I may be wrong here, but I don't see how religious texts are central to this argument. The Bible/Torah/Qur'an, etc are only books, and could be equated to early science books. For example, (and I apologise for using Chemistry as an example - I'm a chemist), a scientist called Arrhenius was the first to propose charged atoms/molecules, an idea which at the time was deemed crazy, for atoms were thought to be completely indivisible, and were very hard to observe, so it nearly cost him his university degree. However, in time he was vindicated, and the chemistry of ions is a well understood basis of modern chemical understanding. In the same way, the predictions in these religious texts, if you remove the religious fervour surrounding and defending the idea, would have been similarly treated by scientists, and there are few accounts (if any), of how learned people of the time reacted to the ideas proposed in these religious texts when they were first laid down. Whilst Arrhenius, amongst others, were ahead of their time, why can't a figure in a religious text have been similarly insightful? Why is a supernatural explanation necessary for someone having a bright idea ahead of their time? And equally, many scientists have proposed crazy theories and been hopelessly wrong, the same can be said for 'facts' in religious texts. Nobody takes the statements in the bible that the earth is flat and the sun orbits the earth as knowledge laid down by an almighty god, so why should this apply to the nuggets of truth?
That's the thing though, SNIAW. It's an opinion. If god created all of this, then it stands to reason that he'd be even more complex than his creation, so surely he can't just exist, either? I have no problem with Islamic prophecies or Quranic quotes, as long as they stand up to scrutiny. The same applies for each religion. Your final point sounds a lot like the sort of misinformation that you've suggested AnsweringIslam is. I take it that nobody's going to deny that the Quran is rather negative about Jews, are they? Could it not be that it's just a site run by people that don't believe in Islam? I haven't been using it, so I wouldn't know how accurate or inaccurate it is, but the Jewish conspiracy thing just sounds like paranoia or misinformation on the part of whoever told you that.
no you didnt 'counter' them. yo refused to accept them without providing any evidence as to why. that is not countering. you basically saying no it isnt Its funny you say what you say about Moore, his books are used in universities such as yale. and the point was that what he 'discovered' was that the quran already explained it, and it was an accurate description of the process. something which could not have been described with such accuracy as there were no means Cousteaus discovery was likewise, you have made certain assumptions here too it seems. It isnt basically just a case of tasting it. the discovery was that there are indeed 2 bodies of water that meet, yet do not mix. A fact unknown to science, but described in the quran. another scientific discovery, that turned out not to be a discovery you talk about weak argument, yet i have to hear one from you. as i say 'i dont accept it' without rhyme nor reason is not an argument yes i took the quote from a paper, i would have told you if you ask. doesnt make it less valid. again you say it is laughable, yet offer no counter argument as for th eburden of proof, the notion of theism is older than athiesm. as such the claim is being made by athiests. so by your argument the burden is upon the athiest as such, athiests are shifting the burden therefore their argument is weak
name one islamic country doing this, and i will prove it isnt islamic your arguments are based on heresay etc yes people bend the message to suit, but why look at them? look at the message
which is exactly the quranic/islamic view on the topic in simple terms a carpenter doesnt look like the table he created/made/manufactured it is beyond human understanding, a child doesnt know how it was made, it grows and matures and learns the quran promises that we will know, it also says dont try and rationalise it, as in guy with beard I have argued that a creator exists, what he/she looks like etc i havent touched as i dont know the reason we say allah and not god, is because of that very reason. it implies no gender etc
Can we have a policy of people having to make reasoned arguments please, and then not every point descending into a debate about grammar and who said what? If you make unambiguous points, and support them, it makes life a lot easier for everyone.
I'm sorry, but that's just completely wrong. I've pointed out exactly what's wrong with what Cousteau was claiming: it doesn't require divine knowledge, it requires a sense of taste. Looking at refutations of this claim online, it appears that it's not actually accurate, either. Oops! Moore's claims are also poor, as the Quran simply doesn't describe human embryology and also wouldn't require divine knowledge, just the use of anatomical knowledge, which the Greeks advanced 1,000 years prior to the Quran. 3 veils of darkness just doesn't describe any part of the human body, in anything other than utterly vague metaphor. You can force it to fit, but it requires a lot of faith. As I asked you before, I Moore is right, then why doesn't the scientific community agree with him? Again, you're asking me to provide proof of atheism, when I've already explained to you why none is needed. Atheism isn't a claim, it's a rejection of claims. Atheism is the default position and claims to the contrary are clearly wrong. Theism doesn't predate atheism, either. If you don't accept science, then I'm afraid that you shouldn't be using your computer to communicate with me. You've obviously blinded yourself to any truth that doesn't match Islam.
You've entirely missed the point of what I was saying. If creation is too complex to just exist and thus requires a creator, then surely the creator is even more complex and would require yet another, even more complex creator and so on. You're suggesting that it's ok to say that we don't understand god, but it's not ok to say that we don't know what started the big bang or how abiogenesis works, exactly.
The quran is basically themanual' that the creator has given to us within that manual there are certain 'miracles' that testify to his existence. basically things that were not/could not have been known and science only recently found that is the basic premise examples The Koran states that there are two seas that meet but don't intermingle because of a barrier between them (Koran 55:19-20). It is a necessity that seas intermingle through straits between them. The Koran however is aware of a very unusual phenomenon, which scientists discovered only recently. The Mediterranean and Atlantic oceans differ in their chemical and biological constitution. The French scientist Jacques Yves Cousteau conducted various undersea investigations at the Strait of Gibraltar and explaining these phenomena concluded: "Unexpected fresh water springs issue from the southern and northern coasts of Gibraltar. These mammoth springs gush towards each other at angles of 45 degrees forming a reciprocal dam. Due to this fact the Mediterranean and the Atlantic Oceans cannot intermingle (as quoted by Nurbaki)." Did Muhammed do research on the chemical and biological components of seawater to discover this unusual phenomena? EMBRYO SEX DETERMINATION The Koran says that the "ejaculated drop" determines the sex of a human baby (Koran 53:45). It is common knowledge that semen is the fluid that is ejaculated by males during sexual acts. Females do not possess such "ejaculated semen." The sex of the baby, whether it be male or female, will indeed be determined by the 'ejaculated drop', i.e. the father's sperm, as mentioned by the Koran. It has been scientifically established only recently that the female ovum contains only X-chromosomes. If the ejaculated drop, the father's sperm bears the Y chromosome, the offspring will be male, and otherwise the offspring will be female. No one living at the time of Muhammed or even Darwin for that matter had any knowledge of such genetics foretold centuries earlier in the Koran. THE ORIGIN OF LIFE The Koran mentions that all life originated from water (Koran 21:30) and that man himself is "created" of water and so are all the animals on earth (Koran 25:54, and 24:45). Now these statements to an Arab would have sounded atrocious in that day and age. Even today such statements in the Koran might cause you to wonder if scientific facts about them are unknown. The fact that all life originated in water is well established by the scientific community today. They have evidence to support the fact that the first living beings were algae, and they existed in water. The fact that human beings and animals are created of water is also well established since cytoplasm the basic component of "life" in any animal cell is over 80% water. THE GASEOUS ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE The Koran mentions that the universe originated, at a stage, from a "gaseous material." (Koran 41:11). It uses the Arabic word Dukhan, which stands for smoke. A perfect analogy for gas and particles in suspension and the gasses being hot. Scientists have only very recently confirmed that the universe did indeed originate from a gaseous mass composed of hydrogen and helium, a big mass of hot gasses, a mass over 300,000 times that of the earth. That mass then fragmented to form galaxies. Muhammad, who had no schooling of any kind and was illiterate before the revelation of the Koran, could not have possibly known this. The Koran gives an accurate visual description of the Big Bang theory of the creation of the universe. In the 21st chapter, verse 30 (21:30), the Koran states: "Do not the rejecters see that the heavens and earth were a unit joined together then we split them apart (21:30)." This is exactly how the 'rejecter' scientists envision the creation of the universe, from one singularity, which then exploded, termed the 'big bang'. Thus the Koran told us about the "common origin" of everything in the universe much before scientists described it in the 20th century. How do we explain this information in the Koran if it is not what it claims to be, the words of an all-knowing ? Professor Alfred Kroner, chairman of the Department of Geology at the Institute of Geosciences, Johannes Gutenburg University, Mainz, Germany stated about this verse in the Koran: "Somebody who did not know something about nuclear physics 1400 years ago could not, I think, be in a position to find out from his own mind for instance that the earth and the heavens had the same origin, or many others of the questions that we have discussed here.(Rehaili 1995)" THE EXPANDING UNIVERSE The Koran talks about a universe that is continually "expanding" (Koran 51:47). The concept of an expanding universe is very popular with scientists today, however no one knew of it until recently. Do you know that the universe is expanding? Can you feel or see it expanding? No, the verification of this requires specialized knowledge and instruments, which no one at the time of Muhammad had access to. The Koran states: "And the sky we built it with might and We cause the 'expansion' of it (Koran 51:47)." THE DEATH OF STARS The Koran mentions the 'death of stars' (Koran 77:7-8). Astronomers including Dr. Patterson of Southwest Missouri State are surprised at finding this information in the Koran. They know that at the time of Muhammad, people believed that once a thing was formed, it was permanent. The Koran is very accurate when it mentions dying stars. Our own sun is a dying star. PHASES OF THE MOON The Koran talks about the phases of the moon (Koran 36:38-39). There is no book, to my knowledge, that predates the Koran that mentions the modern term "phase" in connection with the moon. Dr. Patterson confirms this. The Arabic word used for "phase" in the Koran is Manazil. MOVEMENT OF THE SUN . The sun's movement is not something that is evident to our eyes or experience but requires specialized equipment. The Koran states in chapter 36, verse 39: "And the sun constantly journeys towards a homing place for it and for the moon, We have determined phases (36:39)." Modern science has found out that the sun rotates around its axis every 26 days . The Koran mentions the movement of the sun, with its own motion, signified by the verb Yasbahoon in Arabic. Thus according to the Koran the sun is not just flying through space but moving on its own, i.e. rotating. The sun is also continually on a journey in space towards its homing place, the solar apex, just like mentioned in the Koran (36:39). How could Muhammed have known these facts if the Koran is the product of his mind? HUMAN EMBRYOLOGY The Koran is known to be the first book to give microscopic details of human embryology(Koran 23:13-14 etc.), hundreds of years before the discovery of the microscope! The Koran contains information on embryology, which was not discovered till about 30 years back and certain details were new even to modern scientists but were immediately confirmed as being accurate. The Koran mentions that at a certain stage, the developing human is like "allaqa", a leech-like clot. If you take a microscopic picture of a human embryo of days 7-12 and place it next to a picture of a leech, they both look identical. Not only do they look the same but they function in the same way too. Just like a leech derives nourishment from its host's blood, the embryo derives nourishment from the decidua or the pregnant endometrium. These facts about the Koran are well documented and listed by Keith L. Moore in his standard textbooks on embryology, books used in such prestigious institutions as the Yale Medical School.
Heresay! The entire basis of the holy books and the doctrine that comes from them is either heresay if you are a believer or pure fiction if not. This proves why you cannot have a sensible debate on religion. You cannot even see that your entire argument is based on heresay and storytelling from thousands of years ago, yet you treat it as truth and fact. Surely if it is the word of god it should be clear and not subject to personal opinion. As all the holy books are quite obviously very badly written isn't that proof that there is no divine hand involved and the entire basis for the religions is flawed. Are you suggesting it doesn't take place? You'll be saying that women aren't killed by family members for refusing arranged marriages or for other perceived crimes next. Really you should take off the blinkers you are making a fool of yourself.
lol. thats like saying to understand gravity you have to fall over. people fell before gravity was 'discovered' refutations by whom? your doing that no it isnt, but no evidence thing again Moores claims are poor? so poor that it is accepted today in medical books etc? You do know Moore's claim wasnt based on the quran, he 'discovered' the embroyological process as we know it today, and was told oh ok thats what it says here, causing him to accept islam. and as i said you can look at a 'translation' of the quran and come to your conclusion as your basis for looking is to 'prove' a point, so taking things out of context and looking for translations that suit. i have explained the process of reading/understanding the quran. by what your saying, Islam is not a claim it is a rejection of claims I do accept science, and it is science that lead me to islam, ironically. and theism does predate athiesm
so many questions yet you fail to answer 1? you are basing your argument on christianity. as such i agree, christianity in its current form is heresay and storytelling I am not suggesting anything, what i am SAYING is that just because X happens in a country or by a people doesnt mean its right/true arranged marriage is an indian custom, still practiced by people from countries such as pakistan and bangladesh, which on the surface are 'muslim countries' but their practices are often anti-islamic a sensible debate can only be had if A) the tone is not aggressive B) preconcieved ideas are left out C) it is 2 way process etc etc
No, I'm not doing that 'no it isn't' thing again. I'm doing what you have done. You've made claims that scripture says something, without actually quoting the scripture. I've made the claim that a refutation exists, without quoting that refutation. Google it, as you suggested to me. What medical books accept Moore's claims that the Quran has divine knowledge of human embryology? This should be good. I can look at a translation of the Quran and make false conclusions? So can you! There are many different translations of it and many interpretations, too. Your claim that the word smoke actually means gaseous material in your example above, for instance. How is Islam a rejection of claims? It's quite clearly a claim. Atheism is the rejection of religious claims. It doesn't claim anything. Theism doesn't predate atheism. The word might, but until theists existed there was no need for the word atheist, as everyone was one. If I were to invent some random religion and call of it's followers PNPers and those that didn't believe APNPers, that wouldn't say anything about the truth of that religion.
If there is a god, and he is omnipotent can he create a big **** off stone that he himself cannot move?
Thats a very good argument, especially about crazy scientific theories. Religious texts can be taken as gospel, but we need to analyse all the theory surrounding the texts. The major problem is that these texts usually work in ideals, and nobody can say that they live in an ideal word. We need to analyse these texts, line by line, and decipher the true meaning behind them.
what? I havent been posting scriptures? now your just taking the piddle not only have i posted scriptures, i have even cited the people i have mentioned you have made many refutations, as in 'no it doesnt' as for moore, LOL. so now we are going to use the 'twisty words' method are we? moore's 'discovery' is in medical books, as in the process of embroyology. Used today. I already gave you the name of the book after 'discovering' the process, he realised ,by his own admission (again quoted), that it was exactly th esame as in the quran now it seems you are trolling
I have an outside the box idea. We're never going to agree on whether gods do exist, but let's all just open our minds, and try to entertain the possibilities that he does, whatever your views, just for the sake of all our blood pressure.
religiion is not as devisive as people think, not all religion anyway. usually there is/are underlying issues eg yasser arafat was married to a jew, did he hate jews? the issue with morals is interesting. what makes one better than the other? eg *****phillia, who decides its wrong? is it 18 or 16? why/how change it?
You've been posting the surahs by number, without actually using the full quotes or context, most of the time. I'm not using any twisty word method (semantics), at all. I asked you why Moore's claims that the Quran contains divine knowledge about embryology aren't widely accepted by the medical community. I made no comment on his actual work. You seem to have trouble accepting that some people don't agree with your point of view. It is possible to see the claims that you make and not accept them.
