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

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

  1. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    "utter darkness" means completely dark or absolutely dark. As in no light. Not shades of black. If you think about what this verse is saying, it's obvious the author intends to mean ZERO light. Completely dark. Probably alluding to being blind until you "find God" etc... pretty typical of religious sayings in languages all over the world - even today.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. 786 Searching for Truth Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,089
    I want you to take that article about the many earths and go around asking people what they see in it- don't mention this discussion- if they mention the word 'wave' I will be appalled. Spidergoat out of his magic hat created the 'Wave Model'...

    Yes I know... but the discussion is about 'layers of waves' and if that is there or not.... We don't really even have to worry about scientific knowledge as it seems that the discussion has now turned to if 'layers' are indicated or not... Do the verse have indications of layers- I say absolutely yes.

    Peace be unto you

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    3,089
    If you didn't notice two of the translators used 'depths' instead of 'utter'- which in the context actually makes a lot more sense especially when it comes to the part about layers.

    Peace be unto you

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,734
    No, it's a layered model, not a wave model, proving that the Piraha Indians of the Amazon can create the same kind of many-layered cosmology as shown in the debated verses from the Quran. Did they know about all the possible scientific uses of the term layers? Of course they did not, but if I wanted to use the same faulty argument that you and scifes are using, I could say that they were referring to atmospheric and underground layers, which they could not have known about at the time. I'm using an example from another culture to show that such ideas are not rare, they are commonplace.
     
  8. 786 Searching for Truth Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,089
    What that 'layer model' describes is specifically the many earths and universes... What the 'layer model' of the Quran describes is specially about about the Ocean and clouds. We're not taking 'one model' and screwing around and applying to something totally different....

    Peace be unto you

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  9. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    You're going from layers of utter darkness, to shades of black, to layers of waves, to internal waves, to modern scientific miracle and wave theory.

    And by extension proof Mohammad was a real Prophet.

    And by extension proof there is a real God.

    And by extension proof you do indeed never need to worry you're going to die and will live forever in paradise.



    Can't you see that you're doing the same thing? Seeing what you WANT to see. Like I said, it wouldn't surprise me if next you come up with atomic orbital theory or atomic fusion or the big bang. Spidergoat is making a comparison but it's to get you to see what you're doing. However, as I said, it's not possible for you to see what you are doing.

    Don't you find even a tiny bit of a funny stir when you see Scientologists or Nostradamus followers doing the exact same thing you are doing???? THAT'S what I find interesting. This capability for self delusion. One could say: Utter darkness, waves over waves of black covered in clouds of delusion.
     
  10. 786 Searching for Truth Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,089
    Okay...... So now the theory that it is a metaphor describing a 'stormy ocean' has gone out the window?

    So it is a metaphor- about darkness.... it mentions -deep, ocean, waves, clouds- but even though it is a METAPHOR it has nothing to do with oceans- but instead it has only to do with the 'darkness' and 'instability' 'and chaos'- which by the way are 'results' of a metaphor- but has absolutely nothing to do with the things it is describing within a METAPHOR..

    Nevermind, I realize that now you're just too desperate to see the glaring answer right in front of you... Knowing that metaphors describe something of a reality yet you ignore it... You say it is a metaphor of a stormy ocean- then you say it has nothing to do with layers- then you end up with 'it has nothing to do with oceans'- it simply is a absolutely creative metaphor which has absolutely no real world examples to which it can be compared to- yes no, not the ocean at all..... I guess Muhammad didn't need to hear a tale about oceans now, since it wasn't about oceans to begin with?

    It is a metaphor that uses the very same thing it is trying to describe- It is trying to describe the 'darkness of a nonbeliever' and it does so by using the 'darkness of a nonbeliever'- yep never ever does it use the 'vast deep' ocean with darkness... no not the waves, no not even clouds- yep its not even about a stormy ocean.

    I think intelligent readers will see what just happened... Ironically you fit this metaphor.

    I thank you for the discussion but with this I say good bye, as I do not have an obligation to shove it down your throat the thing you are trying to escape. :wave:

    Peace be unto you

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    PS- it seems you have deleted that message which I'm quoting, but I'm done here.
     
  11. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,734
    Anyone can see the layers, you must think Mohammad was some kind of idiot.
     
  12. 786 Searching for Truth Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,089
    I guess I must repeat myself, as I often have to for you.... 'depths of darkness' not utter darkness- but yes at the really really deep end you expect that to be the darkest part- it doesn't take a genius to imagine that.

    And as for 'waves' and 'darkness' if you don't understand what a metaphor is, then I don't care.

    Anyways I'm done here :wave:

    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
    :wave:

    I hope intelligent readers will read this complete thread and come to their own conclusions of who had the most evidence backing their arguments.

    Peace be unto you

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  14. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,734
    Why not go all the way and say Mohammed was talking about the wave/particle duality of matter?
     
  15. 786 Searching for Truth Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,089
    lol.

    Like I said, I'm not trying to take one thing and apply to another... I'm willing to accept what is given, you are not-

    Anyways good luck with your discussion, I'm leaving now.

    Peace be unto you

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  16. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,734
    You are inventing things that are not present in the text. Good day sir.
     
  17. 786 Searching for Truth Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,089
    Interesting accusation....

    I said the Quran mentions waves- I provided proof quoting the verse
    I said these waves are related to the Ocean- I provided proof quoting the verse

    I said these were in layers- I provided proof quoting the verse

    You said they are 'many waves'- you don't provide proof but use a poetic tool as an answer. So you don't use the verse really.

    I said that it was talking about internal waves because its talking about waves in layers from deep in the ocean to the sky. I provided proof quoting the verse and why this is logical.

    Then you said you don't even see the layering of waves but only as 'many waves'- you don't provide any proof simply state your interpretation based on 'waves upon waves' without ever even quoting the context.

    You said it doesn't mention layers- without providing any proof- You first of all never provided proof if Muhammad could have known about internal waves- so I'm assuming that is why it is hard to swallow so this is the argument you provide that 'its not in the verse'- but you never quote anything or the context to why it make sense- just your own opinion that it says 'many waves' and the clouds are separate- and that 'depths of darkness' one above and another and clouds is consistent with your 'many waves'- yet I quoted the whole passage and tried to support why all of this made sense in layers and why my method of analysis is consistent- you say 'many waves' but you leave out clouds- you see 'darkness' in layers of depth and all the rest I quoted- but YOU simply say 'poetic tool' without showing why its consistent? why 'clouds' is mentioned in that 'poetic tool'? why everything is logical that way? Why 'layers of darkness' aren't really layers? Why 'depth' is even used?- so you simply state your opinion- while I use the verse as extensively as I could to support my claim.

    I provide proof regarding the layers but you didn't respond to it, instead you ended up posting a message that stated that the whole verse had nothing to do with oceans even though you started with a 'stormy ocean' theory- and then you deleted the message, I guess realizing the ridiculousness of that claim. But I quoted the verse to support why it says layers and why everything is consistent- why 'depth' is mentioned, why 'waves' are mentioned, why 'clouds' are mentioned and why 'layers are mentioned- all using the text- I show the logical progression from depth to sky using the verse, I show its consistency of my analysis using the text, I show the layering of darkness using the text- but you never responded, and the only thing you said is 'poetic tool'- who chose to ignore the text? And yet I am being accused?

    Finally you end with Muhammad was no idiot so he could've figured it out. (seems like a concession?)

    While before you realized that internals waves, which even YOU DID NOT KNOW about, were not known. And neither did you give any proof how could he have known this, which scifes is demanding as an answer.

    It would seem to me that you are the one who continuously made statements without ever backing them up. While I tried to analyze the verse in question and supported my claims every time using it. Yet I am being accused of creating things that are not in the text, when you hardly even used the text?

    Not to mention that you challenged scifes to show that the only meaning the Quran can have is the 'scientific one'- I stated the Quran has many meanings and provided proof, yet you provided no proof for why the Quran must be limited to one meaning.

    And it seems now you've used my example of a tsunami in your debate- which I already showed couldn't be the case- not to mention that a tsunami wave still would not be able to account for the verses discussion of the depth of ocean as tsunami waves are on the surface, neither would it explain why the attributes of a tsunami- if taken from legend- are not mentioned especially the destruction it causes or the heights that it can reach, neither does it account for why clouds would be mentioned after it- it would seem that this would be a great time to detail the 'epic' proportions of a tsunami if it were truly the case to make the absolute chaotic nature of 'faithless person' evident through the epic nature of a tsunami which you would expect if the use is of a legend that is supposedly commonly known to these people- any literary critic would point out the lack of these details which would undoubtedly point the utter hopelessness of a 'faithless person' in front of a massive, destructive wave (tsunami) which would be further given epic attributes to totally drill this notion down amongst a people who supposedly know about this 'legendary wave'- but we see utter silence to this 'legend'- almost as if the legend was left behind? Or the 'epic' attributes were taken away, which you would not expect from a book that warns of apocalyptic ends and details such horrors of hell itself- to not share such 'juicy' information about these 'faithless people' is daunting- of course one does not expect such information about internal waves about which the Arabs know nothing, neither does it carry any 'epic' attributes as associated with tsunami's-evidently nothing is present in the verse to give a literary critic to say tsunami is being referred to here as practically nothing about this 'legendary wave' is shared- a lack of using the verse, and creating things not there?

    Neither does this explain the 'wave upon wave' if you think about it since as the tsunami continues it actually incorporates the water in itself which makes the tsunami last that in effect makes it part of the tsunami wave and thus not 'on top' of waves since if a tsunami wave is on top it would have already incorporated it into itself- Again a failure to utilize the context of the verse-

    I guess you are so stuck up on the 'waves upon waves' now that you can't even seem to consider the full verse and context to make a coherent and logical argument. Another example of failing to use the text. Yet I am being accused? And I would have hoped that you would have discussed the tsunami with me before using it in your debate- I guess instead of discussing anything you have now resorted to trying to find anything that can remotely help you- straw-men arguments? Which is supposedly what I was accused of in the beginning of this discussion. Pathetic, just pathetic.

    I guess the scientific method can now go down the drain- instead of looking at the complete verse (data/observation) you are now basing your arguments on only 1 observation ('waves upon waves') not giving any consideration to the context, neither using any literary critical analysis of your own proposition- tsunami. While I tried my best to utilize the complete verse and explain the consistency of the method- the logical progression from depth of ocean to the sky, and evidently incorporating all the information that the text provided... So again I am surprised by the accusation.

    This is my last response to you. I only posted this because you're making an accusation towards me. I'll let the readers decide the argumentation and evidence each of us provided and who really used the text to support their claims rather than opinions and 'poetic tools'.

    Good day indeed, sir.

    Peace be unto you

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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

    Messages:
    20,285
    and here we go ... waves upon waves and suddenly we get atomic orbital theory. I mean, it all makes sense now *smoke pot/prays to the God-head/Xemu(nu)* Waves upon Waves in layer is referring to Atomic Orbital Theory and how electrons are also "Waves" and these are in Orbitals... aka: Layers (or Shells). We can clearly see from this poem that God/Xemu(nu) *inhales deeply/kneels fervently* was speaking to a angel, who told a human Prophet, who told some other humans, who wrote down this stuff about Atomic Orbital Theory on some bark, who then copied the bark onto some other bark, who then told some other people who then made a book with this miracle in it.


    The idea that someone who otherwise is probably somewhat logical, could think come up with this sort of "reasoning" is what I find interesting. It must be related to fear of death. No religious meme survives without incorporating a really good life after your dead and gone.
     
  19. 786 Searching for Truth Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,089
    No one is claiming that except you.. I have consistently stuck to what the verse is saying and I have not deviated from the ocean as the subject matter.


    What I find interesting is that you making up crap, stating 'relationships' that no one made in this complete discussion and then attribute this nonsense ('wave upon wave' to atomic orbital theory)- a link you are making- and slamming it on me. You are the most illogical person I've talked to in this forum. What is illogical is taking a model of parallel universes and then saying that it is speaking about a 'wave model' about the ocean-

    It is perfectly logical to use the attributes given about the ocean to construct a model of the ocean- I've never taken it to model anything other than this- for example I've not taken this to apply to 'wave-particle' relationship which was suggested by spidergoat. I've taken the information and applied it to the system being talked about, not to anything else. If you can't follow this logic then I can't do anything about you... you've never ceased to amaze me on how much bs you can spew without any evidence and how you can just make crap up and attribute it to someone.

    At least keep the lies to yourself please. And I'm sure you're going to continue the non-sense so I now shall take my leave :wave:

    Peace be unto you

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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

    Messages:
    51,734
    There isn't enough detail to show that the "waves upon waves" refers to anything the scientific meaning of internal waves. You are making a mountain out of a molehill, and subverting the original intent and meaning of the verse. A vague reference to something that is so obviously intended to evoke disorder and darkness doesn't count as a scientific reference any more than this:

    "All our yesterday have lighted fools the way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle! Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more,"​


    ...refers to the metabolic cycle.

    I'm perfectly willing to consider evidence in the Quran for things that could not otherwise have been known, but you have not demonstrated that the concept of deep internal ocean waves is even known or guessed at. Waves upon waves is a perfectly reasonable and appropriate reference to waves that come as on the shore, one after the other.

    I never expected scifes's argument to be so weak. It's rather shocking, given all the effort Muslims usually expend on the recent attempt to link science and the Quran. (This effort dates from the 1970's). It's a risky strategy, given that if and when they are proven wrong, it calls into doubt the legitimacy of the entire book as a message from God.
     
  21. 786 Searching for Truth Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,089
    If the waves are in layers and it is in depth, then it is exactly that waves in the depth... And we know that there are waves in the depth which we call internal waves-

    How can I be 'subverting' the meaning of the verse when I utilized the complete verse to support my claim... On the other hand I stated that the Arabs probably would have understood it as a 'stormy ocean' only because it would not make sense to them otherwise.

    And please Master, can you enlighten us with the 'original intent and meaning'? How many times must I repeat the Quran to have many meanings- some which the Arabs understood some which they did NOT clearly- which they admit! Not to mention you can't enlighten me by not using the complete verse.

    'Disorder' and 'darkness' are obvious because that is the idea the METAPHOR is trying to get through! That is my point! The verse can still be understood with its metaphor if you understand it from a scientific aspect- I provided that in a post dedicated to this....

    Again you are making statements, not even making an effort to refute my claims which I backed up...

    You have failed to show that the discussion is not about layers.. you have failed to show that it doesn't deal with depths... you have failed to show that the only meaning is the 'obvious' meaning (which by the way is what a metaphor is trying to get through the idea of darkness and disorder- NOT what it is describing as an example- the description is of a ocean)... you have failed to show that Arabs believed to have the 'only' meaning of the Quran...you have failed to show that this could be known (given that you failed to show any of the above)....

    quite frankly I don't see it... See you are bringing up examples which don't even use the terminology that is even close... Quran says WAVES- I'm not taking 'waves' and turn it into 'wheels on the bus go round and round' I'm KEEPING the word and meaning wave! It says wave, it says 'deep', it says 'ocean', it says 'layers'- IT IS ALL THERE! All the words are there.... Why is this vague when the same terminology is being used? While your example give no such word usage and we have to imagine our way to get to those describing a 'metabolic cycle'.

    Why can't the words 'The Sun shown bright' NOT mean Sun was very bright? It is the most apparent thing in it. Maybe it is a metaphor for a exothermic reaction that produces a lot of light? But you fricking see- this is really really stretching it out.... But even then it IS A METAPHOR- so it is using the ACTUAL example of a BRIGHT SUN to portray a point! The BRIGHT SUN is a reality it USES... That is is METAPHOR.

    The Quran says 'deep', it says 'ocean', it says 'waves', it says 'layers'-- but hell noooo... there is no way in heck is it ACTUALLY be talking about the ocean- it MUST be talking about 'disorder' and 'darkness'- IDEAS which are being explained using a METAPHOR! If it is a metaphor for those IDEAS 'disorder' and 'darkness' then WHAT IN REAILITY IS IT DESCRIBING? I know- OCEAN! It says it right in the verse! I don't need to imagine things up to come to this conclusion! So if it is talking about the Ocean, and it is talking about waves, and layers- I could easily draw a picture from this description... If I say 1 block is above another- I know what I need to draw to model it... I'm not making things out of the blue to model it- it is all right there in the verse!

    Isn't that your job? To show that it was 'even known or guessed at'? We are saying it was NOT known! Because it can't be known without scientific gear- not to mention EVEN YOU DID NOT KNOW ABOUT THEM!

    You're not even willing to conceed and say 'Yep, Muhammad got it right.. He guessed it and it happend to be correct'- but noo, your response is that its not even talking about an ocean?

    Again you're stuck up with 'waves upon waves'- why is it hard for you to read the whole verse? I explained the verse using the complete context, using all the information that is provided- 'deep', 'ocean', 'waves', 'depth', 'layers'.... But you just can't get the courage to use the complete verse?

    I never expected that an intellectual person like you would basically disregard the complete verse, focus on 'waves upon waves'- fail to rationalize the complete verse- never ever provide proof even once using the complete verse- and then throw away all your previous arguments by saying 'its not talking about an ocean' (even though it mentions it by word)- basically I would not have expected you to be in denial! I've had many discussions with you, and you even helped answer some of my questions- I thought you were very reasonable in those discussions- but here, you quite frankly are maybe a bit better than pathetic- 'tsunami' eh? I can't imagine the amount of analysis and criticism you did to come to this conclusion.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    And I will provide your quote in proof of your pathetic and actually intellectually dishonest statements that you posted in you recent debate post:

    I believe I provided you with a scientific paper detailing WAVES at DIFFERENT LEVELS- even as deep as 100M! Why then did you ask this question? Apparently you admitted this to be true in this discussion thread- YET you ask this question of scifes in the debate thread- knowing full well the answer to the question and the OBVIOUS LIE you stated about waves not being at 'different levels'-

    Then you talk about 'submarines' not seeing waves- which actually supports MY point! You can't see internal waves! Not to mention Arabs didn't have submarines at the time. They couldn't have been known!

    I've come to the conclusion that you are in denial now- there is no reason to lie or continue making statements without ever providing evidence for them- and then accusing your opponent of not using the 'text'- And I see no reason to not utilize the complete verse and keep being stuck on 'waves upon waves'..

    So perhaps Muhammad didn't make guesses, as that would be too risky

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Peace be unto you

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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

    Messages:
    51,734
    The length of your reply belies it's actual lack of content. I have provided various possible and reasonable explanations for this passage. That's all I have to do. You (or scifes) has to prove that these reasonable explanations are not the case, and that the verse actually refers to some obscure scientific principle in contradiction to it's intended purpose as metaphor.

    If this verse is indeed a description of internal ocean waves, then it means that the state of the unbeliever is one of knowledge, not ignorance. Internal ocean waves are not dark, or indeed disturbing. They are practically invisible. So to evoke these invisible waves would not add to the metaphor. Therefore, this passage can not refer to the modern scientific use of the term.
     
  23. 786 Searching for Truth Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,089
    The length is long because I have to make things ultra-clear so that they aren't so vague? As I've already stated my proofs many times over now, and I'm still waiting on you to use the complete passage..

    You've never ever looked at the complete passage... I think all you have concentrated on is 'waves upon waves'- you never even responded to my analysis of the verse regarding layers... which was my response to your assertion that 'layers aren't mentioned'- I'm still waiting on a response full of textual proof.

    No... what you have to do is support the claim with the complete passage... I'm still waiting for your coherent explanation for the complete passage- actually cite it please.

    Which I did by using the complete passage, but I don't ever remember an actual response or refutation of it... You just continued with statements is all I remember.

    While a 'metaphor' is intended.. a metaphor by definition is based upon something... and more than often they are based on something real- anything 'real' is subject to science.

    A strong belief (upon whatever 'knowledge') of something which is absolutely wrong is the same thing as ignorance of the thing which is true. Essentially having knowlege of the wrong does not mean that you are not ignorant of the Truth.

    Glad you have come to realize that... But you know the wave is created by the water itself- in dark waters (deep waters) they are then by definition dark as the water that creates/represents a wave is dark... The reason they are 'invisible' is because you can not distinguish them from the surrounding.

    I suggest you go back to the post in which I tried to lay out the metaphor even with the scientific understanding- also I've answered your 'scientific' concern laid above... and to add further I would say that the fact that it is so 'deeply rooted' means that it is in fact a belief of yours to which you never give a second thought... Basically, a darkness so deep and rooted that you don't even visualize them as such... Deep, stable, dark waves, and if you want to add 'invisible' waves- you don't visualize your deep beliefs to have anything wrong with them... but I guess if you concentrate hard enough (which you don't on deep beliefs) you will see them- much like we do with satelite images

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    And as I said before, even without the understanding of science the metaphor still holds it's values...but since it is a metaphor it must be describing something real also.

    Let's leave the 'therefore' until you can support your claims with the full passage. I tried to make this post concise.

    Peace be unto you

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     

Share This Page