• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Modern Science proves the Authenticity of the Glorious Qur'an

YmirGF

YmirGF

Bodhisattva in Recovery
Mestemia said:
I guess it is to hard a thing for him....
Click to expand...
Apparently.

As we seem to have moved beyond the mountains “miracle”, I thought I will provide a summation of sorts.
In concluding the” train wreck” of assertions by Fatihah and other Muslims that “mountains act as pegs so that we do not shake with the land”; I think that we have learned some valuable lessons.

These lessons are:

1. Muslims are free to make any claim they wish about “scientific miracles” in the Qur’an simply because science ignores those claims and thus said claims stand as no one in the scientific field is questioning their authority.

2. Never lose sight of what the original argument is about. Remember, the argument is not about a given topic in science, the argument is about the wording in the Qur’an and if that wording is actually meaningful when looked at from a scientific standpoint.

3. All scientific miracles in the Qur’an are not designed to validate the Qur’an alone; rather, they are also designed to validate Muhammad as being a prophet of god. Note: You will almost always see the question asked at some point, “How would someone in the 7th century know this?”

4. Remember, the Quran is supposed to be a divine book and as such it is supposed to be 100% scientifically accurate. As Mumin Salih states, “One mere single mistake is too many because God could never make mistakes - not even a single one for that matter.” Therefore, when a “scientific mistake” is spotted in the Qur’an, it is science that is wrong, not the Qur’an.

5. One must pay particular attention to wording. Muslims have their goal posts set on runners so one must use caution when attempting a dialogue. You may also want to start a journal of who said what, when, as that will become invaluable when the discussion gets particularly oblique.

6. The possibility of a miracle is considered only if a book predicts or explains scientific discoveries that are not within current human knowledge of its time. (Refer to Lesson three.)

7. The Quran is made of words that cannot be changed while human understanding can be changed. Arabic dictionaries and tafseer (interpretation) books are not divine; therefore, they can be changed.

8. Muslims understand the strategy: attack is the best form of defence What this means is that anything you say will instantly be scrutinized for even the slightest minor error, the idea being is that if any error is found that error goes directly against your credibility. Remember the whole point is about credibility, specifically in regards to his nibs, Muhammad and the illustrious Qur’an. The odd principle at work here is the reasoning that your lack of credibility lends direct support to the credibility of the two mentioned above even though the twain are not actually related.

9. Expect the unexpected. Expect abrupt shifts in thought chains as concepts quickly split off from the original assertion(s). Rather than running with the ball, veering off at some weird angle, demand clarification about how the new idea is related to the original idea.

10. Be concise and keep your language as simple as possible. When the conversation turns to very complex explanations refer back to Lesson Number Two. You will be encouraged to knit-pick over highly technical details; my advice is that you not swallow the bait. Always pay attention to the relevancy of the statements made to the specific text(s) in question.

11. Though you may believe that the onus to prove a claim is incumbent on the individual making the claim try to appreciate that the average Muslim will assume that the Qur’an already proves their point even if mental gymnastics are required to see what that point is. Regardless, you will be asked to prove anything you say so ensure that your statements are correct from a scientific standpoint, but do not expect that that will give you an easy “victory”. Refer to Lessons 1-10.


Can anyone think of other tidbits for future contestants? ;)
 
F

Fatihah

Well-Known Member
YmirGF said:
Apparently.

As we seem to have moved beyond the mountains “miracle”, I thought I will provide a summation of sorts.
In concluding the” train wreck” of assertions by Fatihah and other Muslims that “mountains act as pegs so that we do not shake with the land”; I think that we have learned some valuable lessons.

These lessons are:

1. Muslims are free to make any claim they wish about “scientific miracles” in the Qur’an simply because science ignores those claims and thus said claims stand as no one in the scientific field is questioning their authority.

2. Never lose sight of what the original argument is about. Remember, the argument is not about a given topic in science, the argument is about the wording in the Qur’an and if that wording is actually meaningful when looked at from a scientific standpoint.

3. All scientific miracles in the Qur’an are not designed to validate the Qur’an alone; rather, they are also designed to validate Muhammad as being a prophet of god. Note: You will almost always see the question asked at some point, “How would someone in the 7th century know this?”

4. Remember, the Quran is supposed to be a divine book and as such it is supposed to be 100% scientifically accurate. As Mumin Salih states, “One mere single mistake is too many because God could never make mistakes - not even a single one for that matter.” Therefore, when a “scientific mistake” is spotted in the Qur’an, it is science that is wrong, not the Qur’an.

5. One must pay particular attention to wording. Muslims have their goal posts set on runners so one must use caution when attempting a dialogue. You may also want to start a journal of who said what, when, as that will become invaluable when the discussion gets particularly oblique.

6. The possibility of a miracle is considered only if a book predicts or explains scientific discoveries that are not within current human knowledge of its time. (Refer to Lesson three.)

7. The Quran is made of words that cannot be changed while human understanding can be changed. Arabic dictionaries and tafseer (interpretation) books are not divine; therefore, they can be changed.

8. Muslims understand the strategy: attack is the best form of defence What this means is that anything you say will instantly be scrutinized for even the slightest minor error, the idea being is that if any error is found that error goes directly against your credibility. Remember the whole point is about credibility, specifically in regards to his nibs, Muhammad and the illustrious Qur’an. The odd principle at work here is the reasoning that your lack of credibility lends direct support to the credibility of the two mentioned above even though the twain are not actually related.

9. Expect the unexpected. Expect abrupt shifts in thought chains as concepts quickly split off from the original assertion(s). Rather than running with the ball, veering off at some weird angle, demand clarification about how the new idea is related to the original idea.

10. Be concise and keep your language as simple as possible. When the conversation turns to very complex explanations refer back to Lesson Number Two. You will be encouraged to knit-pick over highly technical details; my advice is that you not swallow the bait. Always pay attention to the relevancy of the statements made to the specific text(s) in question.

11. Though you may believe that the onus to prove a claim is incumbent on the individual making the claim try to appreciate that the average Muslim will assume that the Qur’an already proves their point even if mental gymnastics are required to see what that point is. Regardless, you will be asked to prove anything you say so ensure that your statements are correct from a scientific standpoint, but do not expect that that will give you an easy “victory”. Refer to Lessons 1-10.


Can anyone think of other tidbits for future contestants? ;)
Click to expand...

Response:

Reference from the website:
(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain)
"In order to balance the weight of the earth's surface, much of the compressed rock is forced downward, producing deep "mountain roots"(See the Book of "Earth", Press and Siever page. 413). Mountains therefore form downward as well as upward (see isostasy)"

My simple question is this, are you telling me that this statement that clearly says that mountains balance the earth's surface is not actual proof that mountains balance the earth's surface? Yes or No?
 
The Voice of Reason

The Voice of Reason

Doctor of Thinkology
Fatihah said:
Response:

Reference from the website:
(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain)
"In order to balance the weight of the earth's surface, much of the compressed rock is forced downward, producing deep "mountain roots"(See the Book of "Earth", Press and Siever page. 413). Mountains therefore form downward as well as upward (see isostasy)"

My simple question is this, are you telling me that this statement that clearly says that mountains balance the earth's surface is not actual proof that mountains balance the earth's surface? Yes or No?
Click to expand...

I see a statement, but I don't see any proof.
 
YmirGF

YmirGF

Bodhisattva in Recovery
Fatihah said:
Response:

Reference from the website:
(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain)
"In order to balance the weight of the earth's surface, much of the compressed rock is forced downward, producing deep "mountain roots"(See the Book of "Earth", Press and Siever page. 413). Mountains therefore form downward as well as upward (see isostasy)"

My simple question is this, are you telling me that this statement that clearly says that mountains balance the earth's surface is not actual proof that mountains balance the earth's surface? Yes or No?
Click to expand...
I will agree that it is evidence, however, on its own it is not proof. Forgive the pun, Fatihah, but this "evidence" is a bit flimsy to peg your tent on.

Let me draw your attention to a related link on Wiki: isostasy.

Isostatic effects of plate tectonics
When continents collide, the continental crust may thicken at their edges in the collision. If this happens, much of the thickened crust may move downwards rather than up as with the iceberg analogy. The idea of continental collisions building mountains "up" is therefore rather a simplification. Instead, the crust thickens and the upper part of the thickened crust may become a mountain range.

However, some continental collisions are far more complex than this, and the region may not be in isostatic equilibrium, so this subject has to be treated with caution.
Click to expand...
Please note the red text, "so this subject has to be treated with caution". In my view, that is enough to cast doubt on the idea. Obviously scientists are looking for other explanations as this one is not satisfactory.
 
Last edited:
The Voice of Reason

The Voice of Reason

Doctor of Thinkology
YmirGF said:
Please note the red text, "so this subject has to be treated with caution". In my view, that is enough to cast doubt on the idea. Obviously scientists are looking for other explanations as this one is not satisfactory.
Click to expand...

So! You admit that the Koran is right, and that you have been a hypocrite all along!!

Thank you for admitting that the Glorious Koran is the greatest science book ever written!!
 
YmirGF

YmirGF

Bodhisattva in Recovery
The Voice of Reason said:
So! You admit that the Koran is right, and that you have been a hypocrite all along!!

Thank you for admitting that the Glorious Koran is the greatest science book ever written!!
Click to expand...
Yes, I can see how rejecting the concept that is purportedly "proof" of the vague passage in the Holey Qur'an can be seen as being supportive. Welcome to the mental gymnastics of Muslim thinking. Please review Lessons 1-11 for clarification.
 
T

themadhair

Well-Known Member
The isostasy argument is simply embarrassing. To put it in the most simplest terms, isostasy is stating that thick plates are heavier and more likely to sink lower. That’s it. It doesn’t prevent shakes. It doesn’t prevent earthquakes.

What you are claiming here, Fatihah, is similar to the following analogy:
A boat will sink lower into the sea in order to balance it’s weight – therefore boats stabilise the sea.

And yes, your claim using isostasy really is as ridiculous as the above boat analogy. Problem is that you know so little about isostasy that don’t realise this.
 
The Voice of Reason

The Voice of Reason

Doctor of Thinkology
YmirGF said:
Yes, I can see how rejecting the concept that is purportedly "proof" of the vague passage in the Holey Qur'an can be seen as being supportive. Welcome to the mental gymnastics of Muslim thinking. Please review Lessons 1-11 for clarification.
Click to expand...

Sorry, Ymir.

I'm going to need another 24 hours before using my brain again. I think I pulled my medula oblongata when I typed that last post.

Oh my aching head.
 
The Voice of Reason

The Voice of Reason

Doctor of Thinkology
themadhair said:
The isostasy argument is simply embarrassing. To put it in the most simplest terms, isostasy is stating that thick plates are heavier and more likely to sink lower. That’s it. It doesn’t prevent shakes. It doesn’t prevent earthquakes.

What you are claiming here, Fatihah, is similar to the following analogy:
A boat will sink lower into the sea in order to balance it’s weight – therefore boats stabilise the sea.

And yes, your claim using isostasy really is as ridiculous as the above boat analogy. Problem is that you know so little about isostasy that don’t realise this.
Click to expand...

Hey - wait a minute. Are you trying to tell Fatihah and myself that we have to actually understand science, before we use it to prove that our religious zealotry is correct? Not so fast, my friend.

Fatihah and I are currently planning our use of ornithology to demonstrate how Muhammed actually moved the mountain. Stay tuned.
 
F

Fatihah

Well-Known Member
YmirGF said:
I will agree that it is evidence, however, on its own it is not proof. Forgive the pun, Fatihah, but this "evidence" is a bit flimsy to peg your tent on.

Let me draw your attention to a related link on Wiki: isostasy.

Please note the red text, "so this subject has to be treated with caution". In my view, that is enough to cast doubt on the idea. Obviously scientists are looking for other explanations as this one is not satisfactory.
Click to expand...

Response: The statement of caution clearly refers to what you yourself highlighted in black right before what's highlighted in red which refers to continental collisions and that referring to isostastic equilibrium in such cases is cautious. This has nothing to do and does not contridict my evidence that mountains bring balance and stability to the earth's crust.
 
Last edited:
F

Fatihah

Well-Known Member
themadhair said:
The isostasy argument is simply embarrassing. To put it in the most simplest terms, isostasy is stating that thick plates are heavier and more likely to sink lower. That’s it. It doesn’t prevent shakes. It doesn’t prevent earthquakes.

What you are claiming here, Fatihah, is similar to the following analogy:
A boat will sink lower into the sea in order to balance it’s weight – therefore boats stabilise the sea.

And yes, your claim using isostasy really is as ridiculous as the above boat analogy. Problem is that you know so little about isostasy that don’t realise this.
Click to expand...

Response: This must be another example of a definitional equivilant. Sorry, but the language I prefer is english, not the language where such terms like "defitional equivalent" is actually propagated as an actual term.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top