Discussion: Quran detailing stuff impossible to know without modern scientific gear

Discussion in 'Formal debates' started by scifes, Feb 20, 2010.

  1. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,732
    But it doesn't say internal waves, it just says waves above waves, which anyone can see on the ocean from the shore. Again, no special scientific knowledge required. The Quran doesn't exhibit this knowledge at all, this is just an example of people trying see modern knowledge in an ancient book that simply isn't there.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,064
    So?

    Look at the OP: you are supposed to be presenting us with stuff that could not have been known without modern scientific gear. Instead you present us with convenient and implausible reinterpretations of stuff which you yourself agree was understood by contemporaries to mean something else entirely, and something easily within their capabilities of observation.

    This is ridiculous, OK? Waves upon waves in the ocean, dark in the depths, clouds above, do not require modern scientific gear to observe - all you have to do is look over the side of your boat. They had boats.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. 786 Searching for Truth Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,089
    Waves that I usually observe are 'one after another'- never would I describe them as 'one above another'- unless I'm going to say that the first wave crashed and the wave 'behind' (not above) it came and crashed on top (top as in same location). But if that were to happen the first wave would no longer be a 'wave' (in laymen terms) as it has already crashed.

    Or maybe we're talking about a Tsunami wave? Huge wave running a big distance which would be somehow on 'top' of 'small waves'- but even then it would be a 'wave on top of waves' not 'waves on top of waves'.

    Not to mention all of this has nothing to do with the depth of ocean- which really is what the metaphor tried to describe in the beginning..... It seems more logical to start from the waves (deep), top waves (surface), clouds (sky).

    Peace be unto you

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Mar 1, 2010
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. 786 Searching for Truth Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,089
    Internal waves can't

    What is implausible about wave above waves in layers not being able to be interpreted as waves that below waves that are on top... Spidergoat has already used the word 'accidental' to describe that it fits the scientific knowledge- so at least he knows that he can see this interpretation to be not 'implausible'.

    Yet at the same times believing that the Quran has meanings they do not understand- which they accepted to be the case. And scientific knowledge of this would certainly be something they did not know about- and like Spidergoat says fits current knowledge 'accidentally'.

    And so? We're not talking about the same waves now are we? Why don't you prove that your interpretation is the only 'plausible' one.

    Peace be unto you

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  8. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    One things clear - people are very desperate not to have to face up to death and oblivion. The passage says nothing about "internal waves". It's referring to a choppy ocean as an analogy.
     
  9. 786 Searching for Truth Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,089
    Really?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Peace be unto you

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  10. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    All mariners understood the currents and used them to traverse the oceans. Anyone who has swam in the ocean knows to look for rip current. Look, this is an utterly absurd waste of time IMO. People are just as asinine about believing in the "miracles" of Ron Hubbard or whomever. Once a person truly believes in smurfs or Xenu/Xemu or Allah there is absolutely no making sense with them - it's a complete waste of time. They will read wave on top of waves to mean "internal waves" and this to mean some other bullshit until they have the atomic orbital theory pulled from this crap. So why bother?

    You've shown ancient Greek and South American and Chinese examples and it's been a big waste of time. Once people believe in the miraculous utterances of Ron Hubbard and truly worship Xenu/Xemu then it's a done deal. I mean, it takes professionals months of intensive therapy to break people out of these memes. Yes, sure, some people snap out rather quickly. Or never really bought it. For people who don't snap out in, say a few months of questioning, and if anything seem to be more delusional. These people are a waste of time.
     
    Last edited: Mar 2, 2010
  11. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,732
    I have a question, when do we know the debate is over? Do we vote on it? Because scifes and company could go on forever.
     
  12. 786 Searching for Truth Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,089
    10 posts each is the rule no? You still haven't showed that internal waves were possible to know, so i guess it should continue... Neither have you tried to support your claim of 'many waves' when in fact the verse is providing a context of layering- clouds being misplaced if it was many waves because its being said in a continuous fashion and same words- and later the layering of darkness.

    Peace be unto you

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  13. 786 Searching for Truth Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,089
    Because none of those examples were even close to the topic of oceans we are discussing and neither did they have anything to do with internal waves.... Spidergoat made up the term 'wave model' when in fact no one in there right minds could see 'waves' in that article- only stratified 'layers' of multiple complete 'earths' of various sizes and numbers.

    Peace be unto you

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  14. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,732
    scifes hasn't shown that the verses refer to the scientific phenomenon he is ascribing them to. They aren't specific enough. Specificity should be easy for Allah, and yet he was (deliberately, one assumes) vague and poetic.
     
  15. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    And neither does the Qur'an. Which goes back to my point.


    I won't be surprised if soon you're posting something like this: Because none of those examples were even close to the topic of the atomic orbital theory we are discussing and neither did they have anything to do with neutrons, protons and electrons....As I said ALL people who live near and work the ocean understand that there are undercurrents, tides and rips. People navigated the oceans using these currents. But, that's besides the point, the waves on top of waves with dark clouds and dark ocean says NOTHING about "internal" waves at all. So we have two things here. The Qur'an saying nothing and people already understanding the concept of internal current and waves.
     
  16. 786 Searching for Truth Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,089
    What is vague about waves-waves-clouds in successive layers? I would think if one can read the verse that it is talking about layers (which it is) then there is nothing vague about it.. unless of course you're hell bent on not accepting that it is talking about layers...

    Now If I'm someone who is practically unaware of waves in the deep ocean- the only other way I would 'reconcile' it is by thinking of it as a 'stormy ocean'.... but none the less by way of first ignoring the layering context.

    We can clearly understand it without any need to reconcile because we know there are layers of waves... I would think this 'scientific' interpretation is actually using the context to its fullest- which I would think is the most accurate interpretation of this verse- while the poetic metaphor of confusion and layers of darkness within a person is still kept.

    I can still see metaphorical value in it regarding faithless people- even thinking about it from the scientific perspective.

    A deep rooted conflict and confusion as in utter darkness- based on your deeply rooted belief... because its so deeply rooted- it is less chaotic- because you truly believe in those deep rooted ideas- but because you are less prone to changing these ideas it is utter darkness- as the belief itself is wrong (darkness). So low level of 'proof' that comes does not remove you from these ideas- its less chaotic for that reason. (internal waves)

    Questions of not so deep confusion/conflict- because now you're in the level of confusion/conflict to which something be told to you is messing around with that belief- it is not so deeply rooted belief that you hold- so any alternative view with proof would seriously cause a havoc- more chaotic stage (like on the surface waves)

    Questions of high level of uncertainty- foggy confusion- a little push could help you resolve this confusion and conflict- much like a cloud.

    I can still see the varying level of conflict and levels of darkness the verse is talking about even if I accept the scientific approach... It seems to keep the metaphorical use of the poetry while answering the verse completely with the context of layering in various 'depths'.

    If I tell you 1 block is on top of another- then you are ready to accept that there are 2 separate blocks, one over the other... but when the Quran says 'waves topped by waves'- it is somehow 'vague'. It is somehow 'implausible' to say that they are layers- even though the context of the verse is making an argument for layering. So be it :shrug:

    Peace be unto you

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Mar 2, 2010
  17. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,732
    Of course doubt is less stable than faith, doubt and skepticism is the basis of all science.

    It doesn't say layers, that was your addition.
     
  18. 786 Searching for Truth Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,089
    I for one am not demanding specificity within a topic- it is rather you guys who ask well why isn't there the formula for 'dynamite'....

    What he quoted had absolutely nothing to do with the topic- its not about specificity... If you think multiple universes in layers which have COMPLETE Earth's- that is land, water, and so on- is the same thing as oceans having layers then I am amazed... Amazed that you are making such a connection- which is so absolutely apart- no one in their right minds can see waves in it- because its talking about complete earths in layers of basically universes which can not physically interact

    Yet the connection of a layering of waves in the Quran is 'vague'. :shrug: It is absolutely somehow 'vague' and 'implausible' to even think that 'waves above waves' could mean layers of waves-

    Peace be unto you

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Mar 2, 2010
  19. 786 Searching for Truth Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,089
    How do you have "darkness, one above another"? Oh right they are the same 'darkness' its just a poetic tool but 'wave above waves, topped by clouds' - the waves are the same but the clouds are separate? I see the logic completely...

    024.040
    YUSUFALI: Or (the Unbelievers' state) is like the depths of darkness in a vast deep ocean, overwhelmed with billow topped by billow, topped by (dark) clouds: depths of darkness, one above another: if a man stretches out his hands, he can hardly see it! for any to whom Allah giveth not light, there is no light!

    PICKTHAL: Or as darkness on a vast, abysmal sea. There covereth him a wave, above which is a wave, above which is a cloud. Layer upon layer of darkness. When he holdeth out his hand he scarce can see it. And he for whom Allah hath not appointed light, for him there is no light.

    SHAKIR: Or like utter darkness in the deep sea: there covers it a wave above which is another wave, above which is a cloud, (layers of) utter darkness one above another; when he holds out his hand, he is almost unable to see it; and to whomsoever Allah does not give light, he has no light.

    'depths of darkness, one above another'- yeah darkness at different depths- 'one above another' makes sense- but noooooo!!!
    'layer upon layer of darkness'--- well this says it outright-- but still noooo......
    '(layers of) utter darkness one above another'----- never mind one above another....

    :shrug:

    Oh wait... its only talking about 'darkness'- so you see it has nothing to do with 'waves'---- yes it has absolutely nothing to do with waves- the part about waves was just an unrelated part that was added for no reason at all--- yes he only added the wave part when talking about darkness at depths because it has absolutely nothing to do with each other- darkness is absolutely unrelated to waves and waves were a random addition which has nothing to do with darkness.... I completely get it... its just absolutely too vague-

    the layers of universes of complete earth make more sense and are less vague about layering of 'waves'...I'll give it a name "Wave Model"- seeeee it has everything to do with waves, nevermind that it never mentions waves and even though it is talking about basically parallel complete earths and universes! I totally get it.

    Peace be unto you

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Mar 2, 2010
  20. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    They are both posthoc interpretations - that was the point.


    Millions of people buy Nostradomous "predictions" for the exact same reasons. They see something that really was just made up post hoc in their heads.
     
  21. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    Is there such a thing as "layers of darkness"? I mean, can you layer utter dark on top of utter dark?
    When you start going from layers of utter dark to modern tidal theory... well, Nostradamus anyone?


    Secondly, people back then understood there were deep currents in the oceans and used these to traverse the seas for trade. People who live near the ocean understand that you can be pulled out by a rip current, which is UNDER and pulling in the opposite directions as the tops of the waves which crash towards the shore. One "layer" coming in, one "layer" going out. It's simply common knowledge for anyone people who have ever been to the ocean.
     
  22. 786 Searching for Truth Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,089
    Don't you have TV's that try to boast how good their 'black levels' are? Darkness is simply the absence of light- The different wavelengths of sunlight penetrates the ocean to different depths- creating layers of 'darkness' that is more and more of the different wavelengths are unable to penetrate the ocean. So you have layers of 'darkness'- that is if you understand how 'black levels' vary.

    Peace be unto you

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  23. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,732
    scifes is challenged with illustrating things from the Quran that would be impossible to know without modern advances in science. But his example is not really in the Quran, it is in his interpretation of the Quran, which is not the same thing at all.
     
    Last edited: Mar 2, 2010

Share This Page