Are you an atheist? (2 Viewers)

[The_Doc_Man]

As Frothingslosh suggests, it is common for religions, even those that are related to one another via a schism, to suggest that "my sky father can bet up your sky father."

Depending on how much you trust the Bible, I understood that the beginning of pre-Muhammad Islam was merely the result of a split from Judaism dating from the time of Exodus, when the sons of Ham went off into the desert on their own.

 

[aziz rasul]

This seems highly un-scientific to me - but each to there own.

This has nothing to do with science. God can communicate in any way He wishes be it through angel Gabriel or directly to the Prophets or Messengers of God. What is more to the point is what the text says, not the mode of how it was communicated.

I don't know the writings sufficiently well, but a quick google reveals many many contradictions in almost every religious text. Bible and Qur'an and probably others I can't be bothered to research.

This is one of the problems I have, people keep saying I produce no facts or proofs but here is an example being given where no contradictions are mentioned simply that there are some but can’t be bothered to research. Not good enough. Why bother mentioning it if you are not going to furnish any proof. If there are contradictions in the Qur’an then share them with us. I would be interested.

The_Doc_Man casting the date and time when the ancient creation stories were given and assume for the sake of argument they existed prior to when the Qur’an was revealed, is there an ancient civilisation that talked about both the ‘cosmic dust’ or ‘cosmic egg’ that was then burst open? You can then argue that this theory existed before 14 centuries ago. The other point is that with a catalogue of different creation stories, how did the writers of the Qur’an, if it doesn’t come from God, know to choose the correct one and also the correct scientific facts about the universe and in other areas of science? The Qur’an as written as it was revealed. The complete book was then given to his wife Hafsa (may God be pleased with her) just before the death of Muhammad (peace be upon him). A 100 copies from this original were then made during the caliphate of Uthman (may God be pleased with him).

6:125 Those whom Allaah (in His plan) willeth to guide,- He openeth their breast to Islam; those whom He willeth to leave straying,- He maketh their breast close and constricted, as if they had to climb up to the skies: thus doth Allaah (heap) the penalty on those who refuse to believe.

To be fair, Islam itself dates from shortly after the warlord Muhammad's life, and scholars tend to agree he really did live from appx 570 CE to 6/8/632, and that he didn't begin preaching until around 610. We know that he migrated to and eventually took over Medina around 620, that he conquered Mecca in 630, and most of the Arabian peninsula before his death two years later.

You are wrong on four counts.
Islam began at the time of Adam (peace be upon him) and he was the first Muslim.
Muhammad (peace be upon him) was not a warlord.
Muhammad (peace be upon him) didn’t over Medina as you put it, he fled from an attempted assassination in Makkah.
Muhammad (peace be upon him) didn’t conquer Makkah, he simply returned back to his city of birth as he every right to do.

His teachings, however? As with Christianity, they weren't actually written down and codified for some time, in this case until about 20 years after Muhammad's death. This was done partly because the people who had learned Muhammad's teachings were dying off themselves, and partly because, as always happens in an oral tradition, changes had crept in to the different versions.

Again you make fundamental mistakes. See my answer above.

I do find it amusing that each of you 'proves' the other false because your book says so.

How can the OT say that the Qur’an is false if the Qur’an was revealed afterwards? Is there an OT verse that you can give us?

2:79 So woe to those who write the "scripture" with their own hands, then say, "This is from Allah ," in order to exchange it for a small price. Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they earn.

If someone today were to say that God was talking to them through an angel and had some new commandments, would you believe them?

No, because Muhammad (peace be upon him) was the Seal of the Prophets. There are going to be no new prophets to come. Jesus (peace be upon him) will return but of course he is not a new prophet.

 

[Frothingslosh]

You are wrong on four counts.
Islam began at the time of Adam (peace be upon him) and he was the first Muslim.

If that were true, then there would be references to Islam in from before the year 600, and there are none.

Muhammad (peace be upon him) was not a warlord.

He ruled by force of arms, and led thousands of soldiers in conquering his neighbors. That makes him, by definition, a warlord.

Muhammad (peace be upon him) didn’t over Medina as you put it, he fled from an attempted assassination in Makkah.

The histories of that area FROM that area would disagree with you. Regardless of his reason for going to Medina, the fact of the matter is that he rose from 'resident' to 'leader' of the city, which is the textbook definition of 'took over'.

Muhammad (peace be upon him) didn’t conquer Makkah, he simply returned back to his city of birth as he every right to do.

Advancing upon city with 10,000 soldiers, defeating the defending army in battle, and instituting your own rulership by force of arms is, once again, the textbook definition of 'conquer'.

How can the OT say that the Qur’an is false if the Qur’an was revealed afterwards? Is there an OT verse that you can give us?

Now I have to ask if you're lying or just unable to read well. At no point did I say the words you are putting into my mouth. Take your straw man elsewhere.

And while you're at it, how about addressing the 150+ points I provided where the Qu'ran contradicts itself? Or did you really think no one here will realize you're avoiding the question because you can't answer it?

 

[Vassago]

That's the thing. All of these scientific determinations are THEORIES, not FACTS. We don't know that the universe was created this way, we can only point to the evidence available to us.

As far as procreation. Humans have known about procreation for a VERY long time. It's not surprising that they would be able to determine how that works thousands of years ago before we understood the science at a cellular level.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

is there an ancient civilisation that talked about both the ‘cosmic dust’ or ‘cosmic egg’ that was then burst open?

Sumer, Babylon, and some of the Chinese writings go back over 2500 years. That's 900 years before the Qur'an. That far enough? Chaldea goes back 3200 years and has a "creation from chaos" theory. Hell, the RCC had a bishop Ussher who claimed 6300 years for the events leading from Adam. Is THAT old enough for you? And India's many religions can claim nearing 10,000 years. Egypt supposed goes back over 6000 years (based on updated studies of the age of the Great Sphinx.) THEY had a "something from nothing" theory.

And as far as Islam's claim on a "cosmic egg" opening up? There is a significant argument that spontaneous cosmic pair production could be the origin. There is experimental evidence for small-scan pair production. The thing that is MOST important isn't that Islam claims a cosmic egg. Neither Judaism or Christianity do that, and many of the other cultures I named avoid that statement, too. Many of them just have their magic sky daddy wave his hands and >* POOF *< we have a universe. Science talks about the "singularity" but there are alternative theories involving collisions between cosmic membranes (an outshoot of string theory) that could ALSO give rise to a universe.

Therefore, to claim that Islam got it right is premature. We still don't know what "right" really means. AT MOST, Islam can claim a guess of its very own, just like other religions can claim their guess. So before you chortle with glee over how "Islam got it right" - you cannot say that. And I'll grant that we can't yet say they got that particular fact wrong. But that's OK - Frothingslosh provide a list of other errors for you.

 

[aziz rasul]

If that were true, then there would be references to Islam in from before the year 600, and there are none.

Again you are wrong and misunderstand due to a lack of knowledge. Islam is about submission to the Creator and a Muslim is a person who is submits to the Creator. Hence by definition Adam and Hawwa (peace be upon them) were Muslims and are mentioned in both the Torah and the Qur’an, which were given by God.

He ruled by force of arms, and led thousands of soldiers in conquering his neighbors. That makes him, by definition, a warlord.

Completely wrong. Again your lack of knowledge is astounding to say the least. You need to read a biography of the Prophet (peace be upon him) by a respected and trusted biographer who doesn’t even need to be a Muslim. Try Muhammad: A Biography of the Prophet by Karen Armstrong and at least get your facts right.

The histories of that area FROM that area would disagree with you. Regardless of his reason for going to Medina, the fact of the matter is that he rose from 'resident' to 'leader' of the city, which is the textbook definition of 'took over'.

All the Muslims who had migrated to Medina before the Prophet (peace be upon him), welcomed him with open arms and as he was the prophet of course he would be the leader among the Muslims just as Moses and Jesus (peace be upon them) were leaders of the Muslims during their times, etc. etc. So it’s not a question of ‘took over’ as you incorrectly put it as he was the leader among the Muslims when he was in Makkah.
4:59 O you who have believed, obey Allaah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you. And if you disagree over anything, refer it to Allaah and the Messenger, if you should believe in Allaah and the Last Day. That is the best [way] and best in result.

Advancing upon city with 10,000 soldiers, defeating the defending army in battle, and instituting your own rulership by force of arms is, once again, the textbook definition of 'conquer'.

Interesting to note that you don’t mention the fact that the Muslims were driven out of their homes in Makkah by the non-believers and many were tortured and killed. There was no defeating of the army in battle as there was no army at the time that the Muslims re-entered their own city and their homes. What on earth are you talking about? Apart from a few skirmishes (11 non-Muslims and 2 Muslims were killed in exchange) the entry into Makkah in history was one of the most peaceful ever. You need to get your facts right.

Now I have to ask if you're lying or just unable to read well. At no point did I say the words you are putting into my mouth.

I can read perfectly well. You stated in post 5912

… although I do find it amusing that each of you 'proves' the other false because your book says so.

And I gave you an answer so don’t accuse me of lying when I directly answer something you have said. You have consistently twisted established historical events even by notable non-Muslim commentators, to suit your own evil inclinations towards Islam. So if you want to talk about lying or deceiving, you need to look closer to home.
Previous books cannot say that a future book is false if it hasn’t come into existence yet. Show some sense.

And while you're at it, how about addressing the 150+ points I provided where the Qu'ran contradicts itself? Or did you really think no one here will realize you're avoiding the question because you can't answer it?

I have said

If there are contradictions in the Qur’an then share them with us. I would be interested.

Do you seriously think that I have time to look at all 150+ alleged contradictions? I am being bombarded enough as it is. There could be thousands of alleged contradictions and it wouldn’t bother me in the least. I could equally have responded with a website that answers all of these alleged contradictions. If you want to pick an alleged contradiction one by one then that’s a different matter and shows you are serious. Very easy to point to a web page and then say there you go and make accusations of avoidance. Very childish. You don’t seem to be a serious debater. If you want a serious and honest discussion, bring it on. I challenge you to pick any alleged contradiction in the Qur’an and I am more than happy to respond.

That's the thing. All of these scientific determinations are THEORIES, not FACTS. We don't know that the universe was created this way, we can only point to the evidence available to us.

As far as procreation. Humans have known about procreation for a VERY long time. It's not surprising that they would be able to determine how that works thousands of years ago before we understood the science at a cellular level.

As an example, Edwin Hubble proved by experimentation, which we can replicate today, that the universe is expanding and hence not static. Is this not a FACT then?

51:47 And the heaven We constructed with strength, and indeed, We are [its] expander.

Would be interested to see who would know the 3 keys points and in the correct sequence before the Qur’an was revealed given in 23:13-14. Also, as I have repeatedly said, why do the writer(s) of the Qur’an if it does not come from God, choose only the correct science and misses out the incorrect science? For example in c. 150 CE

Galen – was a Greek Biologist and philosopher who practised medicine, was a surgeon to gladiators and a public demonstrator of anatomy.

He also believed women had two uteri ending in single neck.

One of his theories was that if milk flows from the breasts of a pregnant woman, it is an indication that the foetus will be weak. His reasoning for this is; the breasts and uterus are joined by common vessels. The foetus inside the uterus is bathed in nutrients (milk), if this milk overflows to the breasts it is because the foetus is not strong enough to consume as much as it should be.

During Galen’s era it was a common belief that the uterus is a freely movable organ capable of causing disease if it moved. If it moved towards the lungs it caused difficulty breathing, if towards the liver the woman lost her voice.

… and many of the other cultures I named avoid that statement, too.

Exactly that’s the point I was making. Also I did say that it didn’t matter how old the civilisation was, in fact the older the better, so your opening quips seemed pointless. There may be other theories, as you put it, as to how the universe began, but I have concentrated on what most scientists say today and on that basis I chortle at the fact that the Qur’an is in agreement.

 

[Frothingslosh]

There could be thousands of alleged contradictions and it wouldn’t bother me in the least.

And here is the one single fact to be found in all of Aziz's fanatical rantings to date.

 

[aziz rasul]

And here is the one single fact to be found in all of Aziz's fanatical rantings to date.

I could say the same of you as a non believer. Interesting to note that I was accused of hiding from tackling any alleged contradictions and I asked you to start of with one, and where is it? I rest my case. You are not a serious debater and it seems to me that you are afraid of the TRUTH.

 

[Frothingslosh]

I gave you 153. Not my problem if you're not capable of selecting even a single one and responding.

And no one here is afraid of the truth. You merely have yet to provide anything other than opinions, misinformation, distortions of facts, and 'alternative facts'. In order to have a debate, you first have to accept the possibility that someone can see the world differently than you, and like virtually all fanatics, you cannot. Over the years, you have been provided case after case PROVING you wrong factually, based on observation and measurement, and your response is invariably 'No I'm not because the Qu'ran'. Until your mind is open to the possibility that a book written by a man who was, by any modern standard, a barbarian (and don't get me wrong, by today's standards, so were Alexander, the Caesars, and even, say, Aristotle) might just possibly be in error about scientific principles that weren't even known of in his day, you won't be debating.

What you're doing is proselytizing, not debating, and badly at that. I am simply less willing to pussyfoot around than Doc and Galaxiom, because I have given up any hope of you ever being rational. I have little patience left for fanatics incapable of even comprehending that different worldviews even exist, much less what the differences are.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

What is more to the point is what the text says, not the mode of how it was communicated.

aziz - by this standard you would have to accept the Book of Mormon and the writings of Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard. I don't think you can say this and actually mean it. Because by that standard, Hogwart's School of Magic exists!

Islam acknowledges Jesus as a prophet though not as the begotten Son of God. By your standard, since the story of the Egyptian god-hero Horus is a parallel to the story of Jesus, you would have to say that the message is more important than the method of imparting that message. Therefore, the stories about Horus must ALSO be true. After all this time, I would doubt that any witnesses to the events remain, and Horus predates Jesus by about 1200 years minimum.

Don't you SEE the slippery slope you just greased for yourself? You are in so MANY ways a very educated and skilled person. Don't you see what your blind spot just led you to say? If the message is more important than its origin, then we cannot downplay ANY religious books. Yet Islam does exactly that. Can you not see the inherent contradiction?

 

[aziz rasul]

I gave you 153. Not my problem if you're not capable of selecting even a single one and responding.

Of course I am capable of selecting a single one. I was simply giving you the opportunity to select so that you wouldn’t then come back and say ‘why didn’t you mention this particular alleged contradiction etc.

And no one here is afraid of the truth.

Neither am I.

You merely have yet to provide anything other than opinions, misinformation, distortions of facts, and 'alternative facts'. In order to have a debate, you first have to accept the possibility that someone can see the world differently than you, and like virtually all fanatics, you cannot.

You may regard provable scientific facts, which is the foundation of what I have been saying, as opinions, misinformation, etc. then that is your concern. There is no point in you debating anything if you don’t even acknowledge what truthfully has already been discussed and take an entirely parallel course.

Over the years, you have been provided case after case PROVING you wrong factually, based on observation and measurement, and your response is invariably 'No I'm not because the Qu'ran'. Until your mind is open to the possibility that a book written by a man who was, by any modern standard, a barbarian (and don't get me wrong, by today's standards, so were Alexander, the Caesars, and even, say, Aristotle) might just possibly be in error about scientific principles that weren't even known of in his day, you won't be debating.

What you're doing is proselytizing, not debating, and badly at that. I am simply less willing to pussyfoot around than Doc and Galaxiom, because I have given up any hope of you ever being rational. I have little patience left for fanatics incapable of even comprehending that different worldviews even exist, much less what the differences are.

This is simply a rant, I see no discussion or debate here. Hence a bit odd for you to make accusations of me not debating yet where have you discussed anything? Just because The_Doc_Man and Galaxiom don’t agree with my observations does not automatically mean that they are necessarily right and that I am wrong. After all I seem to be the only one on the side of a believer in God in this thread at the moment. If as a minority I must be wrong then why do you all keep coming back to me if I am so WRONG. If you are so fed up with my ‘fanatical’ views then why keep ranting on about it. Surely one rant in a thread is more than enough especially if you bring nothing else to the discussion.

Taking the first alleged contradiction, we have the Qur’anic verse in question

39:40 Say, "If I should err, I would only err against myself. But if I am guided, it is by what my Lord reveals to me. Indeed, He is Hearing and near."

According to the web site this is a contradiction because God says we have to obey God and His Messenger so if the Prophet (peace be upon him) errs how does it make sense that we should obey him. One thing you have to note is that whenever the Prophet (peace be upon him) or indeed the previous prophets as well, instruct the people, these instructions come by inspiration from God Himself to the prophets (peace be upon them). The verse simply shows that when the Prophet (peace be upon him) himself errs as a result of what he may do, it would only affect him and no one else. Hence anything that God guides the Prophet (peace be upon him) towards will always be right, so I fail to see where the contradiction is. I’ll bet that you probably didn’t even look at the alleged contradiction.

aziz - by this standard you would have to accept the Book of Mormon and the writings of Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard. I don't think you can say this and actually mean it. Because by that standard, Hogwart's School of Magic exists!

As the Qur’an is the last book that was to be revealed, then the above mentioned books would not apply anyway. However read below.

Islam acknowledges Jesus as a prophet though not as the begotten Son of God. By your standard, since the story of the Egyptian god-hero Horus is a parallel to the story of Jesus, you would have to say that the message is more important than the method of imparting that message. Therefore, the stories about Horus must ALSO be true. After all this time, I would doubt that any witnesses to the events remain, and Horus predates Jesus by about 1200 years minimum.

The message is indeed important if it comes from God via arch angel Gabriel. I do not see how the scripture was revealed as being more to concentrate on than the content of the Scripture itself. Also, God tells us about 4 books that were revealed in the Qur’an of which the Ten Commandments and the Qur’an have remained intact. However non-Muslims would not accept say the Qur’an, hence God challenges them.

4:82 Then do they not reflect upon the Qur'an? If it had been from [any] other than Allaah, they would have found within it much contradiction.

17:81 And say: "Truth has (now) arrived, and Falsehood perished: for Falsehood is (by its nature) bound to perish."

So if there is a book that was written before the Qur’an was revealed and there are no contradictions and we can prove it does not come from man, then let’s see it. I have shown, using science that the Qur’an could not have been written by man. Also there are no contradictions in it. If there is, show me? If there is a man-made book that matches what is in the Qur’an then that’s OK. It doesn’t mean it comes from God, but it would make sense to accept it as it matches. For example, Jesus’s (peace be upon him) message:-

The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ Mark 12:29-30

If the author of the Scripture is God then of course the origin is important (I didn’t say otherwise) providing we can prove this. The fact that there was an intermediary, angel Gabriel, who transmitted it directly to the Messenger of God from God, so what. Sorry, I see no slippery slope of contradiction as you see it.

If God exists, He has to be the Creator of everything that is an attribute, among others, that a god needs to have. Hence God will talk about His creation, hence the science of creation that the Qur’an talks about. If you know of a book that you can prove could NOT have come from man, then let’s examine it. I have used creation or science. If you have some other way of doing this, I am happy to look at it, whenever it was revealed.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

As the Qur’an is the last book that was to be revealed, then the above mentioned books would not apply anyway.

The books I mentioned POST-date the Qur'an and therefore, by your logic, supersede it. Aziz, you CANNOT have it both ways. You are still evading the real question and are too stubborn to realize it. If the message did not originate from your creator, then to say the message outweighs the mode of message revelation means that modern demagogues can have messages equally valid as the Qur'an even if contrary to it. Don't you SEE what you are proposing?

I called you a reasonably intelligent person and still believe that but - forgive me - you are exposing a MAJOR blind spot in that intelligence by your continued assertion.

The WHOLE POINT of a Divine Revelation in a holy book is that its origin must be ... well, ... DIVINE! So HELL YES the method of revelation is important. There is no reason to believe the message unless you have exceptional reasons to trust or believe in the messenger. Otherwise, the book of Mormon, originating in the 1800s, HAS to be considered as more recent - and therefore, an update - to the words that preceded it. Which includes the Qur'an, among other things.

When we refer to blind obedience, THIS is the kind of reaction to which we refer. It is the blind obedience to the leader that leads lemmings off a cliff to their doom.

What is more to the point is what the text says, not the mode of how it was communicated.

If the author of the Scripture is God then of course the origin is important (I didn’t say otherwise) providing we can prove this.

Seems to me you DID say otherwise. And there is a fatal flaw in the second statement. "Provided we can prove this." But you CAN NEVER prove that which is forever a matter of faith, not proof.

 

[aziz rasul]

The books I mentioned POST-date the Qur'an and therefore, by your logic, supersede it. Aziz, you CANNOT have it both ways. You are still evading the real question and are too stubborn to realize it. If the message did not originate from your creator, then to say the message outweighs the mode of message revelation means that modern demagogues can have messages equally valid as the Qur'an even if contrary to it. Don't you SEE what you are proposing?

As a Muslim I can say what I have said and as a non-Muslim you have a right not to agree, it’s not a case of stubbornness as you put it. As a Muslim, the Qur’an is the final revelation so therefore me saying that the book of Mormon’s cannot be considered is a valid comment and therefore Islamically cannot be a religious book divinely inspired or given. As a non-believer of course it doesn’t make sense. We are simply approaching the issue from different viewpoints. So what makes sense to you won’t necessarily make sense to me if the boundaries of my belief are comprised, which I know are correct. It makes no sense for me to accept the Qur’an as the final revelation as a boundary and then simply ignore it. What kind of a Muslim would that make me? By being consistent in my belief is what is important otherwise you would accuse me of being contradictory.

As a non-believer you think that anyone who thinks that there religious book is genuine and has been divinely given, then I have said prove it, which is what I have been trying to do using science. If I simply concentrate in the mode of communication of the Qur’an you would say prove it? However if I can prove to myself, through science, that the Qur’an could not be the work of man, then that is something you can ‘see’ and therefore the mode of communication is important but secondary to the message. Muslims don’t ponder on the manner in which the Qur’an was revealed once they accept that it was revealed divinely, they ponder over the Qur’anic verses as this more relevant on a day to day basis.

If you can prove that any religious book could not have been written by man by whatever means you think will prove this, then clearly it will be transmitted by a god, how the words were communicated is a secondary matter to me. The Ten Commandments were given on stone tablets. Is that more important or what the commandments say accepting that they were given to us by Allaah.

I called you a reasonably intelligent person and still believe that but - forgive me - you are exposing a MAJOR blind spot in that intelligence by your continued assertion.

From where you stand on the discussion I can understand that but from where I stand, I see no blind spot.

Chapter 109
In the name of Allaah, the Entirely Merciful, the Especially Merciful.
I do not worship what you worship.
Nor are you worshippers of what I worship.
Nor will I be a worshipper of what you worship.
Nor will you be worshippers of what I worship.
For you is your religion, and for me is my religion.

Seems to me you DID say otherwise. And there is a fatal flaw in the second statement. "Provided we can prove this." But you CAN NEVER prove that which is forever a matter of faith, not proof.

What I am saying is that the mode of communication, once accepted by a Muslim, is of secondary importance. The fact that the Scripture is the word of God, surely has to be more important. After all in this thread I haven’t harped on about how the Qur’an was revealed but rather what the Qur’an says. If I can prove to you that the verses regarding science and creation could not have been written by man, then are you going to jump up and down to that fact or that it was given by God through arch angel Gabriel piece meal? Many non-Muslims who eventually become Muslims, don’t do so through faith as they initially don’t have any faith to hang on to. They do and can compare and contrast the Qur’anic verses with science and come to the correct conclusion and then and only then faith begins to take over. Again it depends which point of the debate you stand.

If the Qur’anic verses regarding provable science agree with what the majority of scientists, irrespective of their beliefs, say, then that to me is not faith but PROOF.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

If I can prove to you that the verses regarding science and creation could not have been written by man,

This is the crux of our disagreement. I have every reason to believe that writings you showed us are not definitively divinely inspired, and not specific enough to qualify as anything other than at best a close guess. For the parts about human reproduction, a lot of that information would be available for any scholar doing autopsies for the purpose of gaining knowledge. For the creation mythos, it is not that different from many others I have seen.

As to proof, perhaps this is only a leftover from my own former religion, but in the Bible, God has made it clear that we only come to Him in faith, for there WILL be no proof. We were taught that if we could prove something, then of necessity that thing we just proved could NOT have been divinely created because it would counter the "only through faith" doctrine. Therefore, by that doctrine, if you can prove the scientific accuracy of the Qur'an, by (at least some parts of) Protestant doctrine, it must not be of divine origin. More specifically, anything that is both provable and apparently divine must be an artifice of Satan, placed here to steer you away from God and towards a false god.

Perhaps with that explanation, you can see the impasse we have reached. If the Qur'an is actually provable, then it violates the "only through faith" doctrine and must be the work of Satan.

Of course, since I no longer have that faith, I won't actually make that claim, since a belief in Satan would necessitate a belief in God. And there, I do not go.

I must go back to the thing that a very painful time in my life brought me to believe. ALL of the holy books that involve a deity are holdovers from a time when people had no other explanation for the frightening phenomena around them, so they fabricated an anthropomorphic immortal spirit as the cause.

Arthur C Clarke's statement, which I will paraphrase here, applies: Any sufficiently advanced science will resemble magic to those who don't know the science.

As a scientist, finding coincidentally correct explanations in an old book do not constitute proof. The nature and origin of the book is subject to scrutiny, but as long as the book says that it is true, we have a circular reference - which resolves to the "It is because I say it is" class of argument, which is "argumentum ad authoritatem" (or something like that) and a known fallacy of formal logic.

 

[aziz rasul]

This is the crux of our disagreement. I have every reason to believe that writings you showed us are not definitively divinely inspired, and not specific enough to qualify as anything other than at best a close guess. For the parts about human reproduction, a lot of that information would be available for any scholar doing autopsies for the purpose of gaining knowledge. For the creation mythos, it is not that different from many others I have seen.

No autopsy can tell you that a drop of sperm is required for fertilisation and that the drop of sperm is firmly lodged.
No autopsy can tell you that it is the father that determines the gender of the child.

The fact that the Qur’an tells us about the bursting of a particle which began the creation of our universe.
The fact that the Qur’an tells us that the early universe was gaseous.
The fact that the Qur’an tells us that the universe is expanding.

Etc. etc.

As to proof, perhaps this is only a leftover from my own former religion, but in the Bible, God has made it clear that we only come to Him in faith, for there WILL be no proof. We were taught that if we could prove something, then of necessity that thing we just proved could NOT have been divinely created because it would counter the "only through faith" doctrine. Therefore, by that doctrine, if you can prove the scientific accuracy of the Qur'an, by (at least some parts of) Protestant doctrine, it must not be of divine origin. More specifically, anything that is both provable and apparently divine must be an artifice of Satan, placed here to steer you away from God and towards a false god.

Perhaps with that explanation, you can see the impasse we have reached. If the Qur'an is actually provable, then it violates the "only through faith" doctrine and must be the work of Satan.

You have created an issue based on the Bible (which is a corruption of the original and where the NT is written by man) and of having faith only to judge the Qur’an. The Qur’an, the only surviving book by God that has been maintained cannot be judged in this way. I’m sure Satan is not a happy bunny when he sees non-Muslims accepting Islam after they see the scientific evidence in the Qur’an.

I must go back to the thing that a very painful time in my life brought me to believe. ALL of the holy books that involve a deity are holdovers from a time when people had no other explanation for the frightening phenomena around them, so they fabricated an anthropomorphic immortal spirit as the cause.

No doubt true for many religions and religious books. Note that if you had the original pristine original of the Torah, it may have been a different outcome.

Arthur C Clarke's statement, which I will paraphrase here, applies: Any sufficiently advanced science will resemble magic to those who don't know the science.

I’m sure with your intellect this does not apply to you.

As a scientist, finding coincidentally correct explanations in an old book do not constitute proof.

Well I know of no other book written over even a few hundred years ago who can claim this other than the Qur’an. You will find ancient books that give you incorrect scientific facts like the book of Genesis. You may not be impressed by the Qur'an but many new reverts to Islam are.

The nature and origin of the book is subject to scrutiny, but as long as the book says that it is true, we have a circular reference - which resolves to the "It is because I say it is" class of argument, which is "argumentum ad authoritatem" (or something like that) and a known fallacy of formal logic.

But the Qur’an is also giving you facts to ponder over. You can’t accept a book simply on the basis that the book itself says it’s from God. That’s why I have been giving scientific Qur’anic verses to prove my case so where is the circular reference?

 

[The_Doc_Man]

No autopsy can tell you that a drop of sperm is required for fertilisation and that the drop of sperm is firmly lodged.

Firmly lodged? That's HALF a claim. Lodged in what? (Lodged is generally taken as a relational verb implying something in which to be lodged.) And a drop? Actually, not even a drop - but the implied claim is simply not that earth-shaking.

No autopsy can tell you that it is the father that determines the gender of the child.

And the quote you provided was ambiguous on that point, at least to my reading. I didn't see any clear statement to that effect.

The fact that the Qur’an tells us about the bursting of a particle which began the creation of our universe.

See previous comments. (A) not a unique claim so in that aspect, gets lost in the shuffle; and (B) merely consistent in a vague sense with at least a dozen other world-creation or universe-creation mythos.

The fact that the Qur’an tells us that the early universe was gaseous.

Hell, the CURRENT universe is gaseous. Other mythos (what would be the plural of mythos? Mythoses?) tell us the universe was without form - which is merely a physical-properties description of something gaseous. So different description, same general concept. Again, nothing unique there.

The fact that the Qur’an tells us that the universe is expanding.

Only had a few choices, but the truth is that it isn't a tough guess. If you have the concept of a "seed" or "egg" or "particle" exploding or expanding to create the universe, there is no big leap to assume that the expansion hasn't stopped. So this constitutes a "so what" type of comment.

Aziz, you absolutely are entitled (and, to be honest, expected) to place unusual credence to the words of your holy book if that is a tenet of your faith. I, however, who have discarded the teachings of any faith, place no UNUSUAL credence on the words of any holy book.

I'll agree with you on a very narrow point, not to be taken as a general concession. Sometimes the message in the holy book is worth adopting. My take-away from the Bible is the importance of forgiveness. The burdens released and the pain absolved by the simple act of forgiving are incredibly phenomenal. It's one reason why if we ever met, despite this sometimes spirited (you should pardon the pun) debate, it would be a pleasure to shake your hand and wish you peace.

 

[scott-atkinson]

It's one reason why if we ever met, despite this sometimes spirited (you should pardon the pun) debate, it would be a pleasure to shake your hand and wish you peace.

Not much chance on that unless President Trump lifts his ban on Muslims..

 

[Frothingslosh]

Depends on if Aziz's nationality is a nation that has spawned people who have launched terrorist attacks against the US or not.

If terrorists from his nation have attacked the US before, he's fine. Same if the Cheeto in Chief has business interests in his nation.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Guys, I believe in being chivalrous during an argument.

You DO know the definition of chivalry, don't you?

You sing the praises of your worthy opponent as you spill his guts all over the ground.

Of course, that's self-serving since if your opponent WASN'T worthy, why did you bother to fight?

 

[Frothingslosh]

My post is pretty clear who I was slamming, and it was no one who uses this forum.