Discussion: Quran detailing stuff impossible to know without modern scientific gear
- Thread starter scifes
- Start date
you've seriously got no idea what you're talking about.
true, i've searched to see whether all seas have them, including the red sea and the arabian gulf, and found out they do exist there. not only in certain seas around the world.
Fact: when you search google images for internal waves, you get only two sources(the one you posted plus this) in the first 5 pages which are not taken from satellites and sometimes air planes. and those are taken by professional marineologists, not on any sea cruise, but are especially studying internal waves.
if those waves are as easily viewed as you claim, then why aren't their pics all over the net, why don't fishers blog them? wave surfers and those who go out on leisure trips, veteran seamen, why didn't those guys snap a lot of pics of the awesome and easy to see internal waves?
why are they all from satellites? what happened to normal cameras?
you get some pics by scientific groups raving the sea looking for internal waves then say everybody just saw them everywhere and knew exactly what they were 1400 years ago, you examine your logic?
Fact: humans are expert mariners.
Fact: bedwins are arabs, and are not expert mariners.
Fact: mohammad's life is one of the most (if not the most) detailed biographies that exist in human history, ignorance of the magnitude of such piece of history doesn't change that fact, and such huge account of information doesn't include;
a-mohammad being anywhere near a large mass of water.
b-of ALL the preserved conversations he had and boring details written down, one with a fisherman or whoever about the sea is not documented.
hence, it would be reasonable to say;
Fact: mohammad hasn't seen a sea, nor spoke to anyone about it.
Fact: (and this is important) "colloquial" knowledge that is passed through whole empires gets documented, not only there is no such claimed document, but--->(at the end)
i don't know but still;
??
where do chaotic waves come into the verse?
and how would mohammad know about them if they did exist?
and why is he revealing previously unknown scientific knowledge farfetched?
sums it up nicely.
you do not need to just offer an explanation.
you need to show it being more likely.
and seeing as any astronomically small possibility of chance is "more likely" than a proof of god existing, then as long as we're in a prejudiced environment believing that, we will always lose.
if mohammad said; "the first man who will step on the moon carries the name neil armstrong"...
-it could have been a coincidence.
-it could have been a lie of history.
-it could have been mistranslated.
-it could have been literary flourish.
and all those possibilities are more probable, in a place full of granite skulled atheists like sciforums, then mohammad proving his flying spaghetti monster exists.
because in reality, the thought process that goes in most of your brains, is;
-god doesn't exist.
-whatever mohammad said can't be proof of the existence of a non-existing thing.
-any other explanation is then -by default- more probable.
we are rabidly defending common sense and simple logic. we refuse to yield to the community's unfounded joint beliefs.
so now you're back to his words having another meaning?
wasn't your last argument that anyone could've known that, that it was common knowledge?
besides, why is my claim extraordinary, other than because the majority or the masses here think so?
:facepalm:
=========================================================================
some facts i found:
fact1: the islamic nation has had some great contributions to science, (that huge body of knowledge after being translated is what pulled Europe out of its dark centuries), so in essence, any discoveries the arabs made are built upon by the westerners and the rest of the world. they are integrated and entwined. i assume i don't need to offer examples in medicine, mathematics, physics, astronomy, philosophy, chemistery etc..
fact2: the first man to observe internal waves was Bjørn Helland-Hansen, who lived from 1877 to 1957.
from fact 1 and 2:
fact3: nobody could have observed internal waves at the time of the prophet.
fact 4: the metaphor contained in the verse, by simple international linguistic standards, is based on the deep sea waves and deep sea darkness being real physical happenings.
fact5: unless mohammad didn't know how to string a comprehensible sentence together, the description in the verse CLEARLY and UNDOUBTEDLY resembles the happening modernly known as internal waves.
hence the final fact: the quran has detailed something impossible to know without modern scientific gear.
fact 0: god doesn't exist, all the previous is not possible.
i know i know...
just what was i thinking when i attempted this..?
it is actually more probable that mohammad heard a fisherman speak about internal waves and decided to put them into his book, either the fishermen was an oceanologist who didn't have a log, or mohammad had a strike of genius and figured it out, plus no other fishermen or scientist around the whole freaking earth ever seeing those waves or none of them decided to write them down, AND those who are shadowing their prophet were all busy with some other things while mohammad met his undercover guest.
that, is more probable than god told him, and he just conveyed.
Last edited:
Therefore Bedouins aren't human?
And you wonder why spidergoat commented on your grasp of logic.
Therefore Bedouins aren't human?
And you wonder why spidergoat commented on your grasp of logic.
aaaaah gotta qoute this before you delete it!!
there, got it
.. so you were saying?oh yes, let me explain my simple logic to you my dear friend;
just because arabs are good mariners doesn't mean all of them are, hence my mirror by saying humans are also good mariners.
then i explain by saying that while bedwins are arabs, they as a sub group sure as hell are no good mariners, hence untangling the twisted fact that it's so easy for mohammad to know of sea stuff because he's from a group who are good mariners, mohammad was good with cattle and its business, so was his culture, if those who speak his language know how to swim so what? those who are of his biological species also know how to swim...
get it?
now let's wonder, my whole long thread was lost on you, to come and tell me i'm saying bedwins are not human?
and then roll your eyes?
you're trying to show me that i'm wasting my time on you eh?
And did you read the rest of what I said about the 'eye' of your brain?
I think the d-o-opinion because of your bias towards the understanding of 'those people', and 'poetry' rather than words. While you stick to 'those people' you refuse to accept what they believed about the Quran at 'those times' and so on....
Anyhow why don't you give me the example I gave to GeoffP... I'm still waiting on it... this is getting pretty pathetic that you have to keep on posting 'one-liners' without ever really taking into account what I have been saying- maybe your goal is to piss me off, its working!
So I take my leave, as I think the debate is over- as JamesR suggested.
Peace be unto you
Therefore Bedouins aren't human?
And you wonder why spidergoat commented on your grasp of logic.
Ooooh, he's got you now, Dyw.
/sarc off
Meanwhile 786 is blathering about an example that I blasted ages back.
I agree that the thread should be closed. And that a cement image should be made for display in a public place as a monument to illogical devotion.
'Ages back'- I'll take your word for it, lol....
Well if taking 'word' was the point of discussion then I think no one should ever debate- James R you should close the whole formal debate section because everything has been 'blasted' by most people, at least most topics that people debate- since everything is 'blasted' 'ages ago'- why discuss anything... no reason, absolutely no. All of us should take each others words that everything has been blasted 'ages back'- yes that is how a discussion should begin and end.Although I'm interested in knowing if you even know what example I gave you because previously you asked for 'Proof' even though I gave it in the very post to which you responded with the question of 'proof?'- so I'm wondering if you even know about it before you blasted it 'ages back'-
Yes close the thread-
Peace be unto you
Last edited:
OK, that fact, coupled with the fact that I posted a picture of some off the west coast of America, proves that people could have seen such waves in the Middle East, with their naked eyes.
You would then need to prove that Mohammed could not have known about them. The lack of evidence showing that he did know about them does not prove that he couldn't know about them.
The lack of evidence showing that he did know about them could also show that this wasn't what he was talking about in the verse.
In the debate, it was your task to show that Mohammed talked about things that couldn't be known, not just things that were unlikely to be known.
Doesn't matter. One picture proves that they could have been known by anyone with eyes. You would have to show that it could not have been known, that it was impossible to know, that no circumstances could ever have led anyone without an orbiting satellite to know.
I question your notion that there is any contemporaneous biography of Mohammed detailed what he said and didn't say. Even the Quran itself was lost and then reconstructed later from various sources. Anyway, your statement here seems to imply that people could not have talked about something they knew. Was it impossible that people talked about something they saw from the coast? Of course not. You would have to show that such communication was impossible.
Yes. I do not agree with your premise that the verse is actually talking about boundry layer waves, but I have assumed so for the sake of argument. Chaotic waves would better evoke the (alleged) internal chaos of the unbeliever's mind. In addition, chaotic surface waves are easily seen, and would have been a distinct feature in any tales of ocean travel, like whales and flying fish.
Now you ask why Mohammed revealing previous unknown scientific knowledge is farfetched. Accounts of his life reveal that he was not a scientist, but rather a religious person, a leader, a warrior. So, you ask why it is unlikely that a supernatural being communicated science to him? Are you serious? It's just about the most unlikely thing that could happen to a person. Such phenomenon have never been proven by any evidence other than that person's account. There is no evidence that anything like that ever happened. Therefore, it is an extraordinary claim.
No, I do need to offer an explanation. Any plausible naturalistic explanation would cancel out your idea that the knowledge in question was impossible to know at the time. More possible beats less possible.
This does happen to be my personal prejudice, but that doesn't matter, it is also the prejudice of the scientific community, but for good, rational reasons. Nothing supernatural has yet been shown to exist. When it does, scientists would have to consider such explanations to be just as valid as any other explanation.
No, in that case, it would be proof of something supernatural. You see, that is the difference. This prediction would be specific and detailed. Specificity and detail are lacking in most prophecies.
I never said there could not be proof of the existence of God, but the point of view of science is skeptical. That is just good science. Naturalistic explanations are common, and functional ways of explaining the world. The actions of a hypothetical God cannot (presently) be distinguished from pure randomness. Therefore, the burden of proof is on you to prove something so strange and bizzare.
Yes, I think in your zeal to prove something extraordinary about this verse, you have overlooked the real meaning of it. I don't think it has anything to do with some obscure fact about the ocean (which was nevertheless possible for people to know).
=========================================================================
Not the first man to observe it, but perhaps the first one in the western world to write it down.
I already proved that they could have.
No, it is questionable if he was talking about under the sea, or just the kind of waves that mariners knew about, which was sinking their boats, and which would have also been a fine metaphor for unbelievers.
Nope. You have not proven that. That could have been the meaning, but it is improbable.
Asserting a fact doesn't make it so. You have failed to prove your premise.
Now you said something correct. God doesn't exist, and all your elaborate explanations are about as possible as monkeys flying out of my butt.
Or, Mohammed was trying to convert people, and told them that the unbeliever was like a tiny bird lost in a raging storm at sea, at night, in the darkness, floundering against impossible towers of water, lost in the darkness, needing the light of Allah to guide them to the exact opposite of such a state, to the light, to the oasis, to paradise where the wisdom of God would leave us at peace, in a calm ordered sunny land full of food and pretty girls where the chaos of doubt would be vanquished. It's the same heaven and hell story that any Christian would tell. To doubt this explanation is to doubt the wisdom of Mohammed in replicating the successful theology of Christianity while giving it an Arab flavor.
So he needs to prove a negative.... okay great... Lets have a new debate... I will argue the case that Science has found nothing new..... I'll just say that why don't you prove that they found something that people did not know about 3000 years back. Lack of evidence obviously isn't proof that they didn't know... I understand completely.
'could have known'- anything could be known by using this type of logic.
Why don't we close this thread and participate on the thread about 'proving a negative' in the General Philosophy thread.... I think that is more reasonable.
Please close this thread James.
Peace be unto you
There are many, many things that could not have been known at the time, such as the speed of light, the number of planets in the solar system, what keeps the sun going, the structure of DNA...
Yes.
Accurate clocks were not developed, which were necessary to calculate the speed of light based on the eclipse of one of Jupiter's moons seen from different places at the same time.
Telescopes were not developed at the time, which were necessary to discover the planets.
Einstein had not yet discovered his famous E=MC[sup]2[/sup] equation leading to the idea that the Sun could be powered by a fusion reaction.
X-ray crystallography had not yet been invented, so the structure of DNA could not have been known.
Accurate clocks were not developed, which were necessary to calculate the speed of light based on the eclipse of one of Jupiter's moons seen from different places at the same time.
Telescopes were not developed at the time, which were necessary to discover the planets.
Einstein had not yet discovered his famous E=MC[sup]2[/sup] equation leading to the idea that the Sun could be powered by a fusion reaction.
X-ray crystallography had not yet been invented, so the structure of DNA could not have been known.
Lol glad you're using logical reasoning now... but having this has nothing to do with if they knew or not... pay attention to my question... "Did they know?" I hope you see the difference between my question and your answer.
Peace be unto you
Is there any evidence that they knew? If not, it is unreasonable to assume they knew.
So you're not going to prove the negative? I thought so.
Anyhow, I think the debate is over- so thank you all for those who participated. I enjoyed the discussion very much. Peace out :wave:
Peace be unto you
Scientific logic isn't always an absolute. It's always possible that someone in the distant past knew something and didn't communicate it to anyone. The analogy of Russel's teapot comes to mind, and I think it was mentioned before. Can I prove that there ISN'T a teapot in orbit around Jupiter? No, but I can show that such a thing would be so unlikely that it would be unreasonable to assume it was true.
Can I prove that Mohammed didn't know what you think he knew? No, because time-travel mind-reading is not yet possible. But I can show that he could have known, given no special equipment, unlike the phenomenon I described in post #231.
Can I prove that Mohammed didn't know what you think he knew? No, because time-travel mind-reading is not yet possible. But I can show that he could have known, given no special equipment, unlike the phenomenon I described in post #231.
Last edited:
Yes. Did you read the various, multiple, patient posts from several people explaining to you why that entire argument is a capitulation, a reduction to absurdity of the OP?786 said:
I even posted a couple of poems for you to employ the eye of your brain on, and deduce that Tagore (for example) had the same Deity-inspired knowledge of salinity waves in the midocean waters that whoever wrote the Quran had, that Marianne Moore had either divine information or unusual oceanographic expertise.
Either that, or the eye of your brain is not to be assumed as the eye of other people's brains, especially the long dead and cryptically informant, without evidence. And your ability to reinterpret text to suit yourself is not such evidence.
Almost all of the arguments were rather stupid... Although I can't seem to have you to agree, but I guess that's how it is.... you're welcome to see how the debate happened the way you want.
You posted poems, to which I responded using the context- while you pulled your meanings of the words out of your own head which doesn't even make sense when you put them there... while the same is not true for the Quran- it would still make sense. Anyhow, you don't agree, so....
Hmm... and you presented evidence? Did you present the evidence of how people understood it in 600 CE? Did you present evidence of what people believed about the Quran in general? And have you presented evidence why your 'interpretation' is correct? Have you presented argument of what the prophet believed about the Quran and its meanings? Have you presented evidence why my 'reinterpretation' totally changes the language of the Quran? Have you presented evidence that my interpretation is against the context?
By the way I'm still waiting for you to cite the example I gave to GeoffP...
Whatever. Enjoy your delusional win. :wave:
Peace be unto you
Last edited:
Really? The picture right? My response I guess had no effect on your view... okay :shrug:
Peace be unto you