Are you an atheist?

[Galaxiom]

The number seven in the Qur’an is a symbolic way of saying ‘many’. Over the past couple of decades we have discovered many Earth like planets.

Nothing in science about many heavens above or Earths below.

Mountains rest on immense strata that may be ten to fifteen times as deep as the portion remaining on the surface of the earth. There also exist mountains rising from the bottom of seas that also possess substratum. These substrata support the visible portion of the mountains in accordance with the Archimedean principle. These substrata were unknown until a few centuries back, let alone during the time of the Prophet.

The Quran doesn't describe this even vaguely. It says the mountains peg the Earth down. It needs to be pegged down because it is "unrolled" like a map according to the Quran.

That unrolling is analogous to the scientific explanation only for those who are completely besotted by the Quran.

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

The Biblical creation myth has flowering plants appearing before the fish in the ocean. This is reverse to the sequence in the fossil record.

Still, how did they know about the creatures crawling out of the sea? I consider myself reasonably intelligent and I have had a reasonable education but there's no way I could have deduced that on my own. So how did they? That's the real question, that's the the mystery.

If you read my comment you will see I explain that the information from the Bible and the other religious texts existed before those texts were written. The stories expressed in the religious texts were pulled from existing stories, word of mouth stories, stories that were in circulation many thousands of years before even the religious texts were written.

 

[aziz rasul]

… or by exploding a speck of cosmic dust, they are all the same.

The_Doc_Man could you point out when and which civilisation said this. Just curious.

The Qur’an not only accurately tells us that the universe was created from a split particle, but also that the early universe was gaseous, the correct sequence of the cosmos, an expanding universe and how the universe will end. Would be interesting to see which ancient civilisation more than 14 centuries got all that right even, if I dare say so, on a slight resemblance. There are many scientific facts that people came up with many centuries which were just plain wrong. So why does the Qur’an not include these?

But somehow we have forgotten to laugh at the primitive creation myths from Islam or Christianity.

Can you expand?

The Old adage there's nothing new Under the Sun is so true when applied to Religious text, which are basically just a rehash of existing texts, stories, myths and legends.

Yes but among the mire of incorrect creation stories of which there were plenty and to ‘pick’ only the right stuff is pretty remarkable. The probability of what I have said in my opening para regarding the universe in this post to have all been correct and not one single fact being wrong is pretty awesome. Not only that to get the facts regarding geology, human reproduction, etc. etc. all correct, well you can see where I am going with this.

The creation story given in the book of Genesis is so full of holes, it’s difficult to know where to begin. The original Torah would of course made sense and been accurate.

It says the mountains peg the Earth down.

Really? Which verse does it say that?

 

[Galaxiom]

Th The probability of what I have said in my opening para regarding the universe in this post to have all been correct and not one single fact being wrong is pretty awesome. Not only that to get the facts regarding geology, human reproduction, etc. etc. all correct,

Except, despite what you claim, the descriptions in the Qur'an are not accurate. Your delusion makes you presume they are. As usual you simply ignore what doesn't suit your religious prejudices.

well you can see where I am going with this.

Yes. Down the path the same old path of confirmation bias.

 

[aziz rasul]

Except, despite what you claim, the descriptions in the Qur'an are not accurate. Your delusion makes you presume they are. As usual you simply ignore what doesn't suit your religious prejudices.

I could say the same of you i.e. you are not prepared to see the TRUTH when it is in front of you. This is not unique as people of old did exactly the same.

6:5 For they had denied the truth when it came to them, but there is going to reach them the news of what they used to ridicule.
50:5 But they denied the truth when it came to them, so they are in a confused condition.
50:12 The people of Noah denied before them, and the companions of the well and Thamud.

 

[Frothingslosh]

In the real world, truth is determined by facts, not by who says 'Because I say so' the loudest, and certainly not by books whose only claim to truth is that they declare that they are the truth.

"I'm right, I don't need to prove it, and you're blind if you don't see it" is never going to get you anywhere, man, especially against people who have quite obviously spent far more time studying theology and theological debate than you.

 

[aziz rasul]

In the real world, truth is determined by facts ...

Exactly. That's what I have been doing. I don't have to shout, the facts in the Qur'an speak for itself.

As for those people who have spent more time studying theology than me, so what. Surely arriving at the TRUTH is more important even if you only spend a few hours than someone who spends a lifetime and is still in denial.

 

[Minty]

You are confusing facts with things written in the Qur'an.

If the Qur'an was actually the seat of all accumulated knowledge then you would be in a position to debate or inform us with some degree of correctness.
But as it was collated from a rag tag of passed down fables, hearsay, randomly interpreted opinion and the spin of who was writing it at the time, like every other religious text, unfortunately you don't have any where to stand in a reasoned intelligent debate.

In dozens of instances of a quoted text, there is almost always a contradictory quote that can be pulled from the same text. You may as well get those monkeys around those typewriters...

 

[aziz rasul]

You are confusing facts with things written in the Qur'an.

I am using provable scientific facts as my foundation and then comparing what the Qur’an says on the same subject. I don’t see why that is not dealing with facts as you put it?

If the Qur'an was actually the seat of all accumulated knowledge then you would be in a position to debate or inform us with some degree of correctness.

The Qur’an has knowledge that God has deemed we need to know about.

31:27 And if whatever trees upon the earth were pens and the sea [was ink], replenished thereafter by seven [more] seas, the words of Allaah would not be exhausted. Indeed, Allaah is Exalted in Might and Wise.

But as it was collated from a rag tag of passed down fables, hearsay, randomly interpreted opinion and the spin of who was writing it at the time, like every other religious text, unfortunately you don't have any where to stand in a reasoned intelligent debate.

Clearly you have very little knowledge of the subject.

In dozens of instances of a quoted text, there is almost always a contradictory quote

Can you provide evidence of this?

 

[Minty]

Clearly you have very little knowledge of the subject.

I know that a man claimed to have been talked to for 23 years by an angel and that he recounted those conversations to a number of other people. They then wrote down what they could remember and that these stories then became the basis for a religious text.

This seems highly un-scientific to me - but each to there own.

I don't know the writings sufficiently well, but a quick google reveals many many contradictions in almost every religious text. Bible and Qur'an and probably others I can't be bothered to research.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

The_Doc_Man could you point out when and which civilisation said this. Just curious.

The question was regarding civilizations that had a from-chaos mythos for the creation of the universe (or the world, since some didn't look farther than that). I gave you a list of civilizations with such myths. You could do a search from Wikipedia to get time frames. However, ancient Babylon predates Christianity and is certainly not younger than Judaism. They are on the list. For some of the African cultures, the age of that culture's myths is hard to determine since many of them are based on oral traditions. But then, until a culture learns how to write, ALL myths are passed down orally. So now we come to the tricky question: When did the oral traditions of Islam get codified? And how far back do they reach before codification?

Though I have done some serious reading, I cannot say I am enough of an expert in primitive anthropology to assign dates to any of those cultures. So I'm not sure of anything other than relative ages. Babylonian and Sumerian are the oldest of the Mediterranean cultures. The Korean and Chinese cultures go back pretty far, too!

 

[Frothingslosh]

To be fair, Islam itself dates from shortly after the warlord Muhammad's life, and scholars tend to agree he really did live from appx 570 CE to 6/8/632, and that he didn't begin preaching until around 610. We know that he migrated to and eventually took over Medina around 620, that he conquered Mecca in 630, and most of the Arabian peninsula before his death two years later.

His teachings, however? As with Christianity, they weren't actually written down and codified for some time, in this case until about 20 years after Muhammad's death. This was done partly because the people who had learned Muhammad's teachings were dying off themselves, and partly because, as always happens in an oral tradition, changes had crept in to the different versions.

Now, that said...

In dozens of instances of a quoted text, there is almost always a contradictory quote

Can you provide evidence of this?

While I don't care for this particular site overall (it's by Christian zealots for Christian zealots), here are 153 of them. (Disregard the section 'The Qu'ran in Contradiction to the Earlier Revelations', as it argues that those parts are false because they contradict the Bible, although I do find it amusing that each of you 'proves' the other false because your book says so.)

 

[Vassago]

If someone today were to say that God was talking to them through an angel and had some new commandments, would you believe them?

 

[The_Doc_Man]

As Frothingslosh suggests, it is common for religions, even those that are related to one another via a schism, to suggest that "my sky father can bet up your sky father."

Depending on how much you trust the Bible, I understood that the beginning of pre-Muhammad Islam was merely the result of a split from Judaism dating from the time of Exodus, when the sons of Ham went off into the desert on their own.

 

[aziz rasul]

This seems highly un-scientific to me - but each to there own.

This has nothing to do with science. God can communicate in any way He wishes be it through angel Gabriel or directly to the Prophets or Messengers of God. What is more to the point is what the text says, not the mode of how it was communicated.

I don't know the writings sufficiently well, but a quick google reveals many many contradictions in almost every religious text. Bible and Qur'an and probably others I can't be bothered to research.

This is one of the problems I have, people keep saying I produce no facts or proofs but here is an example being given where no contradictions are mentioned simply that there are some but can’t be bothered to research. Not good enough. Why bother mentioning it if you are not going to furnish any proof. If there are contradictions in the Qur’an then share them with us. I would be interested.

The_Doc_Man casting the date and time when the ancient creation stories were given and assume for the sake of argument they existed prior to when the Qur’an was revealed, is there an ancient civilisation that talked about both the ‘cosmic dust’ or ‘cosmic egg’ that was then burst open? You can then argue that this theory existed before 14 centuries ago. The other point is that with a catalogue of different creation stories, how did the writers of the Qur’an, if it doesn’t come from God, know to choose the correct one and also the correct scientific facts about the universe and in other areas of science? The Qur’an as written as it was revealed. The complete book was then given to his wife Hafsa (may God be pleased with her) just before the death of Muhammad (peace be upon him). A 100 copies from this original were then made during the caliphate of Uthman (may God be pleased with him).

6:125 Those whom Allaah (in His plan) willeth to guide,- He openeth their breast to Islam; those whom He willeth to leave straying,- He maketh their breast close and constricted, as if they had to climb up to the skies: thus doth Allaah (heap) the penalty on those who refuse to believe.

To be fair, Islam itself dates from shortly after the warlord Muhammad's life, and scholars tend to agree he really did live from appx 570 CE to 6/8/632, and that he didn't begin preaching until around 610. We know that he migrated to and eventually took over Medina around 620, that he conquered Mecca in 630, and most of the Arabian peninsula before his death two years later.

You are wrong on four counts.
Islam began at the time of Adam (peace be upon him) and he was the first Muslim.
Muhammad (peace be upon him) was not a warlord.
Muhammad (peace be upon him) didn’t over Medina as you put it, he fled from an attempted assassination in Makkah.
Muhammad (peace be upon him) didn’t conquer Makkah, he simply returned back to his city of birth as he every right to do.

His teachings, however? As with Christianity, they weren't actually written down and codified for some time, in this case until about 20 years after Muhammad's death. This was done partly because the people who had learned Muhammad's teachings were dying off themselves, and partly because, as always happens in an oral tradition, changes had crept in to the different versions.

Again you make fundamental mistakes. See my answer above.

I do find it amusing that each of you 'proves' the other false because your book says so.

How can the OT say that the Qur’an is false if the Qur’an was revealed afterwards? Is there an OT verse that you can give us?

2:79 So woe to those who write the "scripture" with their own hands, then say, "This is from Allah ," in order to exchange it for a small price. Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they earn.

If someone today were to say that God was talking to them through an angel and had some new commandments, would you believe them?

No, because Muhammad (peace be upon him) was the Seal of the Prophets. There are going to be no new prophets to come. Jesus (peace be upon him) will return but of course he is not a new prophet.

 

[Frothingslosh]

You are wrong on four counts.
Islam began at the time of Adam (peace be upon him) and he was the first Muslim.

If that were true, then there would be references to Islam in from before the year 600, and there are none.

Muhammad (peace be upon him) was not a warlord.

He ruled by force of arms, and led thousands of soldiers in conquering his neighbors. That makes him, by definition, a warlord.

Muhammad (peace be upon him) didn’t over Medina as you put it, he fled from an attempted assassination in Makkah.

The histories of that area FROM that area would disagree with you. Regardless of his reason for going to Medina, the fact of the matter is that he rose from 'resident' to 'leader' of the city, which is the textbook definition of 'took over'.

Muhammad (peace be upon him) didn’t conquer Makkah, he simply returned back to his city of birth as he every right to do.

Advancing upon city with 10,000 soldiers, defeating the defending army in battle, and instituting your own rulership by force of arms is, once again, the textbook definition of 'conquer'.

How can the OT say that the Qur’an is false if the Qur’an was revealed afterwards? Is there an OT verse that you can give us?

Now I have to ask if you're lying or just unable to read well. At no point did I say the words you are putting into my mouth. Take your straw man elsewhere.

And while you're at it, how about addressing the 150+ points I provided where the Qu'ran contradicts itself? Or did you really think no one here will realize you're avoiding the question because you can't answer it?

 

[Vassago]

That's the thing. All of these scientific determinations are THEORIES, not FACTS. We don't know that the universe was created this way, we can only point to the evidence available to us.

As far as procreation. Humans have known about procreation for a VERY long time. It's not surprising that they would be able to determine how that works thousands of years ago before we understood the science at a cellular level.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

is there an ancient civilisation that talked about both the ‘cosmic dust’ or ‘cosmic egg’ that was then burst open?

Sumer, Babylon, and some of the Chinese writings go back over 2500 years. That's 900 years before the Qur'an. That far enough? Chaldea goes back 3200 years and has a "creation from chaos" theory. Hell, the RCC had a bishop Ussher who claimed 6300 years for the events leading from Adam. Is THAT old enough for you? And India's many religions can claim nearing 10,000 years. Egypt supposed goes back over 6000 years (based on updated studies of the age of the Great Sphinx.) THEY had a "something from nothing" theory.

And as far as Islam's claim on a "cosmic egg" opening up? There is a significant argument that spontaneous cosmic pair production could be the origin. There is experimental evidence for small-scan pair production. The thing that is MOST important isn't that Islam claims a cosmic egg. Neither Judaism or Christianity do that, and many of the other cultures I named avoid that statement, too. Many of them just have their magic sky daddy wave his hands and >* POOF *< we have a universe. Science talks about the "singularity" but there are alternative theories involving collisions between cosmic membranes (an outshoot of string theory) that could ALSO give rise to a universe.

Therefore, to claim that Islam got it right is premature. We still don't know what "right" really means. AT MOST, Islam can claim a guess of its very own, just like other religions can claim their guess. So before you chortle with glee over how "Islam got it right" - you cannot say that. And I'll grant that we can't yet say they got that particular fact wrong. But that's OK - Frothingslosh provide a list of other errors for you.

 

[aziz rasul]

If that were true, then there would be references to Islam in from before the year 600, and there are none.

Again you are wrong and misunderstand due to a lack of knowledge. Islam is about submission to the Creator and a Muslim is a person who is submits to the Creator. Hence by definition Adam and Hawwa (peace be upon them) were Muslims and are mentioned in both the Torah and the Qur’an, which were given by God.

He ruled by force of arms, and led thousands of soldiers in conquering his neighbors. That makes him, by definition, a warlord.

Completely wrong. Again your lack of knowledge is astounding to say the least. You need to read a biography of the Prophet (peace be upon him) by a respected and trusted biographer who doesn’t even need to be a Muslim. Try Muhammad: A Biography of the Prophet by Karen Armstrong and at least get your facts right.

The histories of that area FROM that area would disagree with you. Regardless of his reason for going to Medina, the fact of the matter is that he rose from 'resident' to 'leader' of the city, which is the textbook definition of 'took over'.

All the Muslims who had migrated to Medina before the Prophet (peace be upon him), welcomed him with open arms and as he was the prophet of course he would be the leader among the Muslims just as Moses and Jesus (peace be upon them) were leaders of the Muslims during their times, etc. etc. So it’s not a question of ‘took over’ as you incorrectly put it as he was the leader among the Muslims when he was in Makkah.
4:59 O you who have believed, obey Allaah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you. And if you disagree over anything, refer it to Allaah and the Messenger, if you should believe in Allaah and the Last Day. That is the best [way] and best in result.

Advancing upon city with 10,000 soldiers, defeating the defending army in battle, and instituting your own rulership by force of arms is, once again, the textbook definition of 'conquer'.

Interesting to note that you don’t mention the fact that the Muslims were driven out of their homes in Makkah by the non-believers and many were tortured and killed. There was no defeating of the army in battle as there was no army at the time that the Muslims re-entered their own city and their homes. What on earth are you talking about? Apart from a few skirmishes (11 non-Muslims and 2 Muslims were killed in exchange) the entry into Makkah in history was one of the most peaceful ever. You need to get your facts right.

Now I have to ask if you're lying or just unable to read well. At no point did I say the words you are putting into my mouth.

I can read perfectly well. You stated in post 5912

… although I do find it amusing that each of you 'proves' the other false because your book says so.

And I gave you an answer so don’t accuse me of lying when I directly answer something you have said. You have consistently twisted established historical events even by notable non-Muslim commentators, to suit your own evil inclinations towards Islam. So if you want to talk about lying or deceiving, you need to look closer to home.
Previous books cannot say that a future book is false if it hasn’t come into existence yet. Show some sense.

And while you're at it, how about addressing the 150+ points I provided where the Qu'ran contradicts itself? Or did you really think no one here will realize you're avoiding the question because you can't answer it?

I have said

If there are contradictions in the Qur’an then share them with us. I would be interested.

Do you seriously think that I have time to look at all 150+ alleged contradictions? I am being bombarded enough as it is. There could be thousands of alleged contradictions and it wouldn’t bother me in the least. I could equally have responded with a website that answers all of these alleged contradictions. If you want to pick an alleged contradiction one by one then that’s a different matter and shows you are serious. Very easy to point to a web page and then say there you go and make accusations of avoidance. Very childish. You don’t seem to be a serious debater. If you want a serious and honest discussion, bring it on. I challenge you to pick any alleged contradiction in the Qur’an and I am more than happy to respond.

That's the thing. All of these scientific determinations are THEORIES, not FACTS. We don't know that the universe was created this way, we can only point to the evidence available to us.

As far as procreation. Humans have known about procreation for a VERY long time. It's not surprising that they would be able to determine how that works thousands of years ago before we understood the science at a cellular level.

As an example, Edwin Hubble proved by experimentation, which we can replicate today, that the universe is expanding and hence not static. Is this not a FACT then?

51:47 And the heaven We constructed with strength, and indeed, We are [its] expander.

Would be interested to see who would know the 3 keys points and in the correct sequence before the Qur’an was revealed given in 23:13-14. Also, as I have repeatedly said, why do the writer(s) of the Qur’an if it does not come from God, choose only the correct science and misses out the incorrect science? For example in c. 150 CE

Galen – was a Greek Biologist and philosopher who practised medicine, was a surgeon to gladiators and a public demonstrator of anatomy.

He also believed women had two uteri ending in single neck.

One of his theories was that if milk flows from the breasts of a pregnant woman, it is an indication that the foetus will be weak. His reasoning for this is; the breasts and uterus are joined by common vessels. The foetus inside the uterus is bathed in nutrients (milk), if this milk overflows to the breasts it is because the foetus is not strong enough to consume as much as it should be.

During Galen’s era it was a common belief that the uterus is a freely movable organ capable of causing disease if it moved. If it moved towards the lungs it caused difficulty breathing, if towards the liver the woman lost her voice.

… and many of the other cultures I named avoid that statement, too.

Exactly that’s the point I was making. Also I did say that it didn’t matter how old the civilisation was, in fact the older the better, so your opening quips seemed pointless. There may be other theories, as you put it, as to how the universe began, but I have concentrated on what most scientists say today and on that basis I chortle at the fact that the Qur’an is in agreement.

 

[Frothingslosh]

There could be thousands of alleged contradictions and it wouldn’t bother me in the least.

And here is the one single fact to be found in all of Aziz's fanatical rantings to date.