Are you an atheist?

[Frothingslosh]

You don't get to move the goalposts. You asked for a single contradiction, and I provided a list of 121 of them, with each item in the list in turn linking to a detailed analysis.

Now you are hemming and hawing because I provided a link instead of copying and pasting 121 different discussion pages, and because I didn't provide original research in the original Arabic. Glad to see you're just as disingenuous as Bladerunner.

 

[ConnorGiles]

121 contradictions in the text of the Qu'ran can be found HERE.

Of course, the Bible has even more. Likely the Torah, too.

Well said and also

Then do they not reflect upon the Qur'an? If it had been from [any] other than Allah , they would have found within it much contradiction.

Theres you're books passage - as little sense as this passage makes it is still obtained within a book you have no way of proving that anyone other than a simple human being wrote it? - another thing , you referred to this passage to prove me wrong but how in any way, shape or form prove me wrong since it is still words that could have been written via the hand of man. Most unlikely the hands of Allah/God

 

[aziz rasul]

ConnorGiles, if you look at Qur'an 21:30 which is the signature I am using, if you can explain how a human being could have known how the universe was created 14 centuries ago when the earliest time we knew this was in the 1920's by a Russian named Alexander Friedmann.

Frothingslosh, you seemed to have got upset very quickly for no reason. I didn't say I wouldn't look at the alleged contradictions, I was simply trying to let you pick one, that was all. It would take me a long time to look at all 121 of them, which I hope you can appreciate. I will pick one myself and come back just so that you don't think I'm evading the issue. I wouldn't give you guys a challenge if I wasn't prepared to step up, so to speak.

Watch this space.

 

[ConnorGiles]

Your signature says that the heavens and the earth WERE together - stating it as a fact - however a fact requires evidence and i'm seeing a gargantuan lack of evidence on your behalf aziz - Stating something from a book which may not be true cannot be given as valid evidence.

 

[ConnorGiles]

You may also learn a lot from this thread aziz - read the numerous amounts of peoples views. - try not to throw out your opinions as facts, since they cannot be validated with evidence they cannot be stated as fact.

 

[Frothingslosh]

Sorry, I wasn't upset, I just have a very blunt way of writing, and it often comes across that way.

The problem is you're still moving the goalposts. You have gone from "If you can find a single contradiction in the Qur'an I'm happy to accept that the Qur'an must be the work of man and not God." to "You provided too many contradictions, so I will not accept the method with which you provided them." to "Pick one, and I will prove it does not say what it says it does, and by extension, that all of them are actually not contradictions." You also threw in a little 'if it's a contradiction in English, then that's a human error, as it's not a contradiction in Arabic', which totally ignores that you're then saying that human error can come into play when you're at the same time claiming it can't.

That said, I DO have one that I particularly like, but I'm not willing to play the 'moving the goalposts until I win' game.

Also, if you want to convince the non-religious, you need to use logic. And one thing you need to be aware of is that a conclusion cannot use itself as a reference. What I mean is that you cannot say that the Qu'ran is the truth because Allah created the Qu'ran (which itself comes from the Qu'ran). That is a logical fallacy called a circular reference. Would you accept the same (very common) argument from a Christian, that the Bible is the Truth because it's the Word of God, as explained by the Bible? No, you wouldn't.

To convince the non-believer, you need to convince them logically. That means evidence of creation claims. Evidence of visitation by angels. And yes, that means proving the logical superiority of the ethical system espoused.

 

[aziz rasul]

The primary nebula or singularity (or cosmic egg as it's sometimes called) contained the root ingredients that would ultimately burst and begin the creation of the universe. Please note that the word universe is a modern word which did not exist 14 centuries ago, hence God uses the words the heavens and the earth to describe the universe.

 

[Brianwarnock]

Well said and also



Theres you're books passage -

I'm struggling these days, could we all take a little time to write clear English, I assume, but could be wrong, that the above should be

There's your book's passage.

Perhaps this is the point to ask Bladerunner to correct his signature.

Brian

 

[aziz rasul]

The primary nebula or singularity contained the root ingredients before it was rent asunder.

God describes the universe (which is a word that didn't exist 14 centuries ago) in the Qur'an as the Heavens and the Earth.

 

[aziz rasul]

You may also learn a lot from this thread aziz - read the numerous amounts of peoples views. - try not to throw out your opinions as facts, since they cannot be validated with evidence they cannot be stated as fact.

I do read the views of others, how else could I give a reply? You are entitled to your opinion, please give me licence to have mine. You don't need to accept it if you don't want to. If I think that something is a fact then I will state as such. The creation of the universe began with a tiny particle which burst open. Maths and science have proved this in the 1920's and 1968. Hence it's a fact and the Qur'an corroborates this.

 

[Alc]

“Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth (meaning the universe) were (once) one single entity (ratq), which We (meaning God, the Creator) then parted asunder (fataqa) and We got every living thing out of water. Will they then not believe?”

Can I ask about the next part (in red)?
Other than the book that says that this happened, why believe it? Isn't this a perfect example of the circular logic mentioned elsewhere?
God did it. How do you know he exists? The book says so. How do you know the book is true? God said it is.

 

[aziz rasul]

Frothingslosh, any alleged contradictions must be based on the original Arabic text and not a bad translation which is a common cause. I will give an example to demonstrate this.

Alc, if the Qur'an contains scientific stuff that was unknown at the time it was written, then who wrote it if it was not God?

 

[Alc]

Alc, if the Qur'an contains scientific stuff that was unknown at the time it was written, then who wrote it if it was not God?

This isn't logic. Something happened and you're interpreting statements from the book in an overly favourable manner, to try to show they were know facts. The people who believe Nostrodamus could see the future do the same thing.

Besides which, the burden of proof isn't on me 9as you can't prove a negative). It's on the person claiming that something is true. I ask again, how is it not just circular logic?

There is a hole in my garden.
I didn't see what dug it.
I know it was a unicorn.
People have pointed out that unicorns don't exist.
I reply that it they don't exist, explain how the hole got there?

I am choosing to interpret the evidence (a hole) as proof of the existence of something. The doubters aren't required to explain the hole as it's me whose making the assertion.

 

[Frothingslosh]

See for reference 'God of the Gaps Argument'.

 

[Rabbie]

so much for a spoof. Yes , I know what evolution is. Lets take man...... come from a monkey. Which time.? Which monkey. There are about 5 different types of man and they evolved over the years. But then we still have apes, right. Yeah I know the drill by archeologist who are paid by a liberal university to write a paper so they(the university) can make more money. I will take it that the bacteria morphing into bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics is not a form of evolution. Oh, guess they have to evolve from another being first????? ]

Rabbi: just like everything including Christianity there are a lot of holes to be filled in yet. As far as evolution goes, it has now been debunked by scientist.

Like you, I have picked a side to believe in. It is that simple.

Blade, you do seem to like to twist arguments in a very dishonest way. Your idea of evolution seems to me to be a parody of the correct theory. You say it has be debunked by scientist. Only one since you use the singular? From your posts it seems that you are a creationist who believes the world and universe is only six thousand years old. Is this correct? If so then the creator must have had a sadistic sense of humour to create so much evidence that the world and universe is so much older.

Of course Bacteria morphing as you put it is a form of evolution. Easily explained by Darwin's "Survival of the Fittest".

 

[ConnorGiles]

I'm struggling these days, could we all take a little time to write clear English, I assume, but could be wrong, that the above should be

There's your book's passage.

Perhaps this is the point to ask Bladerunner to correct his signature.

Brian

My fault, was in a rush - don't usually make silly mistakes like this.

 

[Frothingslosh]

From your posts it seems that you are a creationist who believes the world and universe is only six thousand years old. Is this correct? If so then the creator must have had a sadistic sense of humour to create so much evidence that the world and universe is so much older.

Both Dick7Access and Bladerunner have indicated through their posts that they are Young-Earth Creationists and Bible Literalists. Dick has also indicated that he's a Premillenial Dispensationalist, but I don't know where Blade stands on that matter. I *THINK* he is, but that's just from reading between the lines.

 

[aziz rasul]

There is no circular reference if I am using provable scientific facts to compare the Qur'an with.

 

[Alc]

There is no circular reference if I am using provable scientific facts to compare the Qur'an with.

I think you're being deliberately obtuse, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

There is something written in that book which YOU choose to interpret as being evidence that the writer had prior knowledge of some scientfic facts. Even if that were true and not just some vague coincidence (as per the Nostrodamus claims I mentioned), it doesn't prove IN ANY WAY the existence of God. Your argument seems to be:

God exists.
Why?
Because he wrote the book
How do you know he wrote the book?
Because a person couldn't have known the facts in it
What about the mistakes/contradictions mentioned elsewhere?
They're wrong
Even if they were, how does that prove that God wrote the book?
It says so in the book.

 

[Bladerunner]

Blade, you do seem to like to twist arguments in a very dishonest way. Your idea of evolution seems to me to be a parody of the correct theory. You say it has be debunked by scientist. Only one since you use the singular? From your posts it seems that you are a creationist who believes the world and universe is only six thousand years old. Is this correct? If so then the creator must have had a sadistic sense of humour to create so much evidence that the world and universe is so much older.

Of course Bacteria morphing as you put it is a form of evolution. Easily explained by Darwin's "Survival of the Fittest".

Hi Rabbi: I enjoy our bantering. From what I understand, much of Darwins Theory has been proven false. Yes, I believe that God created all things. No, he did not create them in 6,000 years. How many I am not sure but am satisfied it was a longer time than we probably have calculated.. Now Rabbi, Modern man is no older than 6-12,000 years old. The first being Adam.

As far as his ancestors, there are about 5-7 of them, and the links are not established. From what I can read, there is a large void of time between each of them (with the exception of the last two). There is evidence that they co-mingled. However, they died out and by calculations, modern man was born some 25,000 years after.

I have just had one poster to tell me if I did not have proof, I did not have anything. I have the Bible and that is proof enough. Where is your proof.