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

Your notion that the picture didn't represent what it says it represents, and instead shows plankton or something floating on the surface? No, I don't buy it.
 
spidergoat said:
Your notion that the picture didn't represent what it says it represents, and instead shows plankton or something floating on the surface? No, I don't buy it.
Click to expand...

And did you care to ask the owners of the website? I did! And I explained to you WHY they labeled it with 'internal waves'- this is why I'm getting disgusted by this whole debate- all you want to do is win.... I even told you to e-mail the website owners and ask them that what I said was correct!

'You don't buy it'- but you don't give a damn about what I say is true or not! This sums up the whole motivation of this discussion. 'don't buy it'- wow! I guess you're not an informed shopper.

With this admission of yours- I officially declare my leave from this debate- because there is no point arguing with people like you who 'don't buy it' but don't care to research! I don't care what anyone posts, don't expect a response anymore- I'm done. :wave:

Peace be unto you ;)
 
OK, it could be plankton, but it is moving in a wave formation separate from most of the surface waves. Therefore, it's still possible for someone to see such a thing from the shore and conclude there are sub-surface waves.
 
786 said:
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.
Click to expand...
The way I interpret the words, which seems to be the same as everyone else has interpreted them for thousands of years, makes sense in every context in which they appear.

The eye of your brain is quite oddly selective - apparently the meanings of common images and poetic wordings are much different in the Quran than anywhere else, in the eye of your brain. But you cannot explain why that would be, except to point to a "difference of opinion" and a "belief", which I readily acknowledge as the likely foundation of your unique interpretations of these common poetic images.
786 said:
Hmm... and you presented evidence? Did you present the evidence of how people understood it in 600 CE?
Click to expand...
I did not know there was any question about that. Are you now claiming that people in those days took that verse as describing the kinds of internal waves you claim are not observable without modern scientific gear? That is not your argument earlier, in which you claimed "hidden" meanings unknown to the earlier audience.
786 said:
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?
Click to expand...
Why do these irrelevancies come up? My contention is that nothing in that verse details anything the people of the time could not have observed, or even anything they were unlikely to be familiar with - that it is obviously and commonly possible to take such language as referring to things obviously and commonly known to its original audience.
 
The writings of the Q'uran are quite intellectual. The Islamic religion believes in something similar to the big bang theory.
 
Greetings krazedkat.
krazedkat said:
The writings of the Q'uran are quite intellectual. The Islamic religion believes in something similar to the big bang theory.
Click to expand...
I am not surprised that the Quran may be taken to support the Big Bang Theory (BB). Both Judaism & especially Christianity readily support such an idea too since all three religions are monotheistic, hence a fiat creation follows 'rather logically' if God (= Allah = Jehovah) can do anything. It is otherwise with polytheistic systems - notably Jainism & traditional Chinese cosmology.

Thus too we see monotheist religions today all trying to subvert or negate Darwinian evolution for example, whereas such activity by polytheists is much less.

FOLZONI
 
Last edited:
FOLZONI said:
Thus too we see monotheist religions today all trying to subvert or negate Darwinian evolution for example, whereas such activity by polytheists is much less.

FOLZONI
Click to expand...

The facts are against your argument. The largest christian sect in the world does not reject evolution.
 
You don't seem to realize, origin...
origin said:
The facts are against your argument. The largest christian sect in the world does not reject evolution.
Click to expand...
...that the Catholic Church, or indeed any Christian church which seems to accept Darwinian evolution, does not actually accept the Darwinian process of variation & natural selection. For a believer, what is termed 'natural selection' is one made by God or by demons (for some reason permitted to act by God on nature). The generation of the variation (that natural selection is to work upon) is also treated as Divinely ordained or permitted, not the result of randomness, of disorder in the universe.

Hence for most religious monotheists, what appears as Darwinian evolution was merely the way God designed it (indirectly) or permitted it to be (including the activities of Divinely-appointed agents as well as demonic Satanic ones).

Later edit: Hence popular Christianity (in contrast to anti-evolutionary Evangelical US sects) can thus state vaguely, though with a clear conscience: "God created different plants & animals, and evolution is how He did it." I suspect many Moslems & Jews would agree here too.

The only Christian minority that does wholeheartedly accept Darwinian evolution are the Socinians (e.g. Charles Hartshorne) who teach that God too evolves (in the sense of gaining greater understanding) as mankind progresses thru history. IOW, the Socinians teach that God does NOT know the future absolutely but reacts directly to human activity. This means that God is IN time, not outside it. This teaching is normal in traditional Judaism too (not modern Judaism's adoption of Spinoza's & Einstein's philosophy) e.g. Noah's Flood where Jehovah decides to exterminate humanity when He finds how evil they are - sparing only Noah's family.

Most Islamic ideas on this issue seem to be like that of standard Christianity (i.e. always pushing God's determinism & absolute foreknowledge), but no doubt variants like Socinianism occur in Islamic sectarian movements too.

FOLZONI
 
Last edited:
Correct.
It is a postulate of Judaism and Christianity that God created man in his own image,
so man can not be a product of random events.
The Catholic Church sees it as an article of faith, but does not put forward any explanation of how it was achieved.
i e. , God must have been directly involved in, and guided, creation,
but the method by which he did this is not understood.
 
Last edited:
Religion will have a role in human society for as long as death exists, simply because no amount of science will suffice to explain why life exists in the face of or in spite of the omnipresent possibility of death. For all of us, life is a temporary state that can extinguish as quickly as it developed.

Science is about trying to understand as much of life as we can. We don't actually know very much. Religion does not seek understanding, but only makes you feel better about superstition substituted for actual understanding. Science tells us that all living things on this planet share DNA and eventually die, regardless of how they lived or their various religious beliefs. As far those who survive are concerned, the afterlife may as well be compost, devoid of any ostentatious religious sanctimony. When I die, I'm sure that I will make wonderful compost that will make many plants and the myriad bacteria I carry around healthy and happy. It is something I aspire to be good at in the afterlife, even if it wrinkles some noses, including those of any fictitious prophets or deities which may or may not have set these events in motion. If only the same comfort could be derived of believing in a superstition...

Scripture, even the Quran, is no science textbook. If this is your obsession, you should get another one.
 
Well said. Science actually does explain life, but people will simply continue to conceptualise outside such physical boundaries: such is magic. You approach the issue without needing to impugn religion.
 
danshawen said:
Religion will have a role in human society for as long as death exists, simply because no amount of science will suffice to explain why life exists in the face of or in spite of the omnipresent possibility of death. For all of us, life is a temporary state that can extinguish as quickly as it developed.
Click to expand...

Evolution explains why life survives, and on that note let's not get so cocky about human life on Earth lasting all that much longer. Even if we survive as a species, in 10 million years we're almost guaranteed to look like something you wouldn't be inclined to call a human in today's world.

As to the Quran stuff, I have yet to see a decent explanation for why such an "advanced science textbook and guide to life" doesn't make a single mention of the Americas. You'd think given the role of the US in modern Muslim politics, that there would have been at least something in there. "O' Muslims, there's a whole bunch of land to the west, and you'll loop right back to the starting point if you keep on going in the same direction. So go sail out there, slay the infidels and colonize the place before Britain, France, Spain and Portugal gobble it all up!"

Mathematicians including some in the Arab world already knew the world was round for something like 1000 years before the Quran was written, and they had pretty decent estimates of its overall size too. No excuses for basic facts like this to not be clearly, unambiguously referenced in the Quran, rather than the simplest explanation which is that a bunch of people made stuff up and wrote it down.
 
yeah, the greater vestitude of all languages books
seem to have
little realism and much differential.
there of the interest of the concept of 'language differential' is quite worthy in order of peace and ending human bias issues regarding human relations, etc..]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top