7 layers of heaven

[skydivephil]

Thats your personal idea of how a debate should work. A more common one is perhaps one person present evidence for their claim and the opponent presents theirs.

 

[YmirGF]

What does reality have to do with it? Your statement did not live up to my expectations of what I understand a bodhisattva (enlightened-being) to be. I didn't mean to insult you, but if you are going to drive around with a bumper sticker that says "mean people suck", and then drive like a maniac cutting people off and such, you might expect a little criticism. (an analogy to posting carelessly whilst displaying the tag-line "bodhisattva").

Hmmm. Given that many do not let reality dissuade them from their highly creative thinking, I can understand your confusion. Sadly, your definition of the bodhisattva is quite incorrect and is in desperate need of review.

What I find amusing is that you think my comments are "careless" and yet I would tell you that are made with genuine precision and great care. While I can completely appreciate your own comments and see them as being perfectly valid, I think it is unfortunate that people cannot see the validity of what I have suggested. My comments are, at the very least, as valid as your own and because of that it is somewhat foolish to overlook their possibility.

By way of analogy, I could suggest that one explore the ramblings of Rush Limbaugh to find some heady pearls of wisdom. In his career, he must have said something of note, at some point, but one may have to labor through a veritable mountain of rhetoric to discern those pearls, if in fact, any exist at all. There is the equal possibility that after an extensive search one could come up empty handed and so has wasted a considerable amount of time and effort.

I suppose my overall point is one can find meaning wherever one chooses to look. Just because one finds meaning in the work of a given person does not mean that that work contains great meaning. There is a subtle, but important difference. It all depends how the message resonates with the reader. I can utterly assure you that the Qur'an has "resonance" for me as well, but that "resonance" has an very unpleasant ring to it. To my ear, it just doesn't sound right and it just doesn't feel right.

This thread is a good example of what I am meaning here. We have a few scant verses from the Qur'an that some Muslims believe contains a significant hidden message. The entertaining part is that you could easily find 4 or 5 variations of what this means on the Net from some Muslim's perspective without breaking into much of a sweat. Looked at from this standpoint, one can understand that the reasons for the production of these articles is based on the thought that the verses HOLD great meaning and that somehow their value as poetry is simply not enough.

I am still a bit puzzled as to why some Muslims feel a need to produce these poorly thought out articles that are based on junk science. In general terms, they simply cannot have considered the possible impact of generating these theories. Obviously they expected to gain much respect for their efforts and I can understand that need, but the unexpected reality is that these articles have served to open Muslims up to more ridicule than they can possibly be worth.

 

[Fatihah]

Fatihah simply stating it makes sense without countering my argument is not exactly an intellectual debate is it?

Response: True. And in order to counter an argument, an argument would first have to be presented.

 

[skydivephil]

Are you seriously suggesting i haven't even presented an argument? why did you go on and about 7 layers of the atmosphere then if I hadnt even presented an argument? what prompted you to the ridiculous claims there are stars in the atmosphere if i hadn't presented an argument?
Just to remind you of what you said: (post 27
Response: Yes. Are you suggesting that there are no stars in the atmosphere?
and then there was this, then you were challenged here:
Originally Posted by YmirGF
Yes, as a matter of fact I am. Do you know anything at all about something called "space"?

Given that the nearest star to Earth is a tad under 93,000,000 miles away, does put it a tiny bit outside the earth's atmosphere.
This is what you said in reply to this post 29 :

Response: It's still in the atmosphere.

 

[Fatihah]

Are you seriously suggesting i haven't even presented an argument? why did you go on and about 7 layers of the atmosphere then if I hadnt even presented an argument? what prompted you to the ridiculous claims there are stars in the atmosphere if i hadn't presented an argument?
Just to remind you of what you said: (post 27
Response: Yes. Are you suggesting that there are no stars in the atmosphere?
and then there was this, then you were challenged here:
Originally Posted by YmirGF
Yes, as a matter of fact I am. Do you know anything at all about something called "space"?

Given that the nearest star to Earth is a tad under 93,000,000 miles away, does put it a tiny bit outside the earth's atmosphere.
This is what you said in reply to this post 29 :

Response: It's still in the atmosphere.

Response: Are you the same person who can't tell the difference between the word "classification" and "definition"? Using a lack of comprehension of simple english and basing an argument from it? To which I had to explain the difference and completely debunk. Just to remind you of what was said:

Response: Your request is absurd. You're asking me to define for you basic english words. Words in which a child would know. If you know what the atmosphere is, you should know what an atmospheric layer is. I don't dispute over such common sense. What you are doing in your "alleged" definition of the term is not the definition, but it's classification. The "definition" of atmospheric layer is not the change in correlation between temperature and altutude. The atmospheric layers are "classified" by the change in correlation between temperature and altitude. How can it be the definition if neither the word "atmosphere" nor "layer" mean the change in correlation between temperature and altitude? Since neither word is defined that way, then the words put together can't be defined that way. This is simple english. Why does basic english have to be explained to you? According to your logic, a "red shirt", means a "blue shirt". Does "red" mean "blue"? No. But according to your logic, it doesn't have to since the word does not have to match the definition. That's absurd, and to say otherwise is completely illogical and any reasonable person can see that.

 

[Ganymede]

Hmmm. Given that many do not let reality dissuade them from their highly creative thinking, I can understand your confusion. Sadly, your definition of the bodhisattva is quite incorrect and is in desperate need of review.

What I find amusing is that you think my comments are "careless" and yet I would tell you that are made with genuine precision and great care. While I can completely appreciate your own comments and see them as being perfectly valid, I think it is unfortunate that people cannot see the validity of what I have suggested. My comments are, at the very least, as valid as your own and because of that it is somewhat foolish to overlook their possibility.

By way of analogy, I could suggest that one explore the ramblings of Rush Limbaugh to find some heady pearls of wisdom. In his career, he must have said something of note, at some point, but one may have to labor through a veritable mountain of rhetoric to discern those pearls, if in fact, any exist at all. There is the equal possibility that after an extensive search one could come up empty handed and so has wasted a considerable amount of time and effort.

I suppose my overall point is one can find meaning wherever one chooses to look. Just because one finds meaning in the work of a given person does not mean that that work contains great meaning. There is a subtle, but important difference. It all depends how the message resonates with the reader. I can utterly assure you that the Qur'an has "resonance" for me as well, but that "resonance" has an very unpleasant ring to it. To my ear, it just doesn't sound right and it just doesn't feel right.

This thread is a good example of what I am meaning here. We have a few scant verses from the Qur'an that some Muslims believe contains a significant hidden message. The entertaining part is that you could easily find 4 or 5 variations of what this means on the Net from some Muslim's perspective without breaking into much of a sweat. Looked at from this standpoint, one can understand that the reasons for the production of these articles is based on the thought that the verses HOLD great meaning and that somehow their value as poetry is simply not enough.

I am still a bit puzzled as to why some Muslims feel a need to produce these poorly thought out articles that are based on junk science. In general terms, they simply cannot have considered the possible impact of generating these theories. Obviously they expected to gain much respect for their efforts and I can understand that need, but the unexpected reality is that these articles have served to open Muslims up to more ridicule than they can possibly be worth.

Alright, I apologize. I hope that helps. I don't have much interest in arguing, but I should at least note that I double checked the meaning of the word bodhisattva before I posted. It is a simple definition, but fairly accurate in a common sense.

:faint:

 

[skydivephil]

Response: Are you the same person who can't tell the difference between the word "classification" and "definition"? Using a lack of comprehension of simple english and basing an argument from it? To which I had to explain the difference and completely debunk. Just to remind you of what was said:

Could you provide some scientific reference that makes the distinction between "classification" of atmospheric layers and the "definition" of an atmospheric layer? or did you just make it up?

 

[Fatihah]

Could you provide some scientific reference that makes the distinction between "classification" of atmospheric layers and the "definition" of an atmospheric layer? or did you just make it up?

Response: There is no need or no point in providing irrelevence, thus your question is pointless. Do you not know what a dictionary is?

 

[skydivephil]

So what you are saying is you cant provide any scientific reference to back up your claim. Thats no surprise.

I know what a dictionary is, they don't often given technical scientific definitions. Perhaps an afternoon on wikipedia may help you:
Scientific method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Common language is often not helpful when resolving scientific matters. for example a jelly fish is not a fish, so if we used the common language definition we would get the wrong answer.

 

[Fatihah]

So what you are saying is you cant provide any scientific reference to back up your claim. Thats no surprise.

I know what a dictionary is, they don't often given technical scientific definitions. Perhaps an afternoon on wikipedia may help you:
Scientific method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Common language is often not helpful when resolving scientific matters. for example a jelly fish is not a fish, so if we used the common language definition we would get the wrong answer.

Response: That's right. That is no surprise. For when people look up the definition of words, they use something called a "dictionary". Words are defined in a "dictionary". What's not a surprise is that you didn't know that. And there is no such thing as a common language definition dictionary, so you would get it wrong.

 

[skydivephil]

But they don't use dictionaries to determine scientific terminology. Have you every done any scientific research?

 

[Fatihah]

But they don't use dictionaries to determine scientific terminology. Have you every done any scientific research?

Response: Yes, I've done scientific research. And I don't know who "they" are, but if "they" don't use dictionaries to determine scientific terminology, then "they" are not speaking proper english..

 

[skydivephil]

"they' would be atmospheric scientists. What scientific research have you done?Are you saying in your field technical terms are just got out of a dictionary? What field is that?

so do you think you can just string two words together and the meaning stays the same?

 

[Fatihah]

"they' would be atmospheric scientists. What scientific research have you done?Are you saying in your field technical terms are just got out of a dictionary? What field is that?

so do you think you can just string two words together and the meaning stays the same?

Response: Using words defined in a dictionary is not a field. It's common sense. And when two words are put together, the literal meaning does stay the same. Are you suggesting differently? However, people do use words as labels or names which does not define what's being labeled or named. For example, "buffalo wings". Buffalo do not have wings. Yet they are labeled and named as such.

 

[skydivephil]

Response: Using words defined in a dictionary is not a field. It's common sense. And when two words are put together, the literal meaning does stay the same. Are you suggesting differently? However, people do use words as labels or names which does not define what's being labeled or named. For example, "buffalo wings". Buffalo do not have wings. Yet they are labeled and named as such.

Youve just contradicted yourself in the same post, why dont you reread what you wrote and have another go? Does the literal meaning stay the same or not stay the same, do buffalo's have wings or not?

perhaps you could aswer the question , what scientific research have you done?

 

[Fatihah]

Youve just contradicted yourself in the same post, why dont you reread what you wrote and have another go? Does the literal meaning stay the same or not stay the same, do buffalo's have wings or not?

perhaps you could aswer the question , what scientific research have you done?

Response: The answer is in the previous post. And perhaps you should provide as to what you mean by scientific research, so we can at least agree on what play of words you'll be using this time.

 

[gnostic]

Obviously this passage refers to the 7 layer burrito that you can get from Taco Bell. Beans, rice, cheese, tomatoes, lettuce, sour cream and guacamole. It is heaven in a tortilla.

Seven layered heaven? Is that like seven layered cake or a seven layer burrito? I don't care really. I love them both.

I was thinking seven layer jello, myself.

Whenever I think of layers, I often think of "onion". Don't ask me "why?" I just do.

Perhaps, it is because of Shrek?

 

[gnostic]

To Fatitah:

If the heaven is the sky, which the Qur'an is referring to, then it could be talking about earth's atmosphere.

However, if the "lamps" referred to in the Qur'an as being the stars, then the Qur'an is wrong. There are no stars in the earth's atmosphere, and that's the fact, if you ever looked at modern astronomy and earth's science. The earth's atmosphere, including the layers, are bound by their limits. Beyond the earth's atmospheres is space.

The nearest star is clearly is the sun, and the sun is not in the earth's atmosphere. As other people have already mentioned, the 2nd nearest star (Alpha Centuria) is light years away, and definitely not in atmosphere.

And if we are to take it literally the "lamps" as just as "lamps", then the Qur'an is just absurd nonsense, because the atmospheres clearly don't have lamps.

Can you prove that there are lamps in the atmosphere? I would convert Islam if you can prove this absurdity, Fatitah.

However, if you still think the Qur'an does not have flaw, then the flaws are in your logic and your interpretation of the Qur'an. Either you are wrong, Fatitah or the Qur'an, because they certainly can't be both right. But then again, I think both you and the Qur'an are wrong in regards to 7 heavens or 7 atmospheres.

 

[gnostic]

As to scientific research, Fatitah, it means that you have thorough investigate a particular field.

• Did you find evidences?
• Did you test those findings (evidences, measurement) to either validate or not?
• Have you ever written scientific paper, such as thesis on scientific matter?

Are you scientist, Fatitah?

This should be a easy question for you to answer. Yes or no.

Please, don't answer "yes", if the only science you have done, is in high school. Because you can't be scientist.

Do you have a degree in science?

And if your answer is "yes" to the "scientist" question, then in what field in science?

Earth science? Astronomy? Astrophysics? Meteorology? Biology? Medicine?

If you are (a scientist), then you would not need a definition on "scientific research" from skydivephil. Skydivephil is not playing with words, Fatitah.

And because of all your posts in this thread alone, clearly you are not scientist. So how can you even claim that you have done scientific research, if you don't even know the meaning of scientific research?

One thing for sure, you don't know much about astronomy.

 

[Fatihah]

To Fatitah:

If the heaven is the sky, which the Qur'an is referring to, then it could be talking about earth's atmosphere.

However, if the "lamps" referred to in the Qur'an as being the stars, then the Qur'an is wrong. There are no stars in the earth's atmosphere, and that's the fact, if you ever looked at modern astronomy and earth's science. The earth's atmosphere, including the layers, are bound by their limits. Beyond the earth's atmospheres is space.

The nearest star is clearly is the sun, and the sun is not in the earth's atmosphere. As other people have already mentioned, the 2nd nearest star (Alpha Centuria) is light years away, and definitely not in atmosphere.

And if we are to take it literally the "lamps" as just as "lamps", then the Qur'an is just absurd nonsense, because the atmospheres clearly don't have lamps.

Can you prove that there are lamps in the atmosphere? I would convert Islam if you can prove this absurdity, Fatitah.

However, if you still think the Qur'an does not have flaw, then the flaws are in your logic and your interpretation of the Qur'an. Either you are wrong, Fatitah or the Qur'an, because they certainly can't be both right. But then again, I think both you and the Qur'an are wrong in regards to 7 heavens or 7 atmospheres.

Response: It would be an error if the qur'an said that there are stars in the earth's atmosphere. However, the qur'an does not mention stars in the earth's atmosphere, so there is no error.

As for your reference to lamps, there absurdity is on your part. Clearly, one can look up to the sky and see light from the stars. The definition of "lamp" is "a device which generates light", which is exactly what the stars do. Thus the absurdity is only coming from you.