding. No matter how easy it is to mix up volcabulary in the translation, it's pretty unlikely that in the process of translation the verb is ignored entirely (the actual thing being done, the expanding, which is obviously the important part in this context). As it is, your complete lack of sources makes it difficult to counter your argument, as it becomes difficult to understand what your argument is to begin with, or where it has come from. This is the original arabic: وَالسَّمَاء بَنَيْنَاهَا بِأَيْدٍ وَإِنَّا
لَمُوسِعُونَ The last word is the cause of the issue. It is a word that relates to "making more space". It's a verb, and certainly not a adjective or in the past tense as your own translations suggest. Ie, it's not something that has been done and finished. It does not suggest God made lots of space and that was it. It means something that is ongoing, and is the reason most people will translate it to English as "expanding". Copy/paste this word: لَمُوسِعُونَ In to this translator (arabic---->english): And as you can see, you get a verb. The basic software doesn't recognise the verb itself (although it does a remarkably good phonetic spelling of it in English ), but obviously recognises it as a verb (to....). Now, randomly copy/pasting one of your translations into Google, and I get the complete sentence you failed to post: " With power and skill did We construct the Firmament; For it is We who create
the vastness of space; Verily We are expanding it." The last part shows the verb missing from your translations.
Yes I do, because that verse doesn't suggest in the slightest that the Earth is flat. Which is why I asked specifically, how exactly are you reading that conclusion into the verse?
Then clearly you can't read very well, as that is just one of the possible models we have. It hasn't been disproven, just alternative models put forward that can be possible. Again, if you believe otherwise, why don't you prove it? I'd like to think I keep up with these kinds of things, but if there's something I've missed, please, share...
Sorry to burst your bubble, but if the Qur'an was forged, wouldn't the forgerer want to write a text that coincided with the predominant scientific theory at the time, rather than one that remained disregarded for many centuries to come? "Oops", as you would say. Also, if you cannot see, from the detailed explanations I linked, how the verses I linked to counter a geocentric model, then there's not much more I can do to persuade you to be honest.
Yes you did. The Qur'an mentioned seven layers, each with their own purpose. This clearly corresponds to the seven layers of the atmosphere and how they each add a kind protection to life on Earth. You then went and suggested that it was a coincidence because the number seven happened to be common in religion. But that doesn't explain the latter part of the sentence anyway, about how God says each of the layers has it's own mandate.
Eh? Your bizarre argument somehow suggests the tale of the Mir'aj (spiritual ascension) is somehow bound to the reference of seven layers. It's not.
I didn't point it out because it wasn't relevant to the debate.
As you haven't elaborated as requested, I'm going to just assume (from your comment "an error of a quarter of a million miles" that you have understood that translation to mean that the moon is within the seven layers of the atmosphere. Not sure how you've come to that conclusion as you haven't answered my question, so I can't answer yours.
Not sure what you meant by the getting shot part, but as it's been a while since you posted (and you immediately followed my previous post with a reply quite rapidly), I'm going to guess you simply don't want to respond to the other examples I posted. As others would say, "nice cop out".
Eh? Where did I suggest that people should believe my arguments simply because there are so many Muslims? Or that one group having more followers than another means it is more likely to be genuine? That's a ridiculous claim! The prophet (pbuh) certainly wouldn't have had much luck with that argument when he and his wife were the only people on the face of the planet at the time who accepted Islam as the message we now it as. Yet the message he spread still attracted a vast number of people. I'm just saying that there is a significance to the number of true Muslims and the number of converts. You clearly took my statements too strongly.
Errr.... Care to be specific? Of course not, that would ruin your argument then, wouldn't it? The Christian message is largely the same as the Islamic and Jewish message. Not surprising, since Muslims believe both Moses and Jesus and all the prophets before them were the among the best examples of human beings and Muslims and that their message was the same that Muhammad (peace be upon them all) brought us. The only difference is that Muslims believe the examples followed by Jews and Christians today have been edited/corrupted/lost by people.
No I don't. It's a fair estimation considering the links I read. Do a search on the number of converts a year. Fair enough, using that method involves a fair bit of extrapolation, but there is just as much chance I underestimated the number. Just for the UK: More stuff:
That's an absurd claim. Firstly, in the early days, any kind of military conflict would have ended in disaster for the Muslims. How did they get to the stage of being a large enough group to defend themselves against attack if they didn't have the capability to militarily conquer another group and enforce their religion on them to begin with? Also, the rapid spread of the actual Islamic nation long after Muhammad (pbuh) first spread the message is not significant in terms of the increase of the number of muslims. One fundamental aspect of Islam is that there is no compulsion in religion, and that forcing Islam on another is a grave sin. As a result, your likening the Islamic nation to that of the Romans or Greeks in the context of the spread of their respective religions is utterly false and baseless. If there were any "rogues" who tried to force Islam on others at the time, then it would have been a tiny minority and certainly not widespread at all, and therefore not significant in the slightest. Indeed, religious minorities in Europe, such as the Jews, enjoyed far better religious freedom under Islamic rule than they did before (or after, if their persecution in Europe long after Islam was no longer a significant influence is anything to go by...).
What an interesting claim... What logic have you used to arrive at that bizarre conclusion? Islam has spread (in terms of numbers) far too quickly for it to simply be a result of the natural expansion of the world's population (as in, more people being born than dying). Besides, this is hardly relevant. If you decide to convert to Islam simply because lots of other people are doing it then you've not got a very strong basis for faith there...
No I haven't. You've misunderstood. I simply said that Islam puts a special emphasis on seeking knowledge and understanding about the universe around us. Not only does it bring us closer to God, but it allows us to progress as a race. Islam is the reason scientific development peaked during the "golden age of Islam". I've given plenty of examples on how science, and indeed other kinds of scholarship, are an integral part of Islam. No need to repeat myself. And like I said, now that the "traditionally Muslim" countries of the world have become so corrupt and lost the Muslim spirit, it's no surprise at all that scientific development has gone down the pan. This whole "religion vs science" attitude that is so prevalent in the West now I think is deeply rooted in the ignorance of the dark ages. When considering Islam, it just seems like such a foreign idea to me. To the typical non-Muslim "westerner" however, it seems perfectly normal.
That's a rubbish claim. It's just another stereotype. Unless, again, you have numbers to back it up?
Yes you did, then I answered them. Then it was your turn to answer the new points. That's how a debate works. I'll give you a hint. Look at the post where you supposedly answered my first points. Then scroll down, looking for the next post where my name is. That's where you'll have to look.
Emotional blackmail? Have to say Martin, you really take this far, far, far too seriously. And besides, since when was blackmail a debating tool? Interesting!
You keep asking that, and I keep saying, how on Earth can you know the minds of the hundreds (fair guesstimate) of people who have read this thread? And again, if your confidence depends so desperately on what other people think, go ahead and make a poll?
Actually, it's only taken that long because I've taken long times to respond.
Actually, the way I interpret the significance of these is the same way I have been taught about significance in Physics. In Physics, a single anomaly in the data is just a blip, you ignore it. But if there are enough, then maybe their numbers are above a certain limit and the significance is enough to take the observation seriously. Same with this.
Bravo, another fine example of popping up randomly to flame. But is there any chance you will be posting to actually contribute something relevant next time?
What is it you people don't understand about the term "busy"??? I can see where this thread is going. And if arguing semantics and the same old sterotypes is about as deep as it's going to go, I think I'm going to make the call that this really isn't worth the vast amount of time needed to post. I won't be posting again in this thread, so if there's anything further you want to know just do as I've been saying from the beginning and start some of your own research. Apologies if the formatting of the first half of the post is messed up, I copy and pasted it from a notepad document. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ʎɐqǝ uo pɹɐoqʎǝʞ ɐ ʎnq ı ǝɯıʇ ʇsɐן ǝɥʇ sı sıɥʇ
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MartinW
Moderator in Command Joined: 31 Mar 2008 Location: United Kingdom Points: 26722 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Have to say Martin, you really take this far, far, far too seriously.
Hypocrisy anyone?
We've all known you a very long time Odai, we are all aware of the tactics you use.
It wouldn't be the first time you have taken the opportunity to grasp onto a comment and twist it into an insult. It's a tactic to discredit the other debater. All of us have seen this before.
So, no Odai, I don't take topics far, far too seriously, you do, hence the large number of locked topics under your belt. How many is it now? you have had more locked topics than anyone on the forum. We should really have a locked topic maximum, beyond which a forum member is banned. I think I'll consider implementing that.
Actually, it's only taken that long because I've taken long times to respond.
I have typed more words in this debate, more counter arguments, than I have for a very long time. To the point where we are going round and round in circles. This is obvious to all on the forum. Despite this you tell me I am "avoiding the debate".
Typical Odai.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Post Reply | Page <1 3456> |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |