the "there's actual science in the kuran" argument

[beenie]

The Qur'an is NOT a science book. Only those who believe in it will see it as such.

 

[morphesium]

i always hear people talkin about the fact that there's actual science present inside the kuran.
i was wondering, since there are muslim members in this forum, if its their belief too that there are scientific principles ( unkonwn at the time it was written, otherwise is pointless ) in the kuran too, would they be so kind to provide those passages of the text for me to read?

also, when you refer to a specific scientific principle in the kuran, can you please specify if the relative scientific discovery has been made starting from that scientific principle present in the kuran, or if muslims have realized the scientific principle was present in the text only after the relative discovery was made?

There is no science in kuran. The way they link Kuran to science is just stupidity. First they take a scientific principle or scientific finding and then search Quran to find out some distant and non-related phrases -one from here, one from there, order them and put them together and say - "Kuran said that 1400 years back, for ______ is wise, ____ is all knowing" . They don't know what makes science - science. There is no proofs and there is no real mathematics there.

If science proposes a new theory, they will say it is there in kuran. As science advances and if it happened to disprove the original theory, then too they will find something to support the new theory. There are a lot of versus in quran that supports geocentric theory.

 

[cambridge79]

so what i don't understand, in the end is this a poor argument for the majority of muslims too ( like creationism is a stupid argument for the majority of catholics and don't represent their view even if a tiny fraction of them actually believes it ) or is a poor argument but muslims tend to agree with it and believe it?

out of 100 muslims, how many muslims would say "yes there's actual science in the kuran" for the reasons mentioned in the link provided?

 

[Tomorrows_Child]

so what i don't understand, in the end is this a poor argument for the majority of muslims too ( like creationism is a stupid argument for the majority of catholics and don't represent their view even if a tiny fraction of them actually believes it ) or is a poor argument but muslims tend to agree with it and believe it?

out of 100 muslims, how many muslims would say "yes there's actual science in the kuran" for the reasons mentioned in the link provided?

As an actual science student, I would most definitely say there is actual science in the Qu'ran (Kuran is not the correct spelling btw).

First of all, are you asking this question with a sincere heart, an open mind and a lack of prejudice? If you are not, then there is no point in continuing.

If you are, then there is literally no denying of the facts in the Qu'ran, although I have had many atheists on here arguing with me on these matters and ultimately, when they lose the argument, they say all the correct things in the Qu'ran were either a guess or copied from earlier civilisations...how many correct guesses can one make before he/she is wrong?

Was it accepted, common knowledge, over 1400 hundred years ago that the earth was egg shaped?
Was it accepted, common knowledge, over 1400 years ago that the earth, the moon and the sun all move?
Was it accepted, common knowledge, over 1400 years ago that the mountains had a peg like structure?
Was it accepted, common knowledge, over 1400 years ago that the first essence of the universe created by Allah was smoke/gas?
Was it accepted, common knowledge, over 1400 years ago that the universe is ever expanding?

Now, what we must understand is that the Qu'ran is not a book of science but that these verses, with certain scientific facts, have been revealed as evidence, but only for those who are "people of understanding".

 

[YmirGF]

First of all, are you asking this question with a sincere heart, an open mind and a lack of prejudice? If you are not, then there is no point in continuing.

Ah, the suspension of disbelief argument. Nice. Let's pretend it is actually say things that it isn't saying and read reams of information into a vague passage...

If you are, then there is literally no denying of the facts in the Qu'ran, although I have had many atheists on here arguing with me on these matters and ultimately, when they lose the argument, they say all the correct things in the Qu'ran were either a guess or copied from earlier civilizations...how many correct guesses can one make before he/she is wrong?

I've heard this claimed many times, but never actually witnessed it. I've never seen a Muslim "win" any of these arguments. As to the last part I suppose one can use the old adage that even a broken watch is correct twice a day.

Was it accepted, common knowledge, over 1400 hundred years ago that the earth was egg shaped?

and yet there are so many references that give the distinct impression (pun intended as per the meme of the "egg shaped") that the earth is flat, like a rolled out carpet. It's almost like Allah couldn't make up his mind.

Was it accepted, common knowledge, over 1400 years ago that the earth, the moon and the sun all move?

Nice circumnavigation of the truth. Most societies understood that the sun, the moon and the stars moved. There are many passages in the Qur'an that give support to the geocentric model.

Was it accepted, common knowledge, over 1400 years ago that the mountains had a peg like structure?

But they are not like pegs, though they do have roots. One wonders why an all-knowing deity would not say roots instead. Arabs of the day would have understood. Further, mountains do not prohibit shaking of the earth.

Was it accepted, common knowledge, over 1400 years ago that the first essence of the universe created by Allah was smoke/gas?

A bit poetic for something that was a super-hot nuclear plasma.

Was it accepted, common knowledge, over 1400 years ago that the universe is ever expanding?

Even though the most common translation of the Arabic word was often "spread" - you know, like a carpet... or peanut butter on toast. I doubt many thought of it as universal expansion as considered today. The idea of the Big Bang certainly did not come from anyone reading the Qur'an, after all. If it was so widely known why was the Big Bang not a Muslim theory?

Now, what we must understand is that the Qu'ran is not a book of science but that these verses, with certain scientific facts, have been revealed as evidence, but only for those who are "people of understanding".

My guess is that understanding wouldn't fill the cover of a match book.