There are no mistakes in Quran

[YmirGF]

You can see this yourself with a very simple set up. Get two bowls, fill one with fresh water and add a couple drops of food coloring, and fill the other with salt water and add a couple drops of food coloring of a different color. Pour the two bowls into a larger container. What you will see, very clearly given the water is colored, is that the two mixed without any resistance.

Likewise, from the supposed philosophical perspective, a negative individual can and does interact (mix) with a positive individual. Both are influenced by the interaction and it is somewhat disingenuous for human animals to claim otherwise.

 

[Unification]

Your contribution to this thread is of the lowest of the low hanging fruit. Nice work.

Even philosophically, they mix more than you seem to prefer to suggest.

Thanks for the fine wisdom, I didn't need a "bodhisattva" to show that salt water and fresh water mix, through condescending low hanging fruit.

 

[Unification]

You can see this yourself with a very simple set up. Get two bowls, fill one with fresh water and add a couple drops of food coloring, and fill the other with salt water and add a couple drops of food coloring of a different color. Pour the two bowls into a larger container. What you will see, very clearly given the water is colored, is that the two mixed without any resistance.

You don't see what I am saying. I know that literal salt and fresh water mix.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Yes and no. Scientifically, they do mix. Philosophically, they don't.

Philosophically they mix very well, and a huge chunk of philosophy is really nothing more than one author reacting to something they don't like. Friedrich Nietzsche, for example, who is very influential today, wrote at length about the philosophers who despised. The liberal philosopher John Rawls and libertarian philosopher Robert Nozick, though just as different as salt and fresh water, are great to study side-by-side because they present arguments that are positions over the same subject matter, and by taking the two you can gain much better insights into different political spheres.

 

[Unification]

This is how the Koran is always right.
Either deny reality where it conflicts, or claim poetic license.
But then, this approach makes every other religious scripture equally true.

When the poetry is interpreted properly. The poetic temporary permit becoming licensed.

 

[Unification]

Philosophically they mix very well, and a huge chunk of philosophy is really nothing more than one author reacting to something they don't like. Friedrich Nietzsche, for example, who is very influential today, wrote at length about the philosophers who despised. The liberal philosopher John Rawls and libertarian philosopher Robert Nozick, though just as different as salt and fresh water, are great to study side-by-side because they present arguments that are positions over the same subject matter, and by taking the two you can gain much better insights into different political spheres.

True. Then there would be no "arguments" then if they mixed and meshed.

 

[Unification]

Philosophically they mix very well, and a huge chunk of philosophy is really nothing more than one author reacting to something they don't like. Friedrich Nietzsche, for example, who is very influential today, wrote at length about the philosophers who despised. The liberal philosopher John Rawls and libertarian philosopher Robert Nozick, though just as different as salt and fresh water, are great to study side-by-side because they present arguments that are positions over the same subject matter, and by taking the two you can gain much better insights into different political spheres.

External science and internal poetry are not seeming to mix here. One is either adament about the science of fresh and salt water without seeing the poetic internal meaning of fresh and salt water or vice versa. They are not mixing/blending/meshing as we are still "reasoning/arguing" here.

 

[morphesium]

Yes and no. Scientifically, they do mix. Philosophically, they don't. You have shown that they don't mix. I have presented a fresh idea, and based on your preserved traditional idea... You disagree. They did not mix.

Take some salt water and water and mix them - scientifically they mix but they don't mix philosophically.

"The great philosophy of mixing water."​

 

[Unification]

Take some salt water and water and mix them - scientifically they mix but they don't mix philosophically.

"The great philosophy of mixing water."​

Learn what water represents in mythology. The stubborn desire to only seek the external leaves you as a non-relative donkey.

 

[FearGod]

Spoiler: (36:36)

(36:36) Holy is He Who created all things in pairs, whether it be of what the earth produces, and of themselves, and of what they do not know.


Glory be to Him: He is free from every defect and fault, from every error and weakness, and that another one should be His associate and partner in His work. The Quran has generally used these words when refuting polytheistic beliefs, because every belief of shirk is, in fact, an imputation of some defect, some weakness and some fault to Allah. When a person says that Allah has an associate, he in fact, thinks that either Allah is incapable of running and ruling His Kingdom alone, or He is under compulsion to make another His associate in His work. Or, some other beings are so powerful in themselves that they are interfering in God’s administration and God is putting up with their interference. Or, God forbid, Allah has the weaknesses of the worldly kings, due to which He is surrounded by an army of ministers, courtiers, flatterers and beloved princes or princesses, and thus many powers of Godhead have become divided among them. Had there been no such notions of ignorance about Allah in the minds, there could be no question of any idea of shirk in the world. That is why it has been stated again and again in the Quran That Allah is free from and exalted far above those defects and faults and weaknesses which the mushriks ascribe to Him.

31. This is still another argument for Tauhid. Here again certain realities of daily experience have been mentioned and it is suggested that man observes these day and night but does not ponder over them seriously, whereas they contain signs and pointers to the reality. The coming together of the man and woman is the cause of man’s own birth. Procreation among the animals also is due to the combination between the male and the female. Also about vegetation, man knows that the law of sex is working in it. Even among the lifeless substances when different things combine with one another, a variety of compounds come into existence. The basic composition of matter itself has become possible due to the close affinity between the positive and the negative electric charges (what about the charge-less neutrons here). This law of the pairs which is the basis of the existence of the entire universe (again false), contains in itself such complexities and finenesses of wisdom and workmanship, and there exist such harmonies and mutual relationships between the members of each pair that an objective observer can neither regard it as the result of an accident, nor can he believe that many different gods might have created these countless pairs and matched their members, one with the other, with such great wisdom. The members of each pair being a perfect match for each other and coming into being of new things with their combination itself is an explicit argument of the Creator’s being One and only One.

Other than a few more additional blunders, there is nothing about hermaphrodites , bi-sexuals or asexuals here.

Are you professional in the Arabic language ?

 

[FearGod]

Quran supporting Quran itself.

In science, it is nature that support science. we can test and prove science again and again.
It is our rational thinking capability and morale that is truly god sent. It seems the "believers" are the true disbelievers.

And what science has to tell about the born of the universe from null, what was before the singularity ?
How life started from a non-living universe, where did life come from if there was no life to begin with ?

 

[FearGod]

Take some salt water and water and mix them - scientifically they mix but they don't mix philosophically.

"The great philosophy of mixing water."​

Where did it say in the quran that fresh and salt water never mix ?

 

[Knight of Albion]

With any work pertaining to spiritual instruction there are two yardsticks one should always apply:

* How does the body of work correspond to the Law of Love?

* How pious and worthy a vessel is the one delivering the message?

The answers to those questions will reveal the truth.

 

[Aquitaine]

Ah, this again.
How many times do we hear these claims of "Scientific Miracles/no errors in the Quran"?
Yet every time we see an error it boils down to "well Arabic is a complex language, and many words have mutliple contradictory meanings", which essentially renders the Quran useless as the "literal word of God".

Sorry Muslims, but the rest of the world ain't buying it.

 

[FearGod]

Ah, this again.
How many times do we hear these claims of "Scientific Miracles/no errors in the Quran"?
Yet every time we see an error it boils down to "well Arabic is a complex language, and many words have mutliple contradictory meanings", which essentially renders the Quran useless as the "literal word of God".

Sorry Muslims, but the rest of the world ain't buying it.

If you don't believe in it then the the rest of the world shouldn't too, are you sure ?

 

[Aquitaine]

If you don't believe in it then the the rest of the world shouldn't too, are you sure ?

No, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that only Muslims or soon-to-be converts will believe such things.

I've been on this site for years, and everytime time one of these "Scientific miracles in perfect Quran" threads show up, it usually ends up embarrasing on behalf of the OP.

 

[Riverwolf]

It is due to wrong understanding of Quran, much propagated by the opposing websites.
If one studies Quran oneself:

• intently
• unbiased
• with an open mind
• and with correct approach

One won't find any mistakes in Quran.
Thread open for discussion to everybody.
Regards

The same could be said for all such books. Reading any book in a certain way (i.e., a "correct approach") will make it seem flawless.

It's wholly impossible to read a book without bias. We all have bias. Bias is 100% inescapable. Even the statement that it must be read with a "correct approach" is an instruction to read it with a "correct" bias, whatever "correct" means.

 

[morphesium]

Learn what water represents in mythology. The stubborn desire to only seek the external leaves you as a non-relative donkey.

And it is He who has released [simultaneously] the two seas, one fresh and sweet and one salty and bitter, and He placed between them a barrier and prohibiting partition.
From wikiislam

Yusuf Ali: It is He Who has let free the two bodies of flowing water: One palatable and sweet, and the other salt and bitter; yet has He made a barrier between them, a partition that is forbidden to be passed.

Pickthal: And He it is Who hath given independence to the two seas (though they meet); one palatable, sweet, and the other saltish, bitter; and hath set a bar and a forbidding ban between them.

Shakir: And He it is Who has made two seas to flow freely, the one sweet that subdues thirst by its sweetness, and the other salt that burns by its saltness; and between the two He has made a barrier and inviolable obstruction.

In science, if one makes a mistake, he/she accepts it and corrects it. That is how science has grown this far.
In religion, if one finds a mistake, he has to defend it for the sake of religion - and it stagnates.

 

[Servant_of_the_One1]

Yes, Quran is 100% protected against Errors. I believe that till death.

 

[morphesium]

And what science has to tell about the born of the universe from null, what was before the singularity ?
How life started from a non-living universe, where did life come from if there was no life to begin with ?

Your Quran and your religion has been cheating you all throughout the years and throughout history. It only shows how much brain washed you are that you can never figure out a single fault in Quran.

Or is that you have problem with understanding elementary science?