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

[786]

Yes, that's what I expected scifes to present, something like the formula for photosynthesis! Something that could not have been known at the time. Not just modern interpretations of the text in light of modern scientific knowledge. In order to demonstrate unambiguous scientific truth, it must be precise.

What would be the point of that to those Arabs? Wasn't that your argument

In my example, I said my heart was "weighted down" with darkness. Weight can be interpreted as mass, and dark mass as dark matter. This isn't precise at all.

What about the 'heart'? You see you are still not using your expression fully- While scifes is looking at the same verse but still fully-

Peace be unto you

 

[spidergoat]

There wouldn't be a point, except to help convert people thousands of years later when they realized it was there all along. But you can go back and interpret any vague poem in light of modern knowledge. Do you want to know what's even more fascinating? When Mohammed wasn't even a baby yet, the Greeks had deduced the existence of the atom, and although they did write about it in the form of a poem, they were explicit in their meaning:

Moreover, we must suppose that the atoms do not possess any of the qualities belonging to visible things, except shape, weight, and size, and whatever necessarily goes with shape. For every quality changes; but the atoms do not change at all, since there must needs be something which remains solid and indestructible at the dissolution of compounds, which makes change possible. These are not changes into the nonexistent or from the non-existent, but changes effected by changes in the position of some particles, and by the addition or departure of others. For this reason it is essential that the bodies that change their position should be indestructible and should not possess the nature of what changes, but masses and configurations of their own. For thus much must necessarily remain constant.​

I'm pretty sure this was originally written in verse.

 

[786]

There wouldn't be a point, except to help convert people thousands of years later when they realized it was there all along.

But Quran does it better, the Arabs can understand it, and modern people can understand it. Multiple meanings- a much better use of words.

You still have to show that the Arabs thought Quran to have only one meaning, which you challenged scifes to do.

As for the Greek Atomic model.

since there must needs be something which remains solid and indestructible at the dissolution of compounds,​

​

False- atoms can be destroyed.

For this reason it is essential that the bodies that change their position should be indestructible and should not possess the nature of what changes, but masses and configurations of their own. For thus much must necessarily remain constant.

Again, atom is not 'indestructible'- and it DOES change- Radioactive decay? The position of electrons is not constant- it gains and loses electrons?

And quite frankly speaking can you please tell me the shape of an atom which is supposedly an inherent quality of an atom that does not change- because I've never seen the 'shape' of a 'unchanging' atom- all I see are electron clouds which just highlights the PROBABILITY of the position of electrons- but we know that is not a shape or at least not an 'unchanging' shape.

This would've been a great piece to put in the Quran, but I guess Muhammad knew that it was wrong so didn't put this in but put everything else which was correct and proof-read them?

Peace be unto you

 

[spidergoat]

That's the modern definition of atom, not the a-tom, the essential particle, to which the Greeks were referring. The modern atom was misnamed, and we now know that it can be broken down into smaller constituents.

 

[786]

That's the modern definition of atom, not the a-tom, the essential particle, to which the Greeks were referring. The modern atom was misnamed, and we now know that it can be broken down into smaller constituents.

Let me know which particle is indestructible? And please provide a proof that it is 'indestructible'.

If the only thing Greeks came up to is that- there must be something fundamentally 'small' that makes things up- and that it has a weight and size- this can easily be hypothesized by just common sense. This is just a philosophical conclusion which isn't surprising at all. Greeks were known for their philosophical complexity.

Or are you telling me that people could not say that if you can cut a bar of gold into ten pieces, that you can also cut it into a 100 pieces, and so on and so forth? Essentially there is something fundamentally small that makes up the 'big'- it wouldn't take a genius to hypothesize this- but obviously if you are even more philosophical then you can go even further.

For example did they not see that if you mix sugar with water it dissolves? Then if the most fundamental thing was a grain (in place of atom) of sugar, then where did it go? It means there is something more fundamental, undifferentiated- meaning something that actually makes up the sugar....

So now I've gone from a smallest piece of sugar to some other small piece which itself is not sugar. And a philosopher would continue, but I'm not going to waste my time explaining this as I'm sure even you have the mind to think philosophically.

No one can doubt that Greeks were very intellectual and philosophical.

And secondly Greeks had many thing wrong too.... If Muhammad simply copied the information from others then did he sort the right from wrong?

Also what is the philosophical reasoning behind internal waves? As a layman would think that waves are due to the wind which is only present on the top of the ocean surface? Especially considering this coming from a desert dweller who probably doesn't know too much about water anyways.

Peace be unto you

 

[spidergoat]

It doesn't say internal waves. It says waves upon waves, which is simply the literary technique of repetition.

The point I'm making about the Greeks is that they revealed amazing scientific facts using nothing more than reason. Which is more than Mohamed has done, allegedly channeling God itself.

 

[786]

It doesn't say internal waves. It says waves upon waves, which is simply the literary technique of repetition.

Waves topped by waves topped by clouds-- The same language in a succession can not be attributed to clouds if just before it is talking about 'many waves'- Clouds would be missed placed here.

Secondly please read the verse again: I'm providing translations found here:
http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/quran/024.qmt.html

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.


It refers to darkness at the depth of the sea- then to waves and then waves on top. It is illogical to first draw attention to the depth of something (to which the metaphor is for) but then follow it up with something that isn't found there at all- unless the following was at the depth to begin with to allow for smooth transition from depth to sky (cloud).

If the metaphor is related to darkness in the depth then to assume that the 'waves' referred to first are surface waves is quite illogical as the metaphor breaks apart if one does that. As supposedly the metaphor was that of the darkness in the depth of seas as told in the beginning.

And then you have to also consider the summation of the metaphor with layers of darkness 'one above another'. If the previously mentioned things were in layers- then to single out 'waves' as many (which makes clouds missed placed) would further make it illogical.

As the beginning refers to darkness in the depth. To explain that darkness it uses "waves topped by waves topped by clouds"... Sums it up as 'darkness above darkness'.

If waves is 1 thing (many waves)- that would be 1 layer- surface layer, clouds would be the other layer (sky).

But where is the darkness in the depth? Also to note is that 2 of translations say 'there'- referring to the depth where the 'waves' are or at least the first waves.. Coincidentally the verse gives examples where darkness can be found- waves (surface) and clouds (sky) but where is the example for the 'darkness' in the deep?

The logical conclusion is that that it works from depth to sky in a succession... waves (depth), wave on top (surface), clouds (sky). This answers why the attention to the depth was brought in the beginning of the metaphor and it gives logical succession. And it answers the 'layer of darkness' (summation of metaphor) at the end.

And again you still have to show that Arabs only held that the Quran had only the meaning they themselves held.

The point I'm making about the Greeks is that they revealed amazing scientific facts using nothing more than reason. Which is more than Mohamed has done, allegedly channeling God itself.

Greeks are a big group of people- they wrote many works of their philosophical discussion.. purpose of them being philosophical discussion regarding their surrounding..

The Quran is a single book purpose of which is not to to detail or try to explain how things work or are composed of- but a theological work which occasionally uses metaphors that help it achieve this goal.

That is like saying that a book of anatomy should contain information regarding how to pass Level 2 of Prince of Persia (a video game).

Peace be unto you

 

[spidergoat]

Exactly, and you make my points for me, the Quran is a theological work which contains metaphors appropriate to the people of the time, and shows no particular insight into the workings of nature. The layered nature of waves and clouds and atmospheric effects was well known to people that spent more time outside than modern people do. How do I know this? He also mentions layers of darkness, which cannot be literally true. Darkness upon darkness is therefore an example of a literary technique. It's just repetition for effect.

This is also found in the bible when Jesus says to turn the other cheek not 7 times but 7 times 70. Of course he didn't literally mean to be pacifist exactly 490 times and then you can kill the motherfucker. It's a literary phrase that just means, for all practical purposes, forever.

 

[786]

Exactly, and you make my points for me, the Quran is a theological work which contains metaphors appropriate to the people of the time, and shows no particular insight into the workings of nature.

I believe I already answered this? It is a theological work which contains metaphors for real world processes. But it does not mean that it will contain everything.. You are quoting Greek work which is for philosophical purposes. If the Quran refers to real world things as a form of metaphor then one can not hide from the fact that it is still using an actual example- even though it is a theological work in itself. But you are demanding that it be something more- like give the formula for dynamite? You are not content with it containing what it does- but your question is why doesn't it contain even more- it seems that it is you who forgets what the Quran is, not me- I simply take it to be a theological work but when it does mention things of scientific relevance then I take that as well- not demanding that it provide even more science because I already know its not a science book- but why should I turn away from whatever it does provide?

As for 'appropriate to the people of the time'- yet the words are timeless enough that they explain modern understanding as well. I've already shown that Quran was believed to hold meanings that the Arabs acknowledged they themselves did not know- And I've already told you that poetry can be written with the same verse having many meanings- and the fact that the Prophet himself believed the Quran to have many meanings- some of which were NOT UNDERSTOOD by the Arabs!

The author intended many meanings- we know that from what the Arabs believed about the Quran-

But it seems perfectly okay to go in an English class and read something and everyone gives their 'insight' on what something means and the teacher is like 'I can see that, nice job'- so English work is complex enough? Not knowing that the author even intended many meanings? But we are to leave other meanings about the Quran knowing from historical evidence that many meanings were intended in that work?

The layered nature of waves and clouds and atmospheric effects was well known to people that spent more time outside than modern people do.

So you are arguing that they knew about internal waves?

How do I know this? He also mentions layers of darkness, which cannot be literally true.

Actually it can be- assuming that 'darkness' is not uniform which it is not- there are 'levels' of darkness- like how dark can your TV produce 'black levels'

We know that the light of the sun can penetrate to a certain extent but the different wavelengths of light (colors that compose the sunlight) penetrate the ocean to an extent of different depths- coincidentally creating 'levels' of darkness the more deep you go as more and more of the 'light' is unable to penetrate.

Darkness upon darkness is therefore an example of a literary technique. It's just repetition for effect.

True, if you look at it in a vacuum, you chose to ignore all that I said in the previous post trying to point out the structure of the verse. I already tried to show why the literary technique you are referring to does not explain the verse in question. It adds to the 'effect' (which is the purpose of a metaphor) that is for sure but it never fully satisfies the verse and how it is being stated.

Peace be unto you

 

[iceaura]

So first darkness is being referred to in reference to the 'deep' sea- alluding to the depth of it... Then it refers to waves- What waves at those depths?

Then these waves are topped by waves, which are then topped by dark clouds- all of this being referred to darkness upon darkness... To me it seems like layers.

I see a poetically described ocean in storm: dark in the depths, waves on top, clouds over them. Confusion and lost mariners - a mundane analogy. No doubt it is better poetry in the original.

So first darkness is being referred to in reference to the 'deep' sea- alluding to the depth of it... Then it refers to waves- What waves at those depths?

What depths? It just says waves - not deep ones. Specifically, it refers to the waves being on top - the upper layer. But "internal waves" would be below, as well as above - an error, in the Quran? And the "internal waves" are not waves in ordinary description - that's a scientific analogy, The Quran would have been in error to use the same word.

I think that is poetry, not scientific error, myself.

No one else got "internal waves" out of that, either, for almost two thousand years.
”
That doesn't even matter. Quran has multiple meanings, some of which the Arabs at the time could not understand

Once again these deities play their mysterious games - why bury something so simple in such cryptic language? I don't see why a reasonable Arab of the 10th Century CE could not understand a a clear reference to internal waves in the ocean, without disguising it as an apparently ordinary poetic description of a storm-tossed ocean.

 

[786]

I see a poetically described ocean in storm: dark in the depths, waves on top, clouds over them. Confusion and lost mariners - a mundane analogy. No doubt it is better poetry in the original.

Okay, and so?

What depths? It just says waves - not deep ones.

Did you care to read what it was referring to before? Or all of you guys like to look at words in vacuum?

Specifically, it refers to the waves being on top - the upper layer. But "internal waves" would be below, as well as above - an error, in the Quran?

Actually it does refer to waves both below and above- 2 layers of waves you see?

And the "internal waves" are not waves in ordinary description - that's a scientific analogy, The Quran would have been in error to use the same word.

True, but it simply says waves- it has attributes of a wave- namely frequency + amplitude + wavlength- it is what causes them that is different- an interesting thing to note is that the Quran says 3 things- waves, another wave, clouds.

It just happens to be, and interesting, that the internal waves are a result of gravity and that also leads to 'waves' in the atmosphere which create 'wave clouds'- it ends up talking about the waves inside ocean, on top of ocean, and clouds (evaporated from ocean?).

So it ends up giving us ocean internal waves, ocean surface waves, and atmospheric internal waves (at least the ones related to 'wave clouds').

I think that is poetry, not scientific error, myself.

I don't see the error

in such cryptic language?

Or perhaps he should've wrote 1 million volumes to get every single detail in there?

Peace be unto you

 

[iceaura]

Actually it does refer to waves both below and above- 2 layers of waves you see?

No, I don't see. It refers to waves upon waves, all of them the same kind of waves, all of them in the "layer" (your word) on top, with clouds over them and the deep dark under them.

What depths? It just says waves - not deep ones.
”
Did you care to read what it was referring to before? Or all of you guys like to look at words in vacuum?

I read what you described - layers: the deep dark, waves upon waves on top of that, clouds over all. The ocean we all see, when we look over the side of the boat.

in such cryptic language?
”
Or perhaps he should've wrote 1 million volumes to get every single detail in there?

I'm still waiting for the first detail of the requested kind.

So far, we have a claim that without modern scientific gear no one would notice that in stormy, threatening weather the depths of the ocean were dark, waves upon waves were over it, and dark clouds over them. The claim is ludicrous.

btw:

True, but it simply says waves- it has attributes of a wave- namely frequency + amplitude + wavlength- it is what causes them that is different- an interesting thing to note is that the Quran says 3 things- waves, another wave, clouds.

That was two things - waves and clouds.

So it ends up giving us ocean internal waves, ocean surface waves, and atmospheric internal waves (at least the ones related to 'wave clouds').

? This whole business of "internal waves" is not visible in the Quran - and if you care, "wave clouds" are not formed over the deep ocean, neither are they dark.

Give it up. It's a lousy example - no modern scientific information at all.

 

[spidergoat]

...If the Quran refers to real world things as a form of metaphor then one can not hide from the fact that it is still using an actual example- even though it is a theological work in itself. But you are demanding that it be something more- like give the formula for dynamite? ...

Yes, specifically something that could not have been known at the time. A layered model isn't anything new, it's the exact cosmological model of the ancient and primitive Piraha people of the Amazon.

 

[Michael]

I'm still missing the "miracle" that the creator of reality itself preformed here in the Qur'an? Ocean waves on top of waves with clouds floating over top of the ocean? THAT is the miracle? Is that what Godhead's are passing off as miracles these days?!?!? Geesh, the economy really is on the skids.

 

[S.A.M.]

I met an Egyptian once who told me he had discovered the Periodic table in the Quran. I never did get around to finding out where it was.

 

[scifes]

I met an Egyptian once who told me he had discovered the Periodic table in the Quran. I never did get around to finding out where it was.

what're you cooking?:bugeye:
couldn't resist the smell

 

[786]

I'm still missing the "miracle" that the creator of reality itself preformed here in the Qur'an? Ocean waves on top of waves with clouds floating over top of the ocean? THAT is the miracle? Is that what Godhead's are passing off as miracles these days?!?!? Geesh, the economy really is on the skids.

That is not the miracle, the information is (or at least being claimed to be). I don't you ever understand anything do you :shrug:

Peace be unto you

 

[786]

No, I don't see. It refers to waves upon waves, all of them the same kind of waves, all of them in the "layer" (your word) on top, with clouds over them and the deep dark under them.

'Same' is your word- they are waves on top of waves, which is accurate as the waves in depth are still waves.

I read what you described - layers: the deep dark, waves upon waves on top of that, clouds over all. The ocean we all see, when we look over the side of the boat.

It refers to the darkness in the deep- and 'there' it talks about waves, and then waves on top. Secondly you also need to prove that this is the only meaning.

I'm still waiting for the first detail of the requested kind.

Formula for dynamite?

So far, we have a claim that without modern scientific gear no one would notice that in stormy, threatening weather the depths of the ocean were dark, waves upon waves were over it, and dark clouds over them. The claim is ludicrous.

No, the claim is no one would have known internal waves.

btw: That was two things - waves and clouds. ? This whole business of "internal waves" is not visible in the Quran

That is if 'waves' on top of 'waves' are not two separate waves- you're the one who came up with the word 'same' which is not even in the verse. Internal waves by all definitions are waves-.

- and if you care, "wave clouds" are not formed over the deep ocean, neither are they dark.

But generally speaking where is the formation of clouds? And where did you get the idea that 'wave clouds' don't form in Oceans:

Look at Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_cloud
Coincidentally the main picture is of Wave Clouds in the 'far Southern Indian Ocean

And they can't be dark? Stop giving me this bs.
http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/view_rec.php?id=8323

Quoting from the description: "However, clouds sometimes appear gray or even black"

As for in 'deep Ocean'-
http://www.es.flinders.edu.au/~mattom/IntExerc/basic2/quest04.html

Look at number 3 (south of Madagascar)- which is basically around where the Prince Edwards Islands are- from which the pictures from the above articles are shown. Seems 'deep' enough to me? Have you ever even went down 100m with your bare body- even 100m is deep enough for desert dwellers. And I would say its pretty dark even at 100m-200m.

Give it up. It's a lousy example - no modern scientific information at all.

Perhaps you should stop making up crap like 'wave clouds' can't form in Oceans and they can't be dark.

Peace be unto you

 

[786]

Yes, specifically something that could not have been known at the time. A layered model isn't anything new, it's the exact cosmological model of the ancient and primitive Piraha people of the Amazon.

Mind providing links, specifically regarding this 'wave model'?

Peace be unto you

 

[S.A.M.]

what're you cooking?:bugeye:
couldn't resist the smell

Fish Biryani, with some nice rawas [salmon] steaks. Yes, it did turn out exceptionally well. Happy Holi