Discussion with a Muslim

zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1230
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
Discussion with a Muslim

This discussion with a muslim began in the comments section of the following video

 It proceeded to PM, and I invited him to continue here.  I've reproduced the PM history with his permission:

eziad85 wrote:
u replied to me (as a comment):

 

Quote:
"There is no way any rational person would believe that, every creation has a creator, and the more complex it is, the more intelligent the creator." Is god complex? Then what created god? "So why is this concept dropped when we are talking about our universe?!" Why do you drop the concept when talkinga about god?

 -----------------------

 Dude, i wonder if you read what u wrote? I said every CREATION has a creator, and the more complex IT (the creation) is, the more inteligent the creator.

 Is God a creation? By definition no, or else he is not God. (so it becomes irrelevant if he is complex or not, we are talking about created things)..

 cheers

 

I wrote:

 Hello

 Yes, dude, I read what you wrote, no need to wonder. I wonder if you are sufficiently employing your critical thinking skills.

 You are arbitrarily asserting that the universe is 'created' in order to posit a 'creator' for it. You need to back up your assertion that the universe is 'created'. You obviously have no problem with something being uncreated, since that is a property you assign to this god you believe in. Why do you have a problem with simply assigning that property to the universe (which at least we can both agree exists, through observation), with no role for a creator god to play?

 On the other hand, if you allow yourself to arbitrarily assert that the universe is created, why can one not likewise arbitrarily assert that god is created?

 Happy thinking.

 cheers

 

eziad85 wrote:
hi again..

 See now we are talking about something else, we are debating whether the world is considered a creation or not...u refused to admit misunderstood me when i said everything CREATED has a designer, not just anything complex.. anyways since u ignored that and didnt say anythign about it, i know u understood it.. so now we will move to the next topic which is, is the world considered a creation... (i know this point should be made first, but that doesnt change the fact that i was consistent when saying everything created has a creator).

 If you believe there is no God, then creation to u are complex things u know we humans created, like machines, airplanes etc..

 So everything created has a creator, according to ur definition.

 If you believe there is a God, and every electron is created, and God brought everything together, and he caused the universe to be what it is, and he designed the natural selection process.. then the Everything created has a creator argument is still consistent..

 You see, no matter how u define a creation, we all know it has a creator and a cause. If you say things like i didnt see God create a snowflake, then you are diverting from the very definition of God (which is the ultimate creator), in other words, ur not being consistent.

 I also dont understand what u mean by (no role for God to play).. cause (i am a muslim) we believe God like any creator, is separate from his creation, meaning he is not PART of his creation, but can intervene if he wills.

 Keeping the arguments above aside for sec, i believe what i believe, because of the consistency of my religion (Islam). I guess for anybody thats the case, if a religion is believable it should be consistent with itself and be in no conflict with the world we know, in other words, make perfect sense. The quran makes a lot of claims about creation, and what are we and what is the world, and our reason for existence. The best part its very consistent, and God amazing challenge in the quran such as:

 "Were they created out of nothing, or were they themselves the creators? Or did they create the heavens and the earth? No they have no firm belief" (52:35-36)

 "And if you are in doubt concerning that which We reveal unto Our worshipper, then produce a surah (chapter) of the like thereof, and call your witness beside Allah if ye are truthful." (2:23)

 And God said in the quran also, that if it was other than from God, then you would have found many inconsistencies in it...

 www.quranexplorer.com

 Happy thinking Sticking out tongue

 Cheers

 

 

I wrote:
Sure it is consistent to say that everything that is created has a creator -- a circular argument is always consistent. But for you to say that and use it to "prove" god without explicitly demonstrating the universe is created is inconsistent.

 So now finally you are trying to justify your claim that the universe is created. Let's have a look:

 

Quote:
>If you believe there is no God, then creation to u are complex >things u know we humans created, like machines, airplanes>etc..

 Complex things are not only things humans have created. Complexity also arises naturally: snowflakes, crystals, tornadoes...

 

Quote:
>So everything created has a creator, according to ur >definition.

 Yes, everything created has a creator (again, it's a circular definition), but we have examples of complexity in nature which were not created, but emerged without a creator.

 

Quote:
>If you believe there is a God, and every electron is created, and God brought everything together, and he caused the universe to be what it is, and he designed the natural selection process.. then the Everything created has a creator argument is still consistent..

 But I don't believe in god, and I don't believe every electron is created (90 % of the universe is in fact dark matter, which means it does not consist of electrons as we know them), and I don't believe god brought everything together. So I don't believe the universe is 'created', or requires a creator.

 

Quote:
>I also dont understand what u mean by (no role for God to play).. cause (i am a muslim) we believe God like any creator, is separate from his creation, meaning he is not >PART of his creation, but can intervene if he wills.

 What I mean is our current scientific understanding of the universe does not require a god to explain its existence. It is not 'created', and did not require a 'creator' -- it always existed. If the universe (or the matter that makes up the universe) always existed, there was no role for a god to play in the universe's existence.

 The quran is not consistent. Man was not created "from a clot of blood". The sun does not set "in a muddy puddle". The christian finds his religion consistent with itself and with the bible, and so on for every other religion.

 You never got around to proving that the universe is 'created'. Until you do so, you cannot tell me it requires a 'creator'

 

eziad wrote:

 hi again...

 bismillah (in the name of God)

 First of all take this part of your reply, cause i think u misunderstood my point:

 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Quote:
So now finally you are trying to justify your claim that the universe is created. Let's have a look:

 

Quote:
>If you believe there is no God, then creation to u are complex >things u know we humans created, like machines, airplanes

 >etc..

 Complex things are not only things humans have created. Complexity also arises naturally: snowflakes, crystals, tornadoes...

 >So everything created has a creator, according to ur

 >definition.

 Yes, everything created has a creator (again, it's a circular definition), but we have examples of complexity in nature which were not created, but emerged without a creator.

 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 I know complex things are like crystals for example, please focus on the point im making. Im saying people like you believe that only complex things LIKE airplanes and machines, are created, because we know we created them, you believe that right? Im talking about THAT group of complex things. Its easy to get misunderstood in these discussions.

 Moving on, now about u not believing the electron is created according to me, and the universe is a creation is something else. My belief rests with the concept that all this is came with the decision of an intelligent mind and that randomness cannot generate order, even if u use the excuse of natural selection, because natural selection follows a set of rules and is based on laws, and it is by itself an order, and that order must come from ordered being.

 Look friend, there is one thing i can bet my life on it. I can never convince you the universe is a creation, you have to convince yourself. The proof is infront of your eyes. Man has the choice to accept or deny antyhing, and that includes the choice to deny a proof, thats why proof is never enough. You have to convince yourself before convincing me. This bring another topic, i know there is a lot to talk about, and we as humans are limited in this unlimited universe and we can easily make wrong conclusions, thats why we are given a guide to life (quran). We as muslims claim quran is the word of God, you dont have to believe it simply because i said it, but at least put it to the test. Read it, if u can read it all, read a chapter. I will come back to this point.

 About the quran be inconsistent as u said, i know that every one likes his religion to be correct, but why does that matter to u, just check it for yourself. A religious book should be consistent with itself and doesnt conflict with our knowledge of the world. About "clot of blood", whats up with that? why is it inconsistent? Man is first a clot of blood, (hanging clot) in the womb before he is created. If u meant man is created from earth not from blood, then u are talking about different stages. Quran says man is created from mud, blood, sperm... its all different stages.

 Back to the quran thing. I dont know if u know arabic, but one of the most things i found truly remarkable is that the quran doesnt have a grammatical error (please dont compare to english Sticking out tongue). Trust me when i say arabic is very hard language, specifically grammar, even to arabs. You have no idea how easy it is to make a grammatical error, in a word not a sentence, like forget a dot or something. And to have a book of that magnitude unchanged for 14 centuries which is exactly the same anywhere in the world, whether in china or america, is something amazing indeed.

 Look we can talk and talk, and im willing to, but i want u to look into the quran, because we are dealing with something beyond our scope, while the quran talks to the human leveling to his logic. There is one problem however in the quran, its hard to understand it without knowing the context, because every part of the quran is associated with aa certain event that happened and talks about certain peopel. So you have to scan through it, and look for whatever grabs ur attention, and just use the translation to get an idea about what it is saying rather than what it really means. You could use an interpretation but thats complicated. Just use a translation, and ask questions. Ask me, ask scholars ask someone who knows. If a book is from God, it should prove itself to u, if u are willing to listen.

 oh the link is this www.quranexplorer.com u can also listen to recitations from it. Oh and there is this great documentary called Islam:Empire of faith (its is 3 parts). I really recommend that u watch it, it explain pretty much all the islamic history, its an excellent and interesting documentary (found on youtube Sticking out tongue)

 Im gonna leave u with some reasons to why i believe in islam, jus to inform u ( u dont need to reply to that part if u dont want to). Im not in a hurry for a reply, id be more happy if u look into what i gave u, and gain a better understanding about what i believe, id like that.

 Happy thinking (i liked that Sticking out tongue)

 Bye

 So why islam?

 1) Islam is the only religion that doesn’t have its name derived from an object or a person.The word islam means submission. In the context of Islam as a religion, islam means submission to God.

 2) Islam is the only religion that doesn’t have and doesn’t make an image of God, whether a a statue, a drawing, or even a mentalimage. If God is unlimited he cant be described be our limited senses.

 In the sacred sources of islam, the Quran (recitation) and the Sunnah (life of the prophet pbuh), there is no image or description of the form of God. Rather most description of God are:

 He is like no one..

 Nothing is like him…

 3) Islam is the only religion that has its sacred source, the quran unchanged, since the time of its revelation, until our time.

 4) Islam is the only religion that can retrieve its quran in one day if all the book in the world are thrown in the ocean. This is one of the miracles of the quran. Millions of people know it by heart from cover to cover, letter by letter, in order! you shouldnt be surprised if a 10 year old child memorized it all by heart.

 Verily We: It is We Who have sent down the Dhikr (i.e. the Qur'ân) and surely, We will guard it (from corruption) (9) chapter 15

 5) Islam is the only religion which has each of its chapters begin with “In the Name of The God, The Most Gracious, The Most Merciful”. (Something to take a note of)

 6) Islam is the only religion which clearly indicated that people could maintain their old religions. "There is no compulsion in religion" quran

 7) Islam is the only religion that has all its followers praying in the same direction anywhere in the world. (towards the sacred shrine in mecca, Unity)

 8) Islam is the only religion which considers all prophets, of the same God and same message from Adam to Muhammad peace be upon them all.

 Some wonders of the quran:

 1) About expanding universe:

 And it is We Who have constructed the heaven with might, and verily, it is We Who are steadily expanding it. (Qur'an, 51:47)

 2) About the origin of the universe:

 Do those who disbelieve not see that the heavens and the earth WERE joined together and then We SPLIT them apart and that We made from WATER every living thing? So will they not believe? (Qur'an, 21:30)

 3) About the separation of the salt and sweet water:

 He has let loose the two seas, converging together, with a barrier between them they do not break through. (Qur'an, 55:19-20)

 4) It speaks for itself:

 Yes, We are able to put together in perfect order the very tips of his (man) fingers. (Qur'an, 75:4)

 5) Pharoas body was finally found few decades ago preserved and now in a museum:

 "What, now! When previously you rebelled and were one of the corrupters? Today we will preserve your body so you can be a Sign for people who come after you. Surely many people are heedless of Our Signs." (Qur'an, 10:91-92)

 6) Considering a quran of that magnitude, when specific words are extracted from it we find that: Day (yawm)" is repeated 365 times in singular form, while its plural and dual forms "days (ayyam and yawmayn)" together are repeated 30 times. The number of repetitions of the word "month" (shahar) is 12.

 7) The words "man" and "woman" are also employed equally: 23 times.

 8) The word "land" appears 13 times in the Qur'an and the word "sea" 32 times, giving a total of 45 references. If we divide that number by that of the number of references to the land we arrive at the figure 28.888888888889%. The number of total references to land and sea, 45, divided by the number of references to the sea in the Qur'an, 32, is 71.111111111111%. Extraordinarily, these figures represent the exact proportions of land and sea on the Earth today

 9) Will they not ponder the Qur’an? If it had been from other than Allah, they would have found many inconsistencies in it.

 (Qur’an, 4:82)

 10) “Invite (mankind, O Muhammad) to the way of your Lord (i.e. Islam) with wisdom (i.e. with the Divine Revelation and the Qur’aan) and fair preaching, and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious. Truly, your Lord knows best who has gone astray from His path, and He is the Best Aware of those who are guided”

 All this quran was revealed to a noble man who didnt know how to read or write, and his first revelation was "read".

 -Muhammad: Legacy of a prophet

 -Paradise found: Islamic Architecture and arts

 -Islam: Empire of faith

 And see these links if u have time:

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wI0MR1YMx0U&feature=related

 Quran recitation:

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PD6Ov8JHTfk

 www.quranexplorer.com

 Islamic prayer:

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQQDWcShA-U

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fdw2IfLf0yE

 Sayings of the prophet Muhammad:

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyzDG8kbsmA

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3Xc1MfX9X8&feature=related

 Cheers

 

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1230
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
Response

I’ve continued our discussion here: 

Hope to hear from you.

eziad85 wrote:

I know complex things are like crystals for example, please focus on the point im making. Im saying people like you believe that only complex things LIKE airplanes and machines, are created, because we know we created them, you believe that right? Im talking about THAT group of complex things. Its easy to get misunderstood in these discussions.


Yes, I – and people like me – believe that complex things created by humans LIKE airplanes and machines are created – by humans.  That is, once again, circular.  Since we are talking about whether the universe requires a creator or not, I do not see how mention of crystals is off focus, as they are in fact an example of complexity arising without a creator.

eziad85 wrote:

Moving on, now about u not believing the electron is created according to me, and the universe is a creation is something else. My belief rests with the concept that all this is came with the decision of an intelligent mind and that randomness cannot generate order, even if u use the excuse of natural selection, because natural selection follows a set of rules and is based on laws, and it is by itself an order, and that order must come from ordered being.

My belief does not rest with the concept that all this came with the decision of an intelligent mind.  There are certainly many examples of order in the universe, and it is understandable that one may want to correlate such things with intelligence.  There are however countless examples which, were we to credit a creator with their authorship, would indicate that the creator is not at all intelligent:  Supernovae, asteroids, inefficiency of energy production in stars (only 1% of the sun’s energy reaches earth), etc.
As far as natural selection, that refers only to biology, and not the universe as a whole; however, biology has examples enough to impugn the intelligence of any creator:  cancer, birth defects, drug-resistant bacteria, etc.  All these things rely on the same ‘set of rules and laws’ as the more benign things you wish to credit to an intelligent creator.

And order can indeed emerge from randomness.  A good demonstration of this is cellular automata:  Repeatedly apply a simple set of rules for coloring squares on a grid or leaving them blank (depending on how many of its neighbors are colored or blank at each iteration), and one can see patterns emerge out of apparent randomness.  No intelligent being required.



The claim of intelligence grows more absurd for the theist (such as the christian or muslim) who believes that we humans are the end goal of ‘creation’.  It is hardly intelligent that the ‘creator’ would let develop over 13 billion years a universe consisting of billions of galaxies with billions of planets each, then have concern with only one small planet in only one of those galaxies, and then let life develop over 4 billion years – with the majority of species going extinct -- and then have concern only for 1 species which has been around for at most 200,000 years, and has had civilization for at most 20,000 years.  No airplane- or machine-building human would create things this way.

eziad85 wrote:
Look friend, there is one thing i can bet my life on it. I can never convince you the universe is a creation, you have to convince yourself.

Then I’m afraid things aren’t looking good, because the I don’t find the evidence very convincing.
eziad85 wrote:

 The proof is infront of your eyes. Man has the choice to accept or deny antyhing, and that includes the choice to deny a proof, thats why proof is never enough. You have to convince yourself before convincing me.

Pardon?  I have to convince myself that the universe is created before I can convince you that it isn’t?
eziad85 wrote:
This bring another topic, i know there is a lot to talk about, and we as humans are limited in this unlimited universe and we can easily make wrong conclusions, thats why we are given a guide to life (quran). We as muslims claim quran is the word of God, you dont have to believe it simply because i said it, but at least put it to the test. Read it, if u can read it all, read a chapter. I will come back to this point.

As I alluded before, each religionist believes his holy book is the word of god, and would recommend that you read it.  Every religionist can make the same challenge as you, to read their holy book.  If you can only argue in your god’s favor by use of the qu’ran, then once again, you have nothing but a circular argument.
eziad85 wrote:

About the quran be inconsistent as u said, i know that every one likes his religion to be correct, but why does that matter to u, just check it for yourself. A religious book should be consistent with itself and doesnt conflict with our knowledge of the world.

Any book should be consistent with itself.  If I were to invent a religion (as I suspect Muhammad did), I would be sure to make sure my religious writings were consistent with themselves.  As far as conflicting with knowledge of the world:  The qu’ran might not have conflicted with knowledge of the world in the 7th century (although I’m open to the possibility that it did), it most certainly does conflict with our increased knowledge of the world today.
eziad85 wrote:
About "clot of blood", whats up with that? why is it inconsistent? Man is first a clot of blood, (hanging clot) in the womb before he is created. If u meant man is created from earth not from blood, then u are talking about different stages. Quran says man is created from mud, blood, sperm... its all different stages.

False.  ‘Man’ is not first a clot of blood, hanging or otherwise.  ‘Man’ is first a sperm cell fused with an ovum – no blood (or mud) involved. 
eziad85 wrote:

Back to the quran thing. I dont know if u know arabic, but one of the most things i found truly remarkable is that the quran doesnt have a grammatical error (please dont compare to english Sticking out tongue). Trust me when i say arabic is very hard language, specifically grammar, even to arabs. You have no idea how easy it is to make a grammatical error, in a word not a sentence, like forget a dot or something. And to have a book of that magnitude unchanged for 14 centuries which is exactly the same anywhere in the world, whether in china or america, is something amazing indeed.


I find these commendations rather forced. As far as the dots and dashes (damma, shadda, kasra, sukuun, etc.), those were not in use during Muhammad’s time – those conventions were developed later.
It is not so impressive that the qu’ran maintains integrity over the centuries when it carries the stricture that it can’t be accurately translated out of the original 7th century Arabic.  Enforcing the sacrosanctity of the original is a safeguard against translational errors such as the bible has suffered, but this is hardly amazing, much less indication of the divine.

Nonetheless, the claim of the qu’ran’s integrity is itself suspect.  There have indeed been discoveries of inconsistent versions, such as a 1972 find in Sana'a, Yemen (fragments dating to as early as the 7th century with textual variants). 

So we do not have solid confirmation that an illiterate merchant managed to keep a body of words unadulterated in his head until having someone write it down; nor that punctuation developed after this recitation was properly applied; nor that it was preserved without variation over the centuries.

Even if such these bald assertions were true – it would not serve as adequate proof that the universe has a creator. 
eziad85 wrote:

Look we can talk and talk, and im willing to, but i want u to look into the quran, because we are dealing with something beyond our scope, while the quran talks to the human leveling to his logic. There is one problem however in the quran, its hard to understand it without knowing the context, because every part of the quran is associated with aa certain event that happened and talks about certain peopel.

The fact that islam had a schism a generation after its prophet expired should indicate that the context of the qu’ran is not as straightforward as you would like to believe.  I do not find it believable that allah could go to all the trouble of dictating the final revelation to Muhammad and making sure it stayed perfect (your claim not mine), but couldn’t be bothered to show up later and tell his supplicants whether there were 12 or 7 imams.

eziad85 wrote:

 So you have to scan through it, and look for whatever grabs ur attention, and just use the translation to get an idea about what it is saying rather than what it really means. You could use an interpretation but thats complicated. Just use a translation, and ask questions. Ask me, ask scholars ask someone who knows. If a book is from God, it should prove itself to u, if u are willing to listen.

You can get ideas from any piece of writing if you scan through it enough.
eziad85 wrote:


So why islam?

1) Islam is the only religion that doesn’t have its name derived from an object or a person.The word islam means submission. In the context of Islam as a religion, islam means submission to God.

So if I invent a religion whose name isn’t derived from an object or a person, would it be as true as islam?  As it is, I’m not sure is the only ‘religion’ that fits that particular criterion.  I think scientology fits – it means ‘the study of knowledge’, although it’s a corruption of Latin and Greek roots.
eziad85 wrote:


2) Islam is the only religion that doesn’t have and doesn’t make an image of God, whether a a statue, a drawing, or even a mentalimage.

So if I invent a religion that doesn’t have and doesn’t make an image of god, will it be as true as islam?
eziad85 wrote:

3) Islam is the only religion that has its sacred source, the quran unchanged, since the time of its revelation, until our time.

As discussed above, your claim that the qu’ran is unchanged is not well-founded, and besides, any ‘revelation’ occurring in modern times can be kept unchanged due to our superior methods of preserving media.  If you argue that the qu’ran was ‘revealed’ prior to modern times, then it becomes all the more clear that you are setting up arbitrary conditions to justify your particular religion.
eziad85 wrote:

4) Islam is the only religion that can retrieve its quran in one day if all the book in the world are thrown in the ocean. This is one of the miracles of the quran. Millions of people know it by heart from cover to cover, letter by letter, in order! you shouldnt be surprised if a 10 year old child memorized it all by heart.

Verily We: It is We Who have sent down the Dhikr (i.e. the Qur'ân) and surely, We will guard it (from corruption) (9) chapter 15

And this is indication of what?  That the god of the qu’ran actually exists – or that muslim parents force their children to memorize the qu’ran?  I’m sure I’d be able to recite ‘The Satanic Verses’ by heart if my parents had forced me to as a child.
eziad85 wrote:


5) Islam is the only religion which has each of its chapters begin with “In the Name of The God, The Most Gracious, The Most Merciful”. (Something to take a note of)

So if I invent a religion which has each of its chapters…you get the point.
eziad85 wrote:


6) Islam is the only religion which clearly indicated that people could maintain their old religions. "There is no compulsion in religion" quran

Aside from the compulsion to pay the jizya, of course.
eziad85 wrote:


7) Islam is the only religion that has all its followers praying in the same direction anywhere in the world. (towards the sacred shrine in mecca, Unity)

So if I invent a religion…you get the point (I hope).

eziad85 wrote:


Cool Islam is the only religion which considers all prophets, of the same God and same message from Adam to Muhammad peace be upon them all.

Of course it is.  Islam is the only religion that considers Muhammad the final prophet. 
eziad85 wrote:

Some wonders of the quran:

1) About expanding universe:

And it is We Who have constructed the heaven with might, and verily, it is We Who are steadily expanding it. (Qur'an, 51:47)

Since when did ‘the heaven’ come to mean ‘the universe’?  I imagine only after scientists discovered that the universe was expanding.
eziad85 wrote:


2) About the origin of the universe:

Do those who disbelieve not see that the heavens and the earth WERE joined together and then We SPLIT them apart and that We made from WATER every living thing? So will they not believe? (Qur'an, 21:30)


So the heavens (which a moment ago meant ‘the universe’ ) were split apart from the earth – and this indicates the big bang?  Nonsense.  The earth did not but for the past 4.5 billion years.  The universe had already existed for 9 billion years.  Furthermore, the earth’s mass is miniscule in relation to the rest of the universe.  So ‘heavens split apart from earth’ is an inaccurate description of the origin of the universe.
And ‘every living thing’ was not ‘made from water’.  Living things are organic, i.e., made from carbon.  So as far as the qu’ran, no, I will not believe. 

eziad85 wrote:


3) About the separation of the salt and sweet water:

He has let loose the two seas, converging together, with a barrier between them they do not break through. (Qur'an, 55:19-20)

I’m afraid I’m not familiar about any science regarding the ‘separation of salt and sweet water’.  You can elaborate, although I’m not hopeful it will be anything revelatory.

eziad85 wrote:


4) It speaks for itself:

Yes, We are able to put together in perfect order the very tips of his (man) fingers. (Qur'an, 75:4)

What exactly is being spoken for itself here?  The qu’ran says god gave us fingers, we have fingers, therefore god exists? 

eziad85 wrote:


5) Pharoas body was finally found few decades ago preserved and now in a museum:

"What, now! When previously you rebelled and were one of the corrupters? Today we will preserve your body so you can be a Sign for people who come after you. Surely many people are heedless of Our Signs." (Qur'an, 10:91-92)

Again, you’ll have to elaborate, and again, I’m not very hopeful.
eziad85 wrote:


6) Considering a quran of that magnitude, when specific words are extracted from it we find that: Day (yawm)" is repeated 365 times in singular form, while its plural and dual forms "days (ayyam and yawmayn)" together are repeated 30 times. The number of repetitions of the word "month" (shahar) is 12.

7) The words "man" and "woman" are also employed equally: 23 times.

Cool The word "land" appears 13 times in the Qur'an and the word "sea" 32 times, giving a total of 45 references. If we divide that number by that of the number of references to the land we arrive at the figure 28.888888888889%. The number of total references to land and sea, 45, divided by the number of references to the sea in the Qur'an, 32, is 71.111111111111%. Extraordinarily, these figures represent the exact proportions of land and sea on the Earth today



First of all, there is nothing exceptional about 365 or 30.  There are not precisely 365 days in the year.  It’s more like 365.25 – which we accommodate with an extra day in February every 4 years.  The earth rotates more slowly each year, so eventually 365 will be entirely inaccurate.  (If there were a slowly incrementing number of repetitions of the world ‘year’ in the unchanging qu’ran, I might be impressed).  As far as 12 months, we have the pagan Roman emperors Julius Caesar and Augustus to thank for that.  Were it not for them, there would only be 10 months in the year, and you would be searching for some other interesting number to pull out of the qu’ran.

Regardless, you should research ‘The law of large numbers’, and for good measure, ‘the bible code’.  The former should advise you that in any large body of data, you can find patterns if you search long enough.  The latter should advise you that advocates of other religions play precisely the same game you are playing here.

eziad85 wrote:


9) Will they not ponder the Qur’an? If it had been from other than Allah, they would have found many inconsistencies in it.
(Qur’an, 4:82)


Any work with one source is less likely to have inconsistencies than one with many sources (such as the bible).  Not impressive.  And as discussed above, there are inconsistencies anyway.

eziad85 wrote:


10) “Invite (mankind, O Muhammad) to the way of your Lord (i.e. Islam) with wisdom (i.e. with the Divine Revelation and the Qur’aan) and fair preaching, and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious. Truly, your Lord knows best who has gone astray from His path, and He is the Best Aware of those who are guided”
All this quran was revealed to a noble man who didnt know how to read or write, and his first revelation was "read".
 


The qu’ran says ‘your Lord knows best’—therefore, your lord knows best?

This seems to happen a lot with religions – one person (usually a man) gets a ‘revelation’, and the rest of us just have to take his word for it:  Paul in christianity, Joe Smith in mormonism, l ron hubbard in scientology, jim jones in the Kool-Aid Temple, and so on.

As for the links you provided:  Thank you, but I think we’ve found enough problems in your argument so far, so let’s deal with those first.

Salaam

 

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


spike.barnett
Superfan
spike.barnett's picture
Posts: 1018
Joined: 2008-10-24
User is offlineOffline
I love Edward Current. His

I love Edward Current. His videos are so funny.

This appears to be John Conway's Game of Life. I'm pretty sure anyway...

After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.

The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote: (Qur’an, 4:82)

Quote:

 (Qur’an, 4:82)

 10) “Invite (mankind, O Muhammad) to the way of your Lord (i.e. Islam) with wisdom (i.e. with the Divine Revelation and the Qur’aan) and fair preaching, and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious. Truly, your Lord knows best who has gone astray from His path, and He is the Best Aware of those who are guided”

Y'know, eziad, I do have a couple of questions for you aboout yur 'fair' God:

Qur'an, 47:4 wrote:

So when you meet thoe who disbelieve, smite at their necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them, then tie a bond firmly on them. Thus you are ordered by Allah to continue in carrying out Jihad against the disbelievers till they embrace Islam, are saved from the punishment of Hellfire or at least come under your protection (<-- generous translation), but if it had been Allah's will, He Himself could certainly have punished them without you be he lets you fight, some with others. But those who are killedin the Way of Allah, He will never let their deeds be lost

Qur'an, 9:5 wrote:

Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them... but if they repent and accept Islam... then leave their way free

Qur'an, 9:5 wrote:

Then when the sacred months have passed, then kill the Mushrikun wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush. But if they repent and perform As-Salat, and give Zakat, then leave their way free.

...What does Allah mean by 'kill'? How about 'capture'? 'Besiege'? 'Ambush'? what about 'Mushrikun' - subhuman - what does he mean by that?

Because it really doesn't sound like he wants Muslims to play nice and share their cookies with us whe he makes commands like that. Sticking out tongue

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


intelides
Posts: 3
Joined: 2009-03-16
User is offlineOffline
Reply from Intelides (eziad85)

 

 

Bismillah.. Hi again (this is eziad85).. sorry about the late reply..  First i will talk about creation and what is defined to be a creation. The difference between you and me is that im saying you use the word created for something you KNOW is created BY HUMANS. Well if you see a machine, something like nothing youve seen before, in the desert would you say its not created? Ofcourse you would, because you know complex things have to come by a creator even if you didnt see the creator. I know you dont disagree on that point but the reason you dont, is because from your experience you have seen similar things, that are made up of parts by someone, which work as a machine and therefore you conclude this machine is created by someone, because of its complexity right? even if you didnt see the exact machine before.. right? I mean a cloud may look like a hammer, but we could say mmmmm it could come on by itself (by the wind i mean), but without human interaction. Yet if you see a picture of a cloud looking like cinderella you will know its artificial, or if your looking at a picture, you will say its made on photoshop. So basically the more complex the creation, or the harder for it to come together, is the reason you would call somthing a creaiton, isnt that right?

Is a piece of rock a creation then? Correct me if im wrong, but you will say, no.  But ofcourse i will say yes. This is why. I agree that anything complex is a creation (i know you would say no not anything cause an ice crystal is complex but its not creation by humans). The reason i say anything complex is a creation is not ONLY because the crystal is complex, but because the universe itself is so complex that we cant even comprehend, yet all its parts work in perfect harmony. By analogy, if a watch (or something similar in complexitiy) needs an intelligent designer, then the universe and its complexity needs an intelligent designer. If the universe came into existence by a designer and is meant to be the way it is, meaning the universe is a creation, then any subset of that universe is a creation, like a rock. Do you object, and if so, why?  Moreover, from our experience the more complex the design the more intelligent the designer. So if the design of the universe is so complex, so infinite and beyond our imagination. Then so is the designer. I also have a question, we know that something doesnt come from nothing, why do you believe that the creation of the universe is an exception?  I also would like to know. If (assuming as in your case there is no God) there is a God, how do you expect his creation to be? Without building blocks as electrons, or strings? Without reason and laws that govern it? What im trying to say is, if there is a God, the universe has to be the way it is.  You mentioned a couple of things that i almost found amusing, you said "would indicate that the creator is not at all intelligent:  Supernovae, asteroids, inefficiency of energy production in stars (only 1% of the sun’s energy reaches earth), etc. "  What i would like to know is how on earth did you come up with that conclusion from that statement?  First of all, you say "inefficieny" of energy production in stars and you explain that by saying only 1% of sun's energy reaches earth. The word inefficient is a term defined by us for specific reasons. For example, an oven is not 100% efficient since not all heat go to the food, but a lot is lost in the surroundings. We try to make an oven as efficient as possible in order to make use of all the energy, in order to save energy, save money etc... So anything loses a lot of energy AND we need that energy, then WE Humans called inefficient. WE called it that. Because we try to get it ALL. In the case of the sun how is the energy produced in the sun inefficient? Yes, more than 99% of the energy is lost and you should be thankful. The same word "inefficient" we know doesnt apply correctly here. If slighty more energy is given to the earth, it will burn, and if it slightly less energy comes to the earth it will freeze. You took the word "inefficient" from one context and put it in a context where it doesnt belong. I bothered to explain this, because this is how you are mostly doing things in your reply. Lets say the sun is smaller, as the size of the earth, maybe thats enough heat for us, but it wouldnt produce the gravity to keep the earth and the other planets in position. So when you think about it, the sun and the way it is, is an intelligent design. Any other star, with slightly different charactersitc of the sun, wouldnt have caused life on earth.  Same logic goes for supernova, asteroids and all that.. Supernova and asteroids are a result of a creation. Everything that has a beginning has an end. If, for example, the sun doesnt shrink when its fuel is used up, (although by natural laws it should) then something is wrong, the creation is imperfect. So supernova, asteroids and anything similar, are all following the laws they should, this is the perfection of the creation. If you dislike the supernova because of its nature then you are giving your own opinion on the issue, and that has nothing to do with the intelligence of the creation. If the creation in its complexity, is still in harmony then thats intelligent. Supernova is something inevitable, like death, its not something good or bad its just a thing. A person living it up would say death is bad, another being tortured would say death is good. You are letting your opinions of how the creation is chosen to get in the way of asking "is the creation doing what its supposed to do".  The you said "however, biology has examples enough to impugn the intelligence of any creator:  cancer, birth defects, drug-resistant bacteria, etc.  All these things rely on the same ‘set of rules and laws’ as the more benign things you wish to credit to an intelligent creator."  I am also interested in knowing how does cancer, birth defects and all that, deny a creator? Or are you letting  your personal opinions get in the way again? The fact is, if someone does something wrong in their diet or lets say someone is exposed to radiation and not have cancer, there would be something wrong. So the set of rules and laws are working as they are supposed to work, so were is the problem? Everybody dislikes cancer, but how can you relate that to the intelligence of the creator? If you dont like the idea that the creator introduced cancer, or destined that cancer should exist, thats up to you, but its has nothing to do with the intelligence of the creator. If i build a superweapon that can destroy a galaxy, im still intelligent whether you like it or not. And if i research an elixir that could save all humanity, im still intelligent whether you like it or not. You get the idea? And then you said "order can emerge from randomness". Thats absolutely untrue, because what seems to be randomness is just another order. What causes the order from “randomness” is the laws set in the universe. We call something random when we have lack of knowledge about it, but its not really random. If you don’t get what I mean tell me.  You said "Pardon?  I have to convince myself that the universe is created before I can convince you that it isn’t?"  No, you have to convince yourself that what you say is true first. Because your replies sometimes doesnt make sense it almost seems that your doing that on purpose. Especially about point is made about islam.

You said: “And order can indeed emerge from randomness.  A good demonstration of this is cellular automata:  Repeatedly apply a simple set of rules for coloring squares on a grid or leaving them blank (depending on how many of its neighbors are colored or blank at each iteration), and one can see patterns emerge out of apparent randomness.  No intelligent being required. “
 
What you said here proves my point, in the end its following a certain set of rules in order to get to the final result at a certain point in time.
 You also said “The claim of intelligence grows more absurd for the theist (such as the christian or muslim) who believes that we humans are the end goal of ‘creation’.  It is hardly intelligent that the ‘creator’ would let develop over 13 billion years a universe consisting of billions of galaxies with billions of planets each, then have concern with only one small planet in only one of those galaxies, and then let life develop over 4 billion years – with the majority of species going extinct -- and then have concern only for 1 species which has been around for at most 200,000 years, and has had civilization for at most 20,000 years.  No airplane- or machine-building human would create things this way.” Again tell me, why is that hardly intelligent?  Everything has a reason. If billions of years didn’t come to pass the life we know it today couldn’t have been as it is. Everything should make sense. We cant live in a system that doesn’t make sense, try to understand that. If we live on the earth, then something should be holding it in its place or orbit, and something should hold them, and etc…. until u get the universe. Earth is a part of the universe and every part of the universe should make sense.  You said: "As I alluded before, each religionist believes his holy book is the word of god, and would recommend that you read it.  Every religionist can make the same challenge as you, to read their holy book.  If you can only argue in your god’s favor by use of the qu’ran, then once again, you have nothing but a circular argument." How is me inviting you to read the quran considered to be circular logic?  Ofcourse every religious person believes his holy book is the word of god, what else do you expect? In your case, you know that only one (or none) of these holy books can be true. And you can never know, unless you read that book for yourself. What i provided below.. points 1,2,3.. about islam is the reason you should look into it, before judging something you dont know.   You said: "Any book should be consistent with itself.  If I were to invent a religion (as I suspect Muhammad did), I would be sure to make sure my religious writings were consistent with themselves.  As far as conflicting with knowledge of the world:  The qu’ran might not have conflicted with knowledge of the world in the 7th century (although I’m open to the possibility that it did), it most certainly does conflict with our increased knowledge of the world today."  Not just consistent with itself but with everything we know, and consistent after 14 centuries.   How does that quran conflict with our increased knowledge of the world today?   eziad85 wrote:About "clot of blood", whats up with that? why is it inconsistent? Man is first a clot of blood, (hanging clot) in the womb before he is created. If u meant man is created from earth not from blood, then u are talking about different stages. Quran says man is created from mud, blood, sperm... its all different stages.  
You said: "False.  ‘Man’ is not first a clot of blood, hanging or otherwise.  ‘Man’ is first a sperm cell fused with an ovum – no blood (or mud) involved. "
 Good job (sarcastic). I said its all different stages. I meant man is clot (embryo i.e. alaqh) first, before he starts to shape or become something else. Yet its not the first stage in the development of man or mankind. God says in the quran that he started the creation of human from mud, or earth. You said man is a sperm first, you mean before becoming an embryo. Likewiise i mean clot first before becoming more. The quran says man is mud, sperm, blood, created from earth, etc.. And it says the order as well, most importantly that the very first is mud/dust/earth i.e. we are a part of earth. For example check this out, these are rough translations: Quran 22:4 " O mankind! If you are in doubt about the Resurrection, then verily! We have created you from dust(earth), then from a drop of seed (sperm) then from a clot then from a little lump of flesh, some formed and some unformed, that We may make (it) clear to you. And We cause whom We will to remain in the wombs for an appointed term, then We bring you out as infants, then that you may reach your age of full strength. And among you there is he who dies (young), and among you there is he who is brought back to the miserable old age, so that he knows nothing after having known." Another verse says: (23:12) Man We did create from a quintessence (of clay); (12) Then We placed him as (a drop of) sperm in a place of rest firmly fixed; (13) Then We made the sperm into a clot; then of that clot We made a lump; then We made out of that lump bones and clothed the bones with flesh; then We developed out of it another creature: so blessed be Allah, the Best to create! (14)  The quran means the recitation, its something meant to be recited. The changes, if any, that were done to the letter is only to ease the reading of the verses. (It would all sound the same in the end).

You said “It is not so impressive that the qu’ran maintains integrity over the centuries when it carries the stricture that it can’t be accurately translated out of the original 7th century Arabic. “
 Im not sure what exactly do you mean, nothing can be EXACTLY translated, human error must take place, and different people will have different choice of words, thats why we say the quran is only in Arabic, a translation of the quran is not the quran. A translation of any book is not that book. 
Nonetheless, the claim of the qu’ran’s integrity is itself suspect.  There have indeed been discoveries of inconsistent versions, such as a 1972 find in Sana'a, Yemen (fragments dating to as early as the 7th century with textual variants). 
  That “version” isn’t part of the quran. People who try to change the quran are always there, since long ago, its not a surprise. The biggest proof that there are no versions of the quran (since the beginning), is that all sects of islam follow exact same one version today. If there was any “other” Qurans, there would’ve been many by now, like Christianity for example.

You said “So we do not have solid confirmation that an illiterate merchant managed to keep a body of words unadulterated in his head until having someone write it down; nor that punctuation developed after this recitation was properly applied; nor that it was preserved without variation over the centuries.”
  You know its preserved because we follow one version, all muslims of the world. The quran SOUNDS exactly the same as it was before, the punctuation you are talking about is added in order for people not to make mistakes when reading. If you know Arabic you should know better. Punctuation isn’t a must, but it helps the reader know if he doesn’t know any better. The imp thing is that it sounds the same, after all the quran is a recitation and is meant to be a vocal messege. 

You said “Even if such these bald assertions were true – it would not serve as adequate proof that the universe has a creator.  “
  One thing at a time, we were just talking about the authenticity of the quran here. The content of the quran is what should provide the proof.   eziad85 wrote:
Look we can talk and talk, and im willing to, but i want u to look into the quran, because we are dealing with something beyond our scope, while the quran talks to the human leveling to his logic. There is one problem however in the quran, its hard to understand it without knowing the context, because every part of the quran is associated with aa certain event that happened and talks about certain peopel.
  
You said: “ I do not find it believable that allah could go to all the trouble of dictating the final revelation to Muhammad and making sure it stayed perfect (your claim not mine), but couldn’t be bothered to show up later and tell his supplicants whether there were 12 or 7 imams.”
 You have a good point here. But thats not from islam, thats a shia belief. 85% of muslims are sunni (or prophet way) and don’t believe that. You said it yourself you wont find that in quran, so why relate it to islam. We don’t believe in the 12 imam thing at all and its not in the quran.  eziad85 wrote:
 So you have to scan through it, and look for whatever grabs ur attention, and just use the translation to get an idea about what it is saying rather than what it really means. You could use an interpretation but thats complicated. Just use a translation, and ask questions. Ask me, ask scholars ask someone who knows. If a book is from God, it should prove itself to u, if u are willing to listen.
  
You said: “You can get ideas from any piece of writing if you scan through it enough.”
 You like to talk more than you like to read, i was just telling you read through whatever you find interesting.. why do you complicate things.. I never heard about a person who discusses a subject, yet doesn’t bother to research or look into that subject.  You are like a movie critic who gave a bad review about a movie that you refuse to see! lol  eziad85 wrote:

So why islam?

1) Islam is the only religion that doesn’t have its name derived from an object or a person.The word islam means submission. In the context of Islam as a religion, islam means submission to God.
 
You said : “So if I invent a religion whose name isn’t derived from an object or a person, would it be as true as islam?  As it is, I’m not sure is the only ‘religion’ that fits that particular criterion.  I think scientology fits – it means ‘the study of knowledge’, although it’s a corruption of Latin and Greek roots. “
 Did i say that? Did i say islam is the truth because its the only this and that? I just showed you ONE point from many, numbered 1,2,3 and so on. Its ridiculous to take one point (like point 1) and say if i invent such then it should be the truth. Why do you do that? Can you invent a religion that satisfy ALL POINTS AND get people to follow it? Then its true. Its should satisfy ALL the points i mentioned and others i didn’t mention ofcourse. You took one and suddenly erased from your mind everything else I said.  The reason i mentioned those points, is to tell you why islam is worth looking into compared to other religions, if a religion doesn’t have at least these points, then its not from God. Points, like uniqueness, universality, one version, etc.. must ALL be found in a religion worth investigating.  You said: “So if I invent a religion that doesn’t have and doesn’t make an image of god, will it be as true as islam?” As answered above.  You said: “As discussed above, your claim that the qu’ran is unchanged is not well-founded, and besides, any ‘revelation’ occurring in modern times can be kept unchanged due to our superior methods of preserving media.  If you argue that the qu’ran was ‘revealed’ prior to modern times, then it becomes all the more clear that you are setting up arbitrary conditions to justify your particular religion.” Also as answered above, and note that you cant take any point as stand alone, its the existence of all points together that makes this interesting. Im starting to think you are doing this on purpose. eziad85 wrote:
4) Islam is the only religion that can retrieve its quran in one day if all the book in the world are thrown in the ocean. This is one of the miracles of the quran. Millions of people know it by heart from cover to cover, letter by letter, in order! you shouldnt be surprised if a 10 year old child memorized it all by heart.

Verily We: It is We Who have sent down the Dhikr (i.e. the Qur'ân) and surely, We will guard it (from corruption) (9) chapter 15
    
You said: “And this is indication of what?  That the god of the qu’ran actually exists – or that muslim parents force their children to memorize the qu’ran?  I’m sure I’d be able to recite ‘The Satanic Verses’ by heart if my parents had forced me to as a child.”
 Well thats just very ignorant. On what basis are you saying they force their children. Im a muslim, i lived in the middle east for 18 years, i know how it is, i know people who have memorized the quran. So what proof do you have for your ignorant claim? Christianity is the major religion, and children are forced to believe what their parents believe, but does any memorize the entire bibile by heart? Is there any priest that knows the bible by heart?   Its not like a few muslims did it, but millions of muslims have done it, its pretty clear. But if you like to pretend, and use doubt and ignorance as your own proof, then please keep it to yourself.  You said “So if I invent a religion which has each of its chapters…you get the point.” As above. eziad85 wrote:

6) Islam is the only religion which clearly indicated that people could maintain their old religions. "There is no compulsion in religion" quran
 
Aside from the compulsion to pay the jizya, of course.
  Compulsion in belief ofcourse, but you like to change the subject as always. So you are saying its not okay for non-muslims to pay a tax (for living under their gov.) which is less than the muslim tax (zakah which only 2.5%) for living in a muslim country, but its okay for other governments that take 30-40% tax of all people. Whats up with your judgement? eziad85 wrote:

7) Islam is the only religion that has all its followers praying in the same direction anywhere in the world. (towards the sacred shrine in mecca, Unity)
 
You said: “So if I invent a religion…you get the point (I hope).”
So you get my point... and same goes for all points.

eziad85 wrote:
Some wonders of the quran:

1) About expanding universe:

And it is We Who have constructed the heaven with might, and verily, it is We Who are steadily expanding it. (Qur'an, 51:47)
  
You said: “Since when did ‘the heaven’ come to mean ‘the universe’?  I imagine only after scientists discovered that the universe was expanding.”
 Did I say “universe”? The verse says the heaven is expanding, which  implies the universe is expanding. Or are you seriously trying to ignore the obvious.  eziad85 wrote:

2) About the origin of the universe:

Do those who disbelieve not see that the heavens and the earth WERE joined together and then We SPLIT them apart and that We made from WATER every living thing? So will they not believe? (Qur'an, 21:30)

 
You said: “So the heavens (which a moment ago meant ‘the universe’ ) were split apart from the earth – and this indicates the big bang?  Nonsense.”
 Yes its nonsense because its your conclusion from your own assumption (from above).  You said: ” The earth did not but for the past 4.5 billion years.  The universe had already existed for 9 billion years.  Furthermore, the earth’s mass is miniscule in relation to the rest of the universe.  So ‘heavens split apart from earth’ is an inaccurate description of the origin of the universe.”  You arer thinking too much. Wasnt everything one unit of creation? Wasnt everything joined together? Isnt everything now separate? Thats what the quran just said. If you ask any scientist, although everybody knows this, he will tell you that everything is connected and in harmony because the universe at a point in time was joined together.  
You said: “And ‘every living thing’ was not ‘made from water’.  Living things are organic, i.e., made from carbon.  So as far as the qu’ran, no, I will not believe. “
  Really?! Get me one living thing that has no water in it! Water is a reason for life, no water no life. Everybody knows that now.  

You said “I’m afraid I’m not familiar about any science regarding the ‘separation of salt and sweet water’.  You can elaborate, although I’m not hopeful it will be anything revelatory. “  Salt and sweet water don’t mix.

 
eziad85 wrote:

4) It speaks for itself:

Yes, We are able to put together in perfect order the very tips of his (man) fingers. (Qur'an, 75:4)
 
You said :”What exactly is being spoken for itself here?  The qu’ran says god gave us fingers, we have fingers, therefore god exists?  “
 No your funny. The quran emphasizes on the tips of fingers. The verse before says “does man think we cant reassemble his bones (on judgment day)” then this verse follows. The points is, if you think that God cant reassemble your bones, after you decompose ofcourse, then (remember) that he is the same one who put together in perfect order the tips of your fingers, which in our modern time know that this is  something special and unique to every person. 

 
eziad85 wrote:

5) Pharoas body was finally found few decades ago preserved and now in a museum:

"What, now! When previously you rebelled and were one of the corrupters? Today we will preserve your body so you can be a Sign for people who come after you. Surely many people are heedless of Our Signs." (Qur'an, 10:91-92)
 
You said: “Again, you’ll have to elaborate, and again, I’m not very hopeful.”
  Just see this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcFIQgdFXEY 
You said: “First of all, there is nothing exceptional about 365 or 30.  There are not precisely 365 days in the year.  It’s more like 365.25 – which we accommodate with an extra day in February every 4 years.  The earth rotates more slowly each year, so eventually 365 will be entirely inaccurate.  (If there were a slowly incrementing number of repetitions of the world ‘year’ in the unchanging qu’ran, I might be impressed).  As far as 12 months, we have the pagan Roman emperors Julius Caesar and Augustus to thank for that.  Were it not for them, there would only be 10 months in the year, and you would be searching for some other interesting number to pull out of the qu’ran.”
 Your taking about your calendar. There are different calendars. In the Islamic calndar months are twelve in number. About the 30 for days and 12 for months i counted them myself and its true. For the 365 i can count it so ill drop it.


You said “Any work with one source is less likely to have inconsistencies than one with many sources (such as the bible).  Not impressive.  And as discussed above, there are inconsistencies anyway.”


Dont forget the bible started out with one source. People added changes to it which made different versions. I already talked about what you said are inconsistencies. 
You said “The qu’ran says ‘your Lord knows best’—therefore, your lord knows best?”
 I am not amused. Did the quran say “your Lord knows best therefore, your lord knows best?”? Or do you like to sound ignorant? What are you trying to make from this? If you are a reasonable person, even if you don’t believe in the quran, you would expect the quran to say that. Every holy book says its the truth, doesn’t mean its the truth, but its expected that it will say that. I never said the quran is the truth because it says its the truth, or such. You are the only one who said that!

You said: This seems to happen a lot with religions – one person (usually a man) gets a ‘revelation’, and the rest of us just have to take his word for it:  Paul in christianity, Joe Smith in mormonism, l ron hubbard in scientology, jim jones in the Kool-Aid Temple, and so on.
 Many people make claims, but not anyone believes them without proof. If Muhammad made a claim without providing anything nobody would have believed him. But he recited the quran, which gained a lot of interest because he never knew how to read or write, and because nobody was able to match anything like it in literature and word structure.  When somebody says I can carry a building on my arms, that’s a claim, when he does it, that’s the proof. You heard the claim but you refused the proof without even looking into it, what can I say other than… Cheers 

 


crazymonkie
Silver Member
crazymonkie's picture
Posts: 336
Joined: 2009-03-09
User is offlineOffline
AH MY EYES!!! Next post,

AH MY EYES!!!

 

Next post, PLEASE USE MORE PARAGRAPH BREAKS!! Seriously, it's really hard to pay attention to your posts when they're just massive block quotes.

That said, here we go.

intelides wrote:
First i will talk about creation and what is defined to be a creation. The difference between you and me is that im saying you use the word created for something you KNOW is created BY HUMANS. Well if you see a machine, something like nothing youve seen before, in the desert would you say its not created?

 

This is called the 'watchmaker fallacy', which you go on to postulate, in several different guises, for the next few paragraphs.

I'll explain why this doesn't work. When we look at a machine somewhere in the desert, or a forest, or anywhere, we can see it was made by humans for humans. A watch, for instance, is clearly designed to go onto someone's wrist or in their pocket (if it's a pocket watch) and has numbers from currently used human languages on its face. In some cases, it's even possible to trace where and when it was created- if it's a Rolex, it even has a special ID number that tells who made it, where (Switzerland, obviously) and when. Which is why it's incredibly stupid to steal a Rolex.

Annnnnyyway.... When we look at 'creation,' we don't have this ability. We look and see that living animals had their causes (other animals- stretching back to the first unicellular eukaryotes), that organic life had its beginning somewhere in non-living organic stuff (this part's REALLY in its early stages, but there have been some positive results for a creator-less creation so far) and that rocks, for instance, began as other collections of rocks or sand before they became what they are today. However, we cannot say that EVERYTHING started with a creator. We can say that for the Earth, even the solar system- but not everything. Considering that the question of whether the universe had a beginning is still hotly contested in cosmology and physics, I'd say we'd be doing nothing more than begging the question if we just said 'god did it.'

Quote:
So basically the more complex the creation, or the harder for it to come together, is the reason you would call somthing a creaiton, isnt that right?

 

That is not right. Again: We can trace causes for things we know are created, and we can trace causes in things that reproduce or change shape over long periods of time (like rocks.) What we cannot do is say this is true for all things in the Universe. DNA is pretty complex stuff, but we can't say, based on its great complexity, that there must, by necessity, be a creator. To borrow philosophical jargon- a god (any god- or several, even) is not a 'necessary' condition (doesn't need to be there) for the Universe to exist- science is slowly uncovering natural causes for the Universe. Though a god may be a 'contingent' condition (may or may not pop in as an added bonus) to the creation of the Universe or life. This latter, however, is really only a way of saying 'We don't know right now.' Pascal's Wager and all that.


Quote:
Is a piece of rock a creation then? Correct me if im wrong, but you will say, no.  But ofcourse i will say yes.
 Well, yeah.... You're doing the standard 'start with a conclusion and work backwards to the evidence' approach that nearly all religious people undertake when it comes to their chosen supernatural beliefs. Except Kant- He's pretty much the only theistic philosopher I know of who went through, step by step, demolished all the previous arguments in his "Critique of Pure Reason," and then set up an alternate argument, the 'moral argument' (human beings will go crazy without moral laws which must come from god, therefore god exists.... Digest version) which he needed, considering the dismal state of biology at the time, and considering that primatology hadn't been invented yet, and that therefore humans had no way to know that other animals (LET ME CLARIFY HERE: I MEAN HUMANS ARE NEITHER VEGETATION NOR MINERALS, THEREFORE THEY ARE ANIMALS) were social like us- apparently without souls (according to all accounts). 
Quote:
The reason i say anything complex is a creation is not ONLY because the crystal is complex, but because the universe itself is so complex that we cant even comprehend, yet all its parts work in perfect harmony.
 Harmony? Hardly. There's a lot of waste, and a massive amount of inefficiency. The OP even gave you an example: Just a fraction of energy from the Sun gets to Earth. Also: When you talk about harmony- why are humans themselves (or just living things) so grossly inefficient? Cattle eat ten times as much food as they weigh; humans eat close to two or three times (depending on activity). Then there's our bad knees, our backs (which can barely carry the weight of our head and torso), and our big fat heads, which have the bad habit of tearing up birth canals during childbirth. If we are the best god can do, I am not impressed. 
Quote:
I also have a question, we know that something doesnt come from nothing, why do you believe that the creation of the universe is an exception?
 Whoa whoa whoa. We're not the people advocating ex nihilo creation. In your vision, something came from nothing- god just *made* things. However, modern physics postulates (with a LOT of evidence) that the Universe may have always been. Or if it wasn't always the Universe as such, it started as the Universe from the Big Bang. So we can't answer a position we don't even take, for the most part. 
Quote:
I also would like to know. If (assuming as in your case there is no God) there is a God, how do you expect his creation to be?
 Better than this. That we know things could be better with a perfect, all knowing and all powerful god, but yet is not, has been the source of endless debates. The standard explanation is that humans caused it by eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Or something else, not named, that they did. But that doesn't explain why, for instance, there are deadly and really nasty parasites that ONLY hurt other animals (like the non-human Bot Fly, or various wasps that do nothing to humans but outright torture and murder other insects to propagate their species.)  
Quote:
Without building blocks as electrons, or strings? Without reason and laws that govern it? What im trying to say is, if there is a God, the universe has to be the way it is.
 And what we're saying is that the Universe is the way it is because of the outcome of natural laws. Where these laws came from- we just don't know- but it's not necessary to insert a god somewhere into the picture. 
Quote:
You mentioned a couple of things that i almost found amusing, you said "would indicate that the creator is not at all intelligent:  Supernovae, asteroids, inefficiency of energy production in stars (only 1% of the sun’s energy reaches earth), etc. "What i would like to know is how on earth did you come up with that conclusion from that statement?First of all, you say "inefficieny" of energy production in stars and you explain that by saying only 1% of sun's energy reaches earth. The word inefficient is a term defined by us for specific reasons. For example, an oven is not 100% efficient since not all heat go to the food, but a lot is lost in the surroundings. We try to make an oven as efficient as possible in order to make use of all the energy, in order to save energy, save money etc... So anything loses a lot of energy AND we need that energy, then WE Humans called inefficient. WE called it that. Because we try to get it ALL.
 So god doesn't want efficiency? God can't or won't make things more efficient? Why not? God could do it, easily. God could also change our minds as a species so we wouldn't be arrogant about getting the best possible Universe. Heck, god could even give humans free will and yet make sin impossible. That we can't imagine that sort of world says more for human limitations than it does for god. 
Quote:
Lets say the sun is smaller, as the size of the earth, maybe thats enough heat for us, but it wouldnt produce the gravity to keep the earth and the other planets in position. So when you think about it, the sun and the way it is, is an intelligent design. Any other star, with slightly different charactersitc of the sun, wouldnt have caused life on earth.
 Anthropic principle. You've got your cause and effect backwards, here. Human life arose based on conditions that were already existent on Earth. You can't reverse cause and effect and say that proves any god. 
Quote:
"is the creation doing what its supposed to do".
 Here, I think, is a big issue with your argument. You claim- hope, really- that there IS a purpose. Not that things are as they are because that is how they must be. You say "Look at how close we are to the sun- just perfect for our kind of life. God must exist." I explained how this reverses cause and effect, and your comment here adds on a more anthropic angle to your argument. It reminds me of an old Medieval argument for god: That something must have put the rivers right next to the cities so humans could thrive, and that thing was god.There is no 'ultimate' purpose. There are 'local' purposes (what specific humans want to do with their lives) but not THE purpose. There's not even an ultimate purpose to life itself. Life just IS. We're starting to understand HOW it started, but there isn't necessarily any WHY. 
Quote:
The you said "however, biology has examples enough to impugn the intelligence of any creator:  cancer, birth defects, drug-resistant bacteria, etc.  All these things rely on the same ‘set of rules and laws’ as the more benign things you wish to credit to an intelligent creator."
 You missed his point. Birth defects, for instance, undermine the idea of an all-good god (which, as a Muslim, I know you believe in). A baby is born, say, with Downs Syndrome- they had no say in this, and yet now they'll live their lives with the massive health problems that often come along with it. And their parents will have to deal with them as if they're 2 or 3 their whole lives. Birth defects like Downs Syndrome strike any social level, any religion, so it's not god getting back at the parents. It's just arbitrary- and if we had an interventionist god on hand, that god should at least be looking after his true believers. Which doesn't happen- birth defects rise as much in the 'right' followers as the 'wrong' followers.That they all follow the same rules is utterly irrelevant. 
Quote:
I am also interested in knowing how does cancer, birth defects and all that, deny a creator?
 If they are arbitrary (which they are) then they refute the idea of an interventionist creator. Sure, it's possible that there's SOMETHING that made the Universe but which takes no active role in its upkeep.... but we're not talking about that god, are we? We're talking about your god- the god that intervenes in battles and cures wounds with the right amount of 'faith' and that sent 'Isa to Maryam without her being touched by her husband.THAT god is in quite the conundrum, when we consider how arbitrarily bad things happen to even the best among human beings. 
Quote:
The fact is, if someone does something wrong in their diet or lets say someone is exposed to radiation and not have cancer, there would be something wrong. So the set of rules and laws are working as they are supposed to work, so were is the problem?
 Cancer actually probably wasn't the best idea from the OP. Consider my issues with birth defects instead. 
Quote:
Everybody dislikes cancer, but how can you relate that to the intelligence of the creator?
 He's relating it to the assumed goodness of the creator. Not the intelligence. 
Quote:
And then you said "order can emerge from randomness". Thats absolutely untrue, because what seems to be randomness is just another order.
 Not familiar with Mandelbrot or Chaos Theory, then, I take it.I suggest you look into it. I personally read part of an old textbook (it was given to the library, and was still pretty new- like mid-2000s) and... well, it made my head hurt. BUT, it made the case- with evidence- that order can and does emerge from randomness.Do you know about fractals? Look them up- they're mathematical models where geometrical patterns repeat at very high numbers. Feeding self-referential equations into computers produce early results that seem (and essentially are) random, but which at higher volumes, seem to be drawn on purpose.Order out of chaos. There is no lower level beyond that- it is just indeterminate. 
Quote:
No, you have to convince yourself that what you say is true first. Because your replies sometimes doesnt make sense it almost seems that your doing that on purpose. Especially about point is made about islam.
 I know this wasn't directed at me, but that's terribly presumptuous of you. There are many people on this board who actually found there is NO evidence (beyond special pleading, which I don't doubt you'll do a lot of in your reply) for A god (just any god) out there, and came to this conclusion through years of hard and long searching.His replies made perfect sense- you just missed the point of some of them (like the cancer thing.) 
Quote:
What you said here proves my point, in the end its following a certain set of rules in order to get to the final result at a certain point in time.

 So your argument rests on something that nobody knows: Where laws of the Universe come from. At this point you've postulated the standard 'god of the gaps' in the face of ever-expanding scientific knowledge. Next will be something about the mystery of god. Though you've already done that several times, so maybe that's not what's going to happen. 
Quote:
You also said “The claim of intelligence grows more absurd for the theist (such as the christian or muslim) who believes that we humans are the end goal of ‘creation’.  It is hardly intelligent that the ‘creator’ would let develop over 13 billion years a universe consisting of billions of galaxies with billions of planets each, then have concern with only one small planet in only one of those galaxies, and then let life develop over 4 billion years – with the majority of species going extinct -- and then have concern only for 1 species which has been around for at most 200,000 years, and has had civilization for at most 20,000 years.  No airplane- or machine-building human would create things this way.” Again tell me, why is that hardly intelligent?
 Because it shows god- if god does exist- to be MASSIVELY inefficient, and the OP's point was that even the most stupendously bad human builders could have done better, if given as much power.  Read it again, very carefully, and please point out where his argument fails. 
Quote:
Everything has a reason.
 Even parasites? Even resistant strains of bacteria and viruses? What are these reasons? 
Quote:
If billions of years didn’t come to pass the life we know it today couldn’t have been as it is.
 PRECISELY! Where does god come into the equation? Creation of the laws? If we're getting closer to understanding abiogenesis, and even have begun setting up experiments where the precursors to short protein chains can come together (which we have), and that means that god isn't even necessary for THAT- this just means you're falling into the god of the gaps fallacy. Given enough time, I'm sure we'll understand what causes the universal laws- at which point your god will be further removed from humanity. But I don't doubt there will still be believers in an interventionist god. It's just too tempting for humans not to have that ego stroke. 
Quote:
Everything should make sense.
 So no universal-law breaking miracles, then? 
Quote:
You said: "As I alluded before, each religionist believes his holy book is the word of god, and would recommend that you read it.  Every religionist can make the same challenge as you, to read their holy book.  If you can only argue in your god’s favor by use of the qu’ran, then once again, you have nothing but a circular argument." How is me inviting you to read the quran considered to be circular logic?
 Don't ignore what you just said to the OP. You said the word of god is the Quran, and that the Quran proves god's existence. You even QUOTED from the book- and then you get surprised when the OP says "Every other religion in the world says the same thing?" Yet yours is correct based on... what? Preference? What other men have said? Other religions have that too. Yours is no different. That's his point. 
Quote:
Ofcourse every religious person believes his holy book is the word of god, what else do you expect? In your case, you know that only one (or none) of these holy books can be true. And you can never know, unless you read that book for yourself. What i provided below.. points 1,2,3.. about islam is the reason you should look into it, before judging something you dont know.
 I actually had a problem with the Quran from Sura 1. Let's look at this, shall we? Sura 1 says that god himself hardens the hearts of unbelievers, and in fact increases their unbelief. And yet unbelievers should turn to god because god is 'oft-returning,' and 'most merciful.' OK, so, we know that god hardens the hearts of people who don't just give up their god-given reason (and make no mistake, god made reason- just like he made dogs, pigs and the ever-confused kaffir) to submit to him.This right away tells me I'm dealing with a religion that has a poor conception of human dignity, and which moreover posits a tripartite humanity: Muslims, dhimmi and kaffir. The middle are confused, the last are just stupid AND the direct enemies of god. I've personally never cared about Islam until it started making an issue of itself, which is just one example of the lie that the kaffir are the enemies of the faith. And until I realized that modern Muslim apologetics is centuries behind other religions' apologetics. It reads like Medieval Christian apologetics- and quite frankly, if that's the best that the final revelation from god himself can help to create- and if that's the best that god's most holy followers can do- it at least weakens the case for your god.  

Quote:
Not just consistent with itself but with everything we know, and consistent after 14 centuries.

 

Sky as a canopy? Check. The heavens described as seven concentric domes, with the stars hanging on the final dome? Check. A flat earth ('daha' does not mean 'ostrich egg,' it refers to the flattening around the egg of the earth)? Check. The sun setting in mud and having to ask god's permission to rise again? Checkarooskie.

Consistent with modern knowledge? Not even close.

 

Quote:
How does that quran conflict with our increased knowledge of the world today?
 Bloody Sharia law, the permanent subjugation of 'people of the book' and the massacre of anyone else, the unofficial legacy of taqiyya, and the aforementioned incorrect knowledge which, however, would have been known as THE truth to just about anyone in Islam's early days (the medical stuff in particular reads juuuuuuuust a bit like Galen; the vision of the Universe was standard Greek cosmology). Still not impresed. 
Quote:
Good job (sarcastic). I said its all different stages. I meant man is clot (embryo i.e. alaqh) first, before he starts to shape or become something else.
 When you try to show us all how wrong we are, I suggest you try to prove a point where you're right.From the Merck Manual Home Edition Web page: "The next stage in development is the embryo, which develops under the lining of the uterus on one side. This stage is characterized by the formation of most internal organs and external body structures. Organ formation begins about 3 weeks after fertilization, when the embryo elongates, first suggesting a human shape. Shortly thereafter, the area that will become the brain and spinal cord (neural tube) begins to develop. The heart and major blood vessels begin to develop by about day 16 or 17. The heart begins to pump fluid through blood vessels by day 20, and the first red blood cells appear the next day. Blood vessels continue to develop in the embryo and placenta." www.merck.com/mmhe/sec22/ch257/ch257c.htmlOOPS! Looks like the human embryos can't develop from blood clots because there's no blood in embryos until the SECOND WEEK OF DEVELOPMENT. The verses don't say 'blob' or anything; they say 'blood clot.' Which is clearly wrong, as there is no blood to clot in zygotes, or even unfertilized ova. 
Quote:
Yet its not the first stage in the development of man or mankind. God says in the quran that he started the creation of human from mud, or earth.
 And elsewhere it says that god created man from water. .... It actually says that MORE than it says god created men from mud or earth.And I've actually been confused about that for a while. Which is it? It can't be both. Mud is partially water- but the verses that specify water just mean 'water,' not 'water plus earth.' 

Quote:
Another verse says: (23:12) Man We did create from a quintessence (of clay); (12) Then We placed him as (a drop of) sperm in a place of rest firmly fixed; (13) Then We made the sperm into a clot; then of that clot We made a lump; then We made out of that lump bones and clothed the bones with flesh; then We developed out of it another creature: so blessed be Allah, the Best to create! (14)

 

Bit of a problem here as well. Bones don't come before flesh. And if this is supposed to be in order (which it clearly is) that means we have another error! Though quite understandable considering how little humans knew about internal medicine and embryology at the time.

 

Quote:
The quran means the recitation, its something meant to be recited. The changes, if any, that were done to the letter is only to ease the reading of the verses. (It would all sound the same in the end).
 Then why write it in a highly poetic language that hardly anyone on earth at that point spoke? If it was simple, we wouldn't need interpretations or translations. It would just SPEAK to us. 
Quote:
You said “It is not so impressive that the qu’ran maintains integrity over the centuries when it carries the stricture that it can’t be accurately translated out of the original 7th century Arabic."Im not sure what exactly do you mean, nothing can be EXACTLY translated, human error must take place, and different people will have different choice of words, thats why we say the quran is only in Arabic, a translation of the quran is not the quran. A translation of any book is not that book.

Again, you misunderstood his point. The OP means that BY ORDER the Quran was to remain unchanged. That it did was not miraculous- it was merely what was set out to be the case by religious doctrine.
 

Quote:
The biggest proof that there are no versions of the quran (since the beginning), is that all sects of islam follow exact same one version today.

 

So the Shia, Sunni, Wahabbi and Sufi are just holding hands and singing songs of unity? Puh-leaze.

There are at least four sects, the four I've listed; and probably more considering the nature of Islamic interpretation.

 

Quote:
You said “So we do not have solid confirmation that an illiterate merchant managed to keep a body of words unadulterated in his head until having someone write it down; nor that punctuation developed after this recitation was properly applied; nor that it was preserved without variation over the centuries.”

You know its preserved because we follow one version, all muslims of the world.
 So again: Sunni, Shia, Wahhabi and Sufi are just holding hands?The Quran is a mess- let's be honest. It's disorganized, it's repititious (not surprising at all for a collection of oral injunctions and praises) and to make sene of some Suras- like those dealing with Muhammad's life and battles, you HAVE to appeal to the Hadith.Oh what, you just thought I was going to let that horrid byproduct go? Not likely. If you're a Quran-only Muslim, you're either lying or you're as lost as anyone else who can't make sense of the disjointed events and stories. 
Quote:
You said “Even if such these bald assertions were true – it would not serve as adequate proof that the universe has a creator.  “
One thing at a time, we were just talking about the authenticity of the quran here. The content of the quran is what should provide the proof.
 ....says the guy who says the Quran's authenticity proves god (your god) exists. I'll repeat: The Quran is a mess, and is repetitive. It can only be understood, beyond a very vague sense, with the Hadith and/or the various books of the Bible. Without either of those, the stories have no context.AND, he just pointed out (and so did I) that there are contradictions and ignorant false 'facts' in the Quran. Which disproves it as a reliable source in general.
Quote:
You said: “ I do not find it believable that allah could go to all the trouble of dictating the final revelation to Muhammad and making sure it stayed perfect (your claim not mine), but couldn’t be bothered to show up later and tell his supplicants whether there were 12 or 7 imams.” You have a good point here. But thats not from islam, thats a shia belief. 85% of muslims are sunni (or prophet way) and don’t believe that. You said it yourself you wont find that in quran, so why relate it to islam. We don’t believe in the 12 imam thing at all and its not in the quran.
 AH HAH! See? Muslims, for you, =/= Shia. They feel differently. Who's right? You both use the Quran, you both use Hadith, you both have quite a few of the same doctrines.... What makes you right and them wrong? 
Quote:
"Aside from the compulsion to pay the jizya, of course."Compulsion in belief ofcourse,
 
Okay, now that doesn't make any sense. What the fuck, dude? You just said "Islam is the only religion which clearly indicated that people could maintain their old religions." Then you JUST CONTRADICTED YOURSELF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 
Quote:
but you like to change the subject as always.
 No, he's just hitting the high points. 
Quote:
So you are saying its not okay for non-muslims to pay a tax (for living under their gov.) which is less than the muslim tax (zakah which only 2.5%) for living in a muslim country, but its okay for other governments that take 30-40% tax of all people. Whats up with your judgement?
 Totally not equivalent. There's no Western nation on earth right now that forces non-believers to pay a special tax that goes directly to a rival faith. Additionally, those really high tax rates go to paying for things that EVERYONE uses- essential services, health care, education, infrastructure.... Where does the jizya money go? I have a funny feeling it doesn't go to essential services.
Quote:
Did I say “universe”? The verse says the heaven is expanding, which  implies the universe is expanding. Or are you seriously trying to ignore the obvious.
 No, you didn't. And neither did the verse, which is exactly the point! You WANT it to imply that the universe is expanding... but that's not necessarily so! 

Quote:
You said: “So the heavens (which a moment ago meant ‘the universe’ ) were split apart from the earth – and this indicates the big bang?  Nonsense.”

 Yes its nonsense because its your conclusion from your own assumption (from above).
 I'll give you a moment to think about how your reply could be construed to defeat your own position......Are you with me? Good. We are arguing from the skeptic's position. Presuppositions such as 'they must have meant the universe is expanding' is worthless here. That you don't see how your rebuttal is self-defeating concerns me. 
Quote:
You said: ” The earth did not but for the past 4.5 billion years.  The universe had already existed for 9 billion years.  Furthermore, the earth’s mass is miniscule in relation to the rest of the universe.  So ‘heavens split apart from earth’ is an inaccurate description of the origin of the universe.”You arer thinking too much.
 Were that only the case with you. 
Quote:
Wasnt everything one unit of creation? Wasnt everything joined together? Isnt everything now separate? Thats what the quran just said.
 No, it said the EARTH AND SKY were separated. Not 'everything.' That's just what you wish it said. 
Quote:
If you ask any scientist, although everybody knows this, he will tell you that everything is connected and in harmony because the universe at a point in time was joined together.
 Hey, we've got several 'any scientist(s)' here on the board! Bob, Hamby, Nigel, want to take this one? 
Quote:
You said: “And ‘every living thing’ was not ‘made from water’.  Living things are organic, i.e., made from carbon.  So as far as the qu’ran, no, I will not believe. “Really?! Get me one living thing that has no water in it! Water is a reason for life, no water no life. Everybody knows that now.
 WHOOSH!!! And the points keep missing him, folks!He said that everything wasn't MADE FROM WATER. Not that living things have a lot of water in them. Again: The building blocks of life is CARBON COMPOUNDS. Water is merely the transport method.  
 
Quote:
You said “I’m afraid I’m not familiar about any science regarding the ‘separation of salt and sweet water’.  You can elaborate, although I’m not hopeful it will be anything revelatory. “ Salt and sweet water don’t mix.
 And the OP was right: Your point isn't relevatory. It's not even correct.pH balances show you to be wrong. Salt and sweet water DO mix, as for instance in brackish swamps along coasts. There's no barrier... but Muhammad wouldn't have known that.

 

Quote:
You said “Any work with one source is less likely to have inconsistencies than one with many sources (such as the bible).  Not impressive.  And as discussed above, there are inconsistencies anyway.”


Dont forget the bible started out with one source.
So unbelievably wrong I don't know where to start.Let's begin with the Hebrew Bible, shall we? At best, the earliest books were composed in the 6th/5th centuries. The books that were rejected by the Jews (including 1 & 2 Maccabees and I think 6 others) often came later- the books I just listed were from the end of the Hellenstic era. That's the Hebrew Bible- of which the Christian 'Old Testament' is an expanded really bad translation called the Septaugint, an ancient Hebrew-to-Greek translation that really mangled the meaning of the books.Then there are the Gospels and Epistles. Oh my my my..... Paul's letters (the Epistles) consist of genuine letters to various apocalyptic cults which Paul founded, 1st/2nd century forgeries, and who knows how many interpolations. The Gospels, save John, are now considered to have sprung from Mark first, then Matthew (which fixed some of the 'fuzziness' of Jewish beliefs in Mark) and then Luke. John is its own weird thing.There are some who believe the 4 Gospels are a much later attempt by the state church to harmonize the 4 competing accounts of Jesus' life. And there seems to be quite a bit of evidence for this. I suggest you read Bart Ehrman's "The Gospels" or "Lost Christianities" for an introduction.So no, there was no 'one source.' That's the traditional view, and hasn't been accepted by anyone besides religious apologists or pseudo-scholars since the Tubingen School of the early 19th century started deconstructing the texts.
Quote:
People added changes to it which made different versions. I already talked about what you said are inconsistencies.
 You'll get no argument from me. In fact, you'll only get arguments from fundamentalists and Biblical literalists. Both of whom, though they don't acknowlegeit, are very recent developments (mid-to-late 1800s) and mostly in the U.S. (though it's being exported- fundamentalism is getting to be HUGE in Central and South America.)No less a luminary theologian than Augustine said that, if the Bible is in error about something, humans should err on the side of results gained from human reason or endeavour, not to blind adherence to Biblical doctrine. What mattered to Augustine (who was channeling Origen at that point, basically) and what matters to most latter-day Catholics (who continue to channel Augustine) is NOT blind adherence to 'the' word of god- but knowing the importance of Jesus' sacrifice and what that all means to us.That's what they believe, BTW. I think it's bunk myself, but it is internally consistent. 
Quote:
Many people make claims, but not anyone believes them without proof. If Muhammad made a claim without providing anything nobody would have believed him. But he recited the quran, which gained a lot of interest because he never knew how to read or write, and because nobody was able to match anything like it in literature and word structure.
 Structure? It's a mess! And proof? Again- without special pleading, you have no case. There's plenty that's out there with better structure than the Quran. Maybe not in Arabic at that time, but there's lots of stuff.Another thing: Islam *claims* that Muhammad recited the Quran. Perhaps he didn't recite it in its present form. I know that it wasn't written down until Muhammad's death. Which places it in questionable territory. Albeit far less than Christianity. But we're not talking about Christianity.Oh, but if you wanted to talk about well-written books that were actually written by the founder of a religion: Bahá’u’lláh, founder of the Baha'i faith, did that. And without images, with a perfectly repeated series of books, etc etc. So again: You'll need a better case. 
Quote:
When somebody says I can carry a building on my arms, that’s a claim, when he does it, that’s the proof. You heard the claim but you refused the proof without even looking into it, what can I say other than…
 And all you've been telling us is that Mohammad carried buildings on his arms. The proof is not there, I'm sorry to say. The Quran, like all other human-written books, has mistakes. 

 

OrdinaryClay wrote:
If you don't believe your non-belief then you don't believe and you must not be an atheist.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3716
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Okay, I'll waste my time.

Okay, I'll waste my time.

intelides wrote:
The difference between you and me is that im saying you use the word created for something you KNOW is created BY HUMANS.

I use the word for what I know is created by intelligence. It's not necessarily humans.

Quote:
Well if you see a machine, something like nothing youve seen before, in the desert would you say its not created? Ofcourse you would, because you know complex things have to come by a creator even if you didnt see the creator.

Now you're equivocating two different definitions of "creator," a cause and an intelligent designer, and you're saying that just because something is complex, it must have a creator. Fallacy of equivocation + argument from ignorance. Your argument isn't even coherent anymore. Aren't you confusing yourself? 

Quote:
I know you dont disagree on that point but the reason you dont, is because from your experience you have seen similar things, that are made up of parts by someone, which work as a machine and therefore you conclude this machine is created by someone, because of its complexity right? even if you didnt see the exact machine before.. right?

No, it's because we know it was created. A baby that saw a TV for the first time wouldn't know that someone designed it.

Quote:
I mean a cloud may look like a hammer, but we could say mmmmm it could come on by itself (by the wind i mean), but without human interaction. Yet if you see a picture of a cloud looking like cinderella you will know its artificial,

I see clouds that look like creatures all the time. God made them, right?

Quote:
or if your looking at a picture, you will say its made on photoshop.

Because we know that pictures don't appear naturally, and we know that people take and edit pictures.

Quote:
So basically the more complex the creation, or the harder for it to come together, is the reason you would call somthing a creaiton, isnt that right?

No no no, you call it a creation when you have evidence that it's a creation. An argument from ignorance is not evidence, especially when there are plausible natural explanations.

Quote:
Is a piece of rock a creation then? Correct me if im wrong, but you will say, no.This is why. I agree that anything complex is a creation (i know you would say no not anything cause an ice crystal is complex but its not creation by humans). The reason i say anything complex is a creation is not ONLY because the crystal is complex, but because the universe itself is so complex that we cant even comprehend, yet all its parts work in perfect harmony. By analogy, if a watch (or something similar in complexitiy) needs an intelligent designer, then the universe and its complexity needs an intelligent designer.

Man, you love this argument from ignorance, don't you?

Quote:
If the universe came into existence by a designer and is meant to be the way it is, meaning the universe is a creation, then any subset of that universe is a creation, like a rock. Do you object, and if so, why?

I do not object to this. However, you haven't proven that the universe was "designed" yet. Where are you going with this?

Quote:
Moreover, from our experience the more complex the design the more intelligent the designer. So if the design of the universe is so complex, so infinite and beyond our imagination. Then so is the designer.

No, you're still committing the same fallacies. Why do you keep repeating yourself?

Quote:
I also have a question, we know that something doesnt come from nothing, why do you believe that the creation of the universe is an exception?

Um...I don't.

Quote:
I also would like to know. If (assuming as in your case there is no God) there is a God, how do you expect his creation to be?

Exactly the way it is now.

Quote:
Without building blocks as electrons, or strings? Without reason and laws that govern it? What im trying to say is, if there is a God, the universe has to be the way it is.

Why?

Quote:
I am also interested in knowing how does cancer, birth defects and all that, deny a creator?

I think he's making the argument from evil.

Quote:
And then you said "order can emerge from randomness". Thats absolutely untrue,

It's true. Zarathustra has already given you many great examples.

Quote:
because what seems to be randomness is just another order.

Ah, but if you argue this premise, then a cloud in the shape of Cinderella isn't proof of an intelligent designer at all. Hey, you said it yourself. It's just another order, so how can you discern what's order and what isn't? Perhaps the concept of complexity is just our brains assigning arbitrary patterns.

Quote:
What causes the order from “randomness” is the laws set in the universe.

You just claimed that there was no randomness. Then, you claimed that the laws in the universe causes order from randomness. You seriously don't notice inconsistencies in your argument?

Edit: Wait a minute. Oh, sorry, I misinterpreted your post. You're saying that nothing in the universe is random because the universe is designed, right? Well, then, all you did was beg the question. Another fallacy.

Actually, due to your excellent writing skills, I'm not sure if my interpretation of your post is correct now or if it was correct before.  

Eh, I better stop. I don't want to read any more of this right now.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


intelides
Posts: 3
Joined: 2009-03-16
User is offlineOffline
Reply to Kevin Brown

Hi Kevin Brown,

Im glad you asked... This is a question asked a lot these days although it wasnt problem before...

 

The people, because of blind hate or just ignorance, have used these verses out of context in order to lead other people to what they believe, that islam is not true and all that...

First of all, you should agree with me that if we muslims, dont believe something about islam, then it makes no sense that you should believe it right? I hope so. Because many people believe things about islam that we as muslims dont even believe.

 

Secondly, the quran as we believe is a SET of revelations. Its not like the prophet was given a whole book and then told go preach.. No... the revelations came down slowly as events unfold, each revelation is talking about a specific event and specific people, if you dont know the event and the context, then how can you claim you understand it? You understand my point?

 

Let me take one verse (the others follow the same idea), "kill the disbelievers wherever you find them" refers to one of the  battles during the prophets time, about THE people he was fighting in THAT battle. He recieved the revelation during or just before the battles. Its not ordering to kill ANY disbeliever.

 

And finally, if that wasnt true, the non-muslims wouldve disappeared from the muslim countries a very long time ago, there are more than 10 million coptic christians in egypt alone. All the worhshipping places in syria and jerusalem, shouldve disappear, but none of that happened, although the muslims ruled these places for centuries. The prophet said, any muslims who kills a non-muslim (living under terms with muslims, meaning not in war or anything like that.. ) will not smell the fragrance of paradise.

Quran comes hand in hand with the sunnah (details of the life of the prophet). For example, the quran tells about the importance of prayer, but doesnt say how the prayer is performed. The sunnah provides in great detail how the prayer is to be performed.

Thank you.


intelides
Posts: 3
Joined: 2009-03-16
User is offlineOffline
Reply to butterbattle

Hi Butterbattle,

If you would like to discuss what you said, make a new thread, because you are getting confused about a lot of things, you better understand what i mean first.

A baby wouldnt know the TV is created? lol, a baby wouldnt know a lot of things. And why pick the baby, why did you pick someone who barely knows how to stand?

God made the clouds, but not because they look like creatures! i never said that..

So if you would seriously like to discuss what i said before, start with a specific point in a new thread, if not please dont tell me things like the ones you posted above, the baby,, and the creatures and clouds, its just silly..

 

cheers

 


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
I've read the quran, though

I've read the quran, though not in arabic because I can't read arabic. I have a few questions. Is your belief in god based solely on the ideas that everything is created and that the quran doesn't have errors in it, or are there other reasons beyond those two things?

Also, if you've taken for granted that everything is created haven't you excluded the possibility of contradictory evidence? I mean there's certainly nothing about a stone (for example) in itself that would intuitively lead me to conclude that it is created. So if we assume that everything we see is created whether it appears to be or not, then what would it be like to encounter something that wasn't created?

The same question would apply also to he quran. Another person presented what would at least appear to be an error in ethics within the quran, stating that all the non-believers should be killed. You responded by saying that it's not an instruction to kill all the non-believers on earth, it was just an instruction to kill all the non-believers in that particular circumstance. But would that even be reasonable? Wouldn't that mean that god was instructing them to kill people who surrendered, people who attempted to flee, men's wives and children, the old and infirmed, and people who couldn't defend themselves? From an ethical standpoint that seems like no less of a mistake. So if you define what is ethical as equivalent to what is written in the quran then what would it be like to encounter an ethical mistake in the quran?

 

 

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3716
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
intelides wrote:if not

intelides wrote:
if not please dont tell me things like the ones you posted above, the baby,, and the creatures and clouds, its just silly..

Thanks for the advice, but I'll write whatever I want to write.

If you want to read something silly, go back and read your own post.

People automatically anthropomorphize, and this inevitably includes hypothesis of the origins of things. People know that the TV was created because they know it is manmade. People don't know that mountains are created. Some people assume that mountains are intelligently created based on nothing more than their intuition. People are naturally inclined to lean towards the conclusion that things have "meaning" or "purpose" or "design."  

The intuition that something is intelligently created isn't really based on complexity, but pattern recognition. Something that is extremely complex, but appears random is less likely to be labeled intelligently created than something that is much simpler, but holds what our brains deem to be "organized."

- You claim that because your intuition tells you that something was intelligently created, it must be so. This contains the assumed premise that if your intuition feels strongly about something, then it must be correct.

- You stated that a creation must have a creator. This contains the assumption that the world is a creation. Since creation necessitates a creator and vice versa and the opposition has already expressed their disagreement with such, this is begging the question.  

- You claim that everything that we know the origin of was created by man. Therefore, everything that we don't know the origin of was also intelligently created. This is factually incorrect. Organisms were not intelligently created, since they evolved from a common ancestor. Natural geographical landmarks were not intelligently created; they can be made by the movement of tectonic plates, floods, etc. Therefore, not everything that we know the origin of was intelligently created.

- Since you appear to be trying to make a deductive argument, this is also a non sequitur. The conclusion does not follow.

- It also appears to be missing a premise. I could be wrong here, but you only seem to have one premise.

- You're also implying that since we don't know any alternative explanations for where everything came from, everything must have been made by God. Hence, you're also making an argument from ignorance.

intelides wrote:
God made the clouds, but not because they look like creatures! i never said that..

And I never said you did.

You said:

"I mean a cloud may look like a hammer, but we could say mmmmm it could come on by itself (by the wind i mean), but without human interaction. Yet if you see a picture of a cloud looking like cinderella you will know its artificial,"

You're saying that if something looks like it's created to you, then you can accurately deem that thing created. This shows that you have no effective criterion for determining what is created and what isn't. After all, someone else can arbitrarily declare that a certain cloud that looks like a rabbit is created, and you would no method of refuting them; you could only emphasize that it doesn't really look created to you. The discussion would never get anywhere! What you would need is a systematic, scientific approach to the issue to gather evidence and determine probable causes.   

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare