It always makes me laugh when you see gypsies whinging about not being accepted by the general populace. If they started paying taxes and stopped committing crimes, they might be.
no your choosing to not understand what i am saying. i have gone out of my way to repeat the same point to you. all you are doing is pointing th eproverbial finger, without any basis The point i was countering was/is not what you are asserting. I never made the point, i was explaining to you that i havent said something you are keen to imprees upon me. the fact remains that a discovery in the 20th century was already made 1400 years ago. acceptance/non acceptance is not the debate It was common for th greeks to use the word for 'earth;' as universe. and they believed the universe was round, google it. the fact still remains that the expansion of the universe was again discovered in th e20th century, quran mentioned it 1400 years ago
read my sentence again you asked why matter cant just exist, without a creator if you believe something is eternal and doesnt need creation then that answers your who made god question how you can accept it to prove a point, but not otherwise kind a proves your own ' i cant hear' theory i wasnt suggesting it does, i am asking you where matter came from you not accepting it is not the same as me not answering it. I have answered this, look back
your just going over old ground again i fear. I will repeat the question, because that is the point explain how a book, allegedly written by an illiterate man, talks about dying stars (in whatever context) when no technlology existed to know this? when did we find out about stars dying? 20th century, yet it is in a book written 1400 years ago you can vbe pedantic, use semantics, apportion blame whatever it is becoming clear that word play is the order of the day, no matter what 'evidence' is presented
Sorry, but you're wrong again. Neither was proclaimed in the Quran. The interpretations were changed once these things were discovered by science. Man wasn't formed from clay or dust and the subsequent descriptions of embryology (3 veils of darkness, for example) are vague, at best. The same applies to the decision that the description of the universe should actually say 'expanding', rather than the previously accepted 'vast'. As someone has said before, it's like the prophecies of Nostradamus. I've given you an example of someone actually trying to measure the circumference of the earth, yet you still won't accept the truth.
You're missing the point, yet again. You are asserting that god created everything and that everything needs a creator, correct? If this is the case, then what created god? Still with me? If you claim that god doesn't need a creator, because he's eternal, then why does matter need a creator, as it cannot be destroyed, as far as we know? If things can be eternal, then creation is unnecessary. If creation is a requirement of existence, then you have an infinite regression of who created god, who created god's creator, etc.
PNP I admire your patience but he's ****ed, he never gets the point/meaning of a post and answers something completely different, whilst asking more questions than he fails to understand the answers to... There's no point, just let him keep his ******ed views, he'll definitely have the last laugh when he gets his teenage virgins in heaven
you not accepting doesnt make it wrong I have provided you with the surahs and the references. all of it from the quran the moore situation is only one example of how it wasnt changed as you assert after science had discovered them The quran language is another discussion, suffice to say it wont be in speak which only science understands, it is a book for all. further to that the 3 veils of darkness is a small bit in a long process. The process describing the different phases of the embroyo's development. This is what i mean, you are so focussed on one bit you are not looking at the rest i suggest you consult an arabic linguist for the meanings of vastness/expanding, yes there are translations of the quran, and as you asserted with another poster other 'versions' of the 'quran'. I put this in '' as are they the quran? for example the nation of islam are NOT muslims (by the islamic definition) but people think they are how have i not accepted your example? have i said the greeks didnt? your making things up now
no you have forgotten how the debate has developed firstly i was responding to you accepting matter exists because it is eternal, but arguing against the same applying to god I have already answered how the quran deals with god. I dont know what god is, i do know it isnt a man in robes etc I think you are forgetting your own responses and the counters tbh
I'll try this one more time, as I'm going to assume that you don't understand what my point is. For a change. Surah 77 is about everything being destroyed. It uses seemingly indestructible things as examples, such as mountains and stars. That these things aren't actually indestructible points to a lack of divine knowledge in the Quran, not the opposite. If stars die all the time, then using them to herald to end of days is not a good sign. It suggests that Mohammed (or whoever wrote the Quran) didn't realise that they could die or dim, however you choose to translate/interpret it.
Is this your idea of paradise [video=youtube;2S7ddl1tGg4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2S7ddl1tGg4[/video]
i am assuming your wumming/trolling now Surah 77 is about everything being destroyed. It uses seemingly indestructible things as examples, such as mountains and stars. - I diagree with indestructabe but for arguments sake ok yes, but irrelevant That these things aren't actually indestructible points to a lack of divine knowledge in the Quran, not the opposite. - the point is that it is saying they are destructible and will crumble/die, If stars die all the time, then using them to herald to end of days is not a good sign. - we only found out they died in the 20th century, how could someone know 1400 years ago without hubble etc? It suggests that Mohammed (or whoever wrote the Quran) didn't realise that they could die or dim, however you choose to translate/interpret it. - muhammad was illiterate, however dim/die they do. so the writer DID realise it and wrote it.
of course it is, because it doesnt fit in with your point of view tbh this is the reason i didnt go into smaller detail with you, as i kind of knew that this was about'winning' not having a discussion you havent answere the question how could it have been known 1400 years ago?
No, it's ridiculous because you're either unable or unwilling to see anyone else's point of view. You're not trying to have a discussion, you're trying to preach. How could it have been known 1,400 years ago? It wasn't, at least not by those that wrote the Quran. Other than divine knowledge, how else could it have been know? Astronomy. Maps of the stars have been around for as long as we can remember. People used to navigate by them. If visible stars disappeared, then people would notice. You obviously won't accept this though, so I'm not sure why I'm bothering.
how is answering your questions preaching? Its the same old same old, i dont agree so i'll sling mud, make accussations etc etc are you saying stars dying isnt in the quran now? name the astronomer and provide the piece of work that said so before the quran this is conjecture and nothing more, asertions without any evidence stars die, FACT . Quran mentioned it 1400 years ago FACT how many visible stars have disappeared? how come people only started knowing about stars dying after hubble? So i should accept simply because you assert?
RE: TFWNN You're not discussing anything. You can't accept any point of view that differs to your own. You're just listing things that you've been told about the Quran and if anyone questions them, then you put up a wall and say that they're mud slinging or using Jewish lies. The passage that you're talking about has been translated as 'stars dimming' before, hasn't it? That's why I keep saying dimming/dying. Not everybody uses the same translation/interpretation that you do. You're unable to understand why I don't accept your version of what the Quran is saying, but I'll give it another try anyway. Surah 77 is not talking about what happens in normal circumstances. It is saying that at the end of days stars will die, not before then. That requires no divine knowledge. I await your answer that will contain the same stuff that you've already said. Stars die - FACT The Quran says that stars will die - FACT That means that Islam is true - FACT
