Quran detailing stuff impossible to know without modern scientific gear

[scifes]

?
IF internal waves were seen before, then most likely nobody knew they were internal waves.
[?]

[GeoffP]

Islam is a religion.. Quran is a revelation.... get those two things straight.. I've already given evidence for multiple meanings and some things of which there is no known meaning.

And no readings from the Quran are used in the cause of prosetylization? That would be news to many people.

I don't need to repeat myself about the many meanings of the quran.

I agree that there are many meanings of the Quran - indeed, I've given some myself - but, again, that doesn't equate to the acceptance of meaninglessness.

And I never said 'meaningless' -

But I did. If you offer out an allegory that is meaningless, people will fail to understand it. Hence, Mohammed offered the idea of waves and increasing darkness with depth, as we've discussed. Clearly the idea was well understood at the time. I don't think you've been following the discussion.

it is not.
yet it is in mohammad's book.
was mohammad stupid enough to leave it there if it didn't make sense?

I cannot speak on the issue of Mohammed's intelligence one way or the other. I do know that increasing darkness with depth would have been quite well known at the time, unless you think that people of that era believed you could see all the way to the bottom of the seabed while standing in a boat.

And just imagine the ease of treasure-hunting, were that the case. I should write a short story related to that.

Except that the precise detail is all made up in your head. There's absolutely nothing novel in that verse. Nothing. If anything this debate is a classic example of how a person who wants to believe in something badly enough - will.

Precisely.

[spidergoat]

?
IF internal waves were seen before, then most likely nobody knew they were internal waves.
[?]

If they saw waves and interpreted them as internal because that's what they look like, and they were correct, then how do you know Mohammad wasn't just another one of those people?

[scifes]

I cannot speak on the issue of Mohammed's intelligence one way or the other. I do know that increasing darkness with depth would have been quite well known at the time,

lets talk business.
prove it.
support it.
offer more than "i do know"

unless you think that people of that era believed you could see all the way to the bottom of the seabed while standing in a boat.

they sat on the boat and couldn't see all the way to the bottom.
that doesn't mean they knew that at some places in the sea, it's too dark you can't see your hand.
as a matter of fact, their experience with lighting inside the sea is the direct opposite of that, they could see inside the water when they dived.
hence, places so dark inside the sea was unfathomable.
the connection between the two is only logical because we already know about it.
as i said, the existence of white and black kittens, white and black dogs, white and black pigeons, white and black goats..etc. did not stop people of europe from disbelieving in the exitance of black swans.
i have mentioned this in the debate thread, and searched for it and reposted it here, you have either:
a-not read it.
b-acting if you haven't read it.
and are repeating yourself and others.
i find that tiring, frustrating, and a waste of time.
please don't do it again, same plead to spider and iceaura and michael.

And just imagine the ease of treasure-hunting, were that the case.

i don't believe you just said that.
go re-read the op in the debate thread.
darkness couldn't be the reason they couldn't treasure hunt, because the human body or any known apparatuses couldn't even barely reach the depth where it's so dark.
you, apparantly, know nothing about the matter you are discussing.
yet you are discussing it.
and are(along with michael) actually believing that we are the ones who are trying to support our belief in any way.
very frustrating indeed....treasure hunting.

If they saw waves

perhaps nobody did.
are you saying those waves happen anywhere?
what is the possibility of them being seen anywhere near the arabian penunsula?

and interpreted them as internal because that's what they look like,

most likely they didn't intepret them as internal waves, because they can't look like internal waves, because nobody knew what internal waves were.
and if you were right, they would have documented it. it would have been widely known, and that would be easy for you to show.

and they were correct, then how do you know Mohammad wasn't just another one of those people?

most likely mohammad never saw a sea.
most likely if mohammad or any other person saw the sea, he wouldn't see that picture.
have they seen it, they most likely wouldn't understand it. especially not a bedwin.
may they understand it, they would document it.


what i see;
-near zero facts.
-super wild personal interpretations.
-one shared rabid goal, clouding reason and honesty, denying the undeniable.
in a lousy, unthought, unorganized, unflashy way, it's as if "we're not gonna believe it no matter what, and we're not gonna even hide the fact that we couldn't care less"

[786]

Clearly the idea was well understood at the time. I don't think you've been following the discussion.

'Clearly'- were you there? I've given evidence that many thought of hidden meanings within the quran- you can read the quote I've given in the beginning few posts.

And I acknowledge that you've gotten your proof for things in the Quran that no one knows as you didn't respond to that

Peace be unto you

[spidergoat]

what i see;
-near zero facts.
-super wild personal interpretations.
-one shared rabid goal, clouding reason and honesty, denying the undeniable.
in a lousy, unthought, unorganized, unflashy way, it's as if "we're not gonna believe it no matter what, and we're not gonna even hide the fact that we couldn't care less"

Telling the truth is easy, that's why I don't have to cloak my words under a veil of phony scholarship. It's not flashy, but I can see now how you are easily seduced by eloquent words that may sound logical and scientific, but actually are not. If you weren't, you would not be a believer.

1. Fact: the ocean often has layers at various depths which have their own waves.
2. Fact: These waves are visible from the surface or the shore, and they look like waves, but not surface waves.
3. Fact: The Arabs were expert mariners, and it's perfectly reasonable to assume that colloquial knowledge of the sea was transmitted orally throughout the Arab Empire where Mohammed could have heard it.
4. Fact: Series of ocean waves coming from different directions combine to form interference patterns, and chaotic waves. This makes it the more likely phenomenon that Mohammed was referencing, rather than the farfetched notion that he was revealing previously unknown scientific knowledge about the depths of the ocean.
5. Fact: I do not have to prove that Mohammed wasn't talking about deep underwater waves, I only have to show that there is at least one more likely explanation.

You two share the "rabid" goal of proving that the Quran was really the revealed words of God rather than the work of an Arab mystic who was not in communication with any omniscient supernatural entity.

The burden of proof is not on me, since your premise is extraordinary, and must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt by extraordinary evidence, not by a few casual words that have other, more obvious meanings.

[iceaura]

This is true. It all depends on what one believes about the Quran, which provides perspective. For example I believe that it was intended to include all the meanings

But as you illustrate, it didn't. It didn't include anything about "internal waves" until after modern science supplied you with them, for example. That's one reason you have to twist the meanings a little bit, "interpret" the language in new ways - it's not there otherwise.

was mohammad stupid enough to leave it there if it didn't make sense?

It made perfect sense. It makes perfect sense right now, to anyone, regardless of their knowledge of oceanography.

btw: My contention that these institutionalized theisms are intellectually crippling has been strongly reinforced by the arguments on this thread.

I'm seeing people tell me that 10th century Arabs - international traders and travelers - never looked over the sides of their boats. that they could not possibly have noticed something that every little kid who went swimming with me in the lakes of my childhood noticed right away, that was the main thing about deep water that made my sister afraid to go out in a boat, that anyone who looks over the side of a boat heading out can see without difficulty: that it's dark way down there in deep water.

I'm seeing people claim that by interpreting Arabic that is variously translated as "waves on top of waves" and so forth, Arabic interpreted for hundreds of years as referring to the visible waves of the ocean dscribed as poets and writers have described them all that time, as referring to undulations of salinity layers
and thermal boundaries in the midocean waters, they have discovered in the Quran a "detailing of stuff impossible to know without modern scientific gear".

The idea of that kind of reasoning dominating the intellectual discourse of a country with Western scientific capability is disturbing.

[786]

But as you illustrate, it didn't. It didn't include anything about "internal waves" until after modern science supplied you with them, for example. That's one reason you have to twist the meanings a little bit, "interpret" the language in new ways - it's not there otherwise.
It made perfect sense. It makes perfect sense right now, to anyone, regardless of their knowledge of oceanography.

what I said is that 'includes' all those meanings- the fact of when they are revealed is something totally different- Isn't a meaning always provided with some understanding? So the fact that a meaning was intended previously but is now revealed is not a contradiction in anything.

And I don't believe I'm 'twisting' anything- If I read it at face value I can still draw a model that represents many layers of waves. But I acknowledge that if you hold the ancient meaning of it as the only meaning, then my understood meaning would be considered 'twisting' the verse- but I strongly believe, as did the Arabs and the prophet that the Quran has many meanings, some which were not known to them at the time...

"All those who listen to me shall pass on my words to others and those to others again; and may the last ones understand my words better than those who listen to me directly. Be my witness O God, that I have conveyed your message to your people. "

"The truth is that prophetic Traditions (akhbar) and statements of the Prophet's companions and of other pious Muslims in early Islam (athar) prove that 'for men of understanding there is wide scope in the meanings of the Qur'an'. Thus 'Ali (may God be pleased with him!) said, 'except that God bestows understanding of the Qur'an upon a man.' If there is no meaning other than that which is related [from Ibn 'Abbas and other exegetes] what is that understanding of the Qur'an [which is bestowed upon a man]? The Prophet (may God bless him and greet him) said, 'Surely the Qur'an has an outward aspect, an inward aspect, a limit and a prelude.' This is also related. by Ibn Mas'ud on his own authority and he is one of the scholars of Qur'anic interpretation. [If there are no meanings of the Qur'an besides the outward ones], what is the meaning of its outward aspect, inward aspect, limit and prelude? 'Ali (may God show regard to his face!) said, 'If I so will I can certainly load seventy camels with the exegesis of the Opening Sura of the Book.' What then is the meaning of this statement of 'Ali, when the outward exegesis of this sura is extremely short us [and can be set forth in a few pages]? Abu Darda' said, 'One cannot [fully] understand the religion until one sees the Qur'an from different perspectives.' A certain religious scholar said, 'For every Qur'anic verse there are sixty thousand understandings [comprehensible to man]. The understandings of it which remain [incomprehensible to man] are even more than these in number.'

Perspective is depedent upon understanding.

"(This is) a Scripture that We have revealed unto thee, full of blessing, that they may ponder its revelations, and that men of understanding may reflect."

"Lo! In the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the difference of night and day, and the ships which run upon the sea with that which is of use to men, and the water which Allah sendeth down from the sky, thereby reviving the earth after its death, and dispersing all kinds of beasts therein, and (in) the ordinance of the winds, and the clouds obedient between heaven and earth: are signs (of Allah's Sovereignty) for men of understanding."

'Understanding' is not objective- but is subjective- thus everyone will find 'signs' in ways unknown.. As the understanding increases more and more signs can be seen and thus 'revealed'. And thus it is no surprise why many people from the beginning realized and believed the Quran has many meanings.

The Quran itself says there are hidden meanings in it... One expects this from a revelation that is supposed to be everlasting.

Anyhow for someone who doesn't accept this- or the idea that the meaning was intended (but not revealed)- none of this suffices as proof. That is why rather can continue its best to just stop.

Peace be unto you

[786]

2. Fact: These waves are visible from the surface or the shore, and they look like waves, but not surface waves.

When did this become a fact?

Peace be unto you

[spidergoat]

I posted a picture, don't you believe your own eyes?

[786]

I posted a picture, don't you believe your own eyes?

I know what I saw.

Peace be unto you

[Sock puppet path]

Telling the truth is easy, that's why I don't have to cloak my words under a veil of phony scholarship. It's not flashy, but I can see now how you are easily seduced by eloquent words that may sound logical and scientific, but actually are not. If you weren't, you would not be a believer.

1. Fact: the ocean often has layers at various depths which have their own waves.
2. Fact: These waves are visible from the surface or the shore, and they look like waves, but not surface waves.
3. Fact: The Arabs were expert mariners, and it's perfectly reasonable to assume that colloquial knowledge of the sea was transmitted orally throughout the Arab Empire where Mohammed could have heard it.
4. Fact: Series of ocean waves coming from different directions combine to form interference patterns, and chaotic waves. This makes it the more likely phenomenon that Mohammed was referencing, rather than the farfetched notion that he was revealing previously unknown scientific knowledge about the depths of the ocean.
5. Fact: I do not have to prove that Mohammed wasn't talking about deep underwater waves, I only have to show that there is at least one more likely explanation.

You two share the "rabid" goal of proving that the Quran was really the revealed words of God rather than the work of an Arab mystic who was not in communication with any omniscient supernatural entity.

The burden of proof is not on me, since your premise is extraordinary, and must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt by extraordinary evidence, not by a few casual words that have other, more obvious meanings.

Spidergoat pardon the expression but you have the patience of a saint.

It is scifes making the claim, the burden of proof is on him, not you. Why let him turn the burden around? Or am I missing something here?
Carry on.

[spidergoat]

I don't intend to carry on any longer. I feel we have made an overwhelming case, and I didn't even resort to examples where Mohammed got the science wrong, which would be another legitimate approach.

[iceaura]

Anyhow for someone who doesn't accept this- or the idea that the meaning was intended (but not revealed)- none of this suffices as proof.

The fact that this kind of belief-dependent and interpretation-dependent "revelation" is accepted by so many Muslims as proof of anything whatsoever, let alone "detailing stuff impossible to to know without modern scientific gear", is really kind of striking.

In plain language: people who accept that kind of logic in matters involving reality are being silly. They aren't debating, they aren't reasoning. The only real response is that you've got to be kidding - reasonable argument has no foothold.

Or do you accept similar readings of the poetry I quoted earlier - are these revelations present in general, in your world?

[786]

In plain language: people who accept that kind of logic in matters involving reality are being silly. They aren't debating, they aren't reasoning. The only real response is that you've got to be kidding - reasonable argument has no foothold.

I said in plain language I can see the same model- its not changing anything. It doesn't even require believe in any 'multiple meanings' for that- but if all of you guys are going to keep arguing about what 'those people' understood then why don't you accept that 'they' also 'understood' the Quran to have many hidden meanings... I think its you who are choosing what the words should mean- if one separates it from what 'they viewed' and just looked at the words simply it is easily seen, at least by me. As for those poems, I've responded to them with context- if you're going to ignore context to prove your 'interpretation' then you are more then welcome to, but I don't look at literature without context.

Anyhow I think we're just going back and forth now- don't feel any need to continue.. You guys have made your argument and I have mine, there is nothing more to add. So peace out.

Peace be unto you

[GeoffP]

'Clearly'- were you there? I've given evidence that many thought of hidden meanings within the quran- you can read the quote I've given in the beginning few posts.

This isn't actually under debate.

And I acknowledge that you've gotten your proof for things in the Quran that no one knows as you didn't respond to that

This is false, and foolish. The above has been the entire subject of the debate. I will take your resort to nonsense as surrender, which I accept.

[786]

This is false, and foolish. The above has been the entire subject of the debate. I will take your resort to nonsense as surrender, which I accept.

Didn't you ask for proof of things not understood in the Quran? And I gave you an example. I was talking about meanings of the Quran not understood (not miracles) here, you may have confused what I said with the discussion topic. I was referring to your comments about the 'sermon' and why it must have made sense to the people.... and so on.

Peace be unto you

[iceaura]

Didn't you ask for proof of things not understood in the Quran? And I gave you an example.

But your example was of something in the Quran that was and has been well understood.

As for those poems, I've responded to them with context- if you're going to ignore context to prove your 'interpretation' then you are more then welcome to, but I don't look at literature without context.

You are specifically and overtly denying context in your interpretation of the Quran.

but if all of you guys are going to keep arguing about what 'those people' understood then why don't you accept that 'they' also 'understood' the Quran to have many hidden meanings..

The problem there is that "detailed stuff impossible to know without scientific gear" and "hidden meanings" are not the same thing - they are almost opposites.

There is no reason to believe the "hidden meanings" of the Quran have anything to do with scientific discoveries of the future, and no evidence that anyone thought they did until after science was invented and became respectable.

[786]

But your example was of something in the Quran that was and has been well understood.

Really, iceaura don't try to respond to everything I say even if you don't know what I'm talking about. Please... perhaps you can reproduce my example to GeoffP... because frankly I'm getting tired of this 3-way non-sense.

You are specifically and overtly denying context in your interpretation of the Quran.

Statement? i believe I used the complete verse when spidergoat was stuck with one part.

The problem there is that "detailed stuff impossible to know without scientific gear" and "hidden meanings" are not the same thing - they are almost opposites.

lol... I believe I stated that 'hidden meaning' was simply a perspective. I don't have to change things to find 'meaning'- As I said I can quite clearly without any gymnastics see the model of of waves.. its not 'hidden'-... its quite apparent... but even very simplistic things escape people when they don't 'see' it.... not because they are blind or its 'hidden' but because it is 'hidden' from the eye of your brain because you over complicate things sometimes or you simply can't see it in one way because of your pre-conceived understanding of something... The verse to me is clear- I can understand in many ways- 'clearly'.

There is no reason to believe the "hidden meanings" of the Quran have anything to do with scientific discoveries of the future, and no evidence that anyone thought they did until after science was invented and became respectable.

There is no reason to assume the opposite either? That is why leave it to the words.

As for science- science simply talks about 'reality'

You think the idea is post-Scientific revolution? People understood it a long time ago- they understood concepts like 'batin' which are about 'reality' not simply poetry.

Anyhow I'm getting tired of this. Because this is now getting repetitive. So we'll settle with this: You don't see it clearly in the verse, I do.. difference of opinion.

Peace be unto you

[iceaura]

There is no reason to assume the opposite either?

Nope.

As I said I can quite clearly without any gymnastics see the model of of waves.. its not 'hidden'-... its quite apparent..

If it were apparent, people would have seen it hundreds of years ago.

I don't have to change things to find 'meaning'-

You have to read it as talking about "layers" of different wave systems, instead of the waves on top of waves that poets and writers have been talking about for thousands of years.

You don't see it clearly in the verse, I do.. difference of opinion.

A difference of opinion which disproves the OP conjecture - the science is from the reader, not "detailed" in the Quran.