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.
I don't need to repeat myself about the many meanings of the quran.
And I never said 'meaningless' -
it is not.
yet it is in mohammad's book.
was mohammad stupid enough to leave it there if it didn't make sense?
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.
:huh
IF internal waves were seen before, then most likely nobody knew they were internal waves.
[?]
lets talk business.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,
they sat on the boat and couldn't see all the way to the bottom.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.
:facepalm:And just imagine the ease of treasure-hunting, were that the case.
perhaps nobody did.If they saw waves
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 interpreted them as internal because that's what they look like,
most likely mohammad never saw a sea.and they were correct, then how do you know Mohammad wasn't just another one of those people?
Clearly the idea was well understood at the time. I don't think you've been following the discussion.
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"
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.786 said: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
It made perfect sense. It makes perfect sense right now, to anyone, regardless of their knowledge of oceanography.scifes said:was mohammad stupid enough to leave it there if it didn't make sense?
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.
2. Fact: These waves are visible from the surface or the shore, and they look like waves, but not surface waves.
I posted a picture, don't you believe your own eyes?
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.
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.786 said: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.
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.
'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![]()
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.
But your example was of something in the Quran that was and has been well understood.786 said:Didn't you ask for proof of things not understood in the Quran? And I gave you an example.
You are specifically and overtly denying context in your interpretation of the Quran.786 said: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.
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.786 said: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..
But your example was of something in the Quran that was and has been well understood.
You are specifically and overtly denying context in your interpretation of the Quran.
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.
Nope.786 said:There is no reason to assume the opposite either?
If it were apparent, people would have seen it hundreds of years ago.786 said:As I said I can quite clearly without any gymnastics see the model of of waves.. its not 'hidden'-... its quite apparent..
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.786 said:I don't have to change things to find 'meaning'-
A difference of opinion which disproves the OP conjecture - the science is from the reader, not "detailed" in the Quran.786 said:You don't see it clearly in the verse, I do.. difference of opinion.