OT God

Originally posted by snowinscotland
so you'll not submit to the will of God then?

What God?

Originally posted by RBHILL
And Richard you not a bully?

Has he (Dawkins) threatened you with eternal hellfire if you disobey him?


No? Well then, not much of a bully, is he?

Originally posted by rwingett
It cannot be 'proven' just to Muslims. If it isn't proven to everyone, then it isn't proven at all. The fact that the Quran is ONLY accepted by the Muslims as being the word of god means that it isn't proven. It is your contention that the Quran is the word of god, but the case obviously remains open. Every religion maintains their holy book is the word of ...[text shortened]... ossible that they're all wrong except one, but is far more likely that they're all wrong.

He said it is never proven.

But It is proven to Muslims. If it is proven to you will be Muslim.

Of course non Muslims will not accept it because it is not proven to them. But that doesn't mean it is never proven.

So there is a prove but you don't know it. If you know it then tell me why you don't accept it. If you don't know the prove then don't claim it is not proven.

Take an example any scintefic theory , some scintest could prove it. Other don't accept it. Does this mean it is not proven. It only means that the other scintest don't know the prove, or don't accept the prove.

Originally posted by ahosyney
I will not accept any un-proven thing.

Yet you accept that God exists! Completely and utterly without a single shred of proof!

Originally posted by ahosyney
He said it is never proven.

But It is proven to Muslims. If it is proven to you will be Muslim.

Of course non Muslims will not accept it because it is not proven to them. But that doesn't mean it is never proven.

So there is a prove but you don't know it. If you know it then tell me why you don't accept it. If you don't know the prove then don't c ...[text shortened]... . It only means that the other scintest don't know the prove, or don't accept the prove.

Then feel free to prove to us that the Koran is true. Lay your evidence out for us. You could have a lot of converts if you are successful!

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Then feel free to prove to us that the Koran is true. Lay your evidence out for us. You could have a lot of converts if you are successful!

I will start by science because that what you belive in:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8552135092079886288&q=miracles%20of%20quran&hl=en

This video illustrate some scietific issuse covered by Quran as a prove and challange.

Also I will be happy if you read this article:

http://www.allaahuakbar.net/quran/amazing_quran.htm

Tell me what you think about that. If not satisfied, I will tell you more.

Note: There are three Challanges GOD made in Quran for any unbeliver:

1- To find a mistake inside the Book. The book is written in Arabic. There is no single grammer problem in the Quran. Now it is your turn to find any scientefic mistake.

2- To come with a book close to it. To cover all aspects of human life. And also in the way it is written.

3- To manage to corrupte it or modify it. The Quran remain for 1400 years without a single modification.

These three challanges unbroken yet. Try your luck.

Originally posted by ahosyney
The Quran remain for 1400 years without a single modification.

You do realize that Jews assert basically the same thing, right? I mean, the constancy of oral and
written tradition is a sacrosanct concept amongst Semitic peoples, and we do have a great
deal of evidence to suggest that the OT, particularly the Pentateuch has remained unchanged for a
good long time.

That having been said, simply because something remains unaltered doesn't give it Divine authority,
right?

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
You do realize that Jews assert basically the same thing, right? I mean, the constancy of oral and
written tradition is a sacrosanct concept amongst Semitic peoples, and we do have a great
deal of evidence to suggest that the OT, particularly the Pentateuch has remained unchanged for a
good long time.

That having been said, simply because something remains unaltered doesn't give it Divine authority,
right?

Nemesio

I didn't mean that. All what I said it was a challange written inside the Quran that it will not change.

Untill now it didn't happen. That is my point., and it is the last thing I said!!!

Originally posted by ahosyney
Also I will be happy if you read this article:

http://www.allaahuakbar.net/quran/amazing_quran.htm

Tell me what you think about that. If not satisfied, I will tell you more.

I was intrigued by the passage about embryology so decided to find out more about Dr Keith Moore and his findings. It appears he made several misinterpretations of the Arabic language and that some of the 'amazing revelations' had already been made by the ancient Greeks many years earlier.

http://answering-islam.org.uk/Quran/Science/embryo.html

Originally posted by Ian68
I was intrigued by the passage about embryology so decided to find out more about Dr Keith Moore and his findings. It appears he made several misinterpretations of the Arabic language and that some of the 'amazing revelations' had already been made by the ancient Greeks many years earlier.

http://answering-islam.org.uk/Quran/Science/embryo.html

The word "Nutfa" doesn't mean Sperm. Sperm in Arabic mean "Mani". So "Nufa" will mean any thing except sperm.

075.037
YUSUFALI: Was he not a drop of sperm emitted (in lowly form)?
PICKTHAL: Was he not a drop of fluid which gushed forth?
SHAKIR: Was he not a small seed in the seminal elements,

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/075.qmt.html

And In Arabic = "Alam Yakon Nutfa Men Mani Youmna"

Alam Yakon = Was he not
Nutfa = drop of, small seed
Mani = Sperm
Youmna = Ejected.

So Nutfa is not sperm. It is part or drop or seed of sperm.

As you can see this site try to find a mistake by finding different meaning for Arabic Words. Complete the article to the part of

Embryological development in the Qur'an

when he translated "Alaqa" as clot while it really mean leech.

Also Quran clearly state that Man who specify the sex of the child, Surrah 75:39, but your artical claims that the Prophet take the idea that both female and male prodice mal and female seeds. But Quran don't say that.

The artical is long so give me parts that you think is the most problematic for you to discuss if you want.

Originally posted by ahosyney
I will start by science because that what you belive in:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8552135092079886288&q=miracles%20of%20quran&hl=en

This video illustrate some scietific issuse covered by Quran as a prove and challange.

Also I will be happy if you read this article:

http://www.allaahuakbar.net/quran/amazing_quran.htm

Tell me wh ...[text shortened]... 1400 years without a single modification.

These three challanges unbroken yet. Try your luck.

Critiquing the video as I go.

1) The Christians believed the earth to be flat too, especially in the dark ages. However, the ancient Greeks knew it wasn't, 600 years before the Qu'ran was written. The Greeks knew the earth to be spherical, and had calculated its diameter.

2) Phrase "God is he that raised up the mountains without support". This does not invalidate the possibility that the mountains held the sky up. It merely suggests that the mountains have no support, or perhaps that God had no support.

3) The video suggests that the Quran was written "at a time when people knew very little of astronomy, physics or biology" is simply wrong. The ancient Greeks (esp. Ptolemy - see Almagest) had advanced studies of the heavens, and indeed, of biological anatomy (esp. Hippocrates).

4) Creation of the Universe. The phrase "He is the creator of the heaven and the earth", is hardly unique. Genesis claims exactly the same thing. Both are wrong though.

5) expansion of the universe. Some vague statement about "we steadily expanding it [heaven]". That statement could equally apply simply to the study of the universe, rather than the actual universe itself. Hardly conclusive. Amazingly, "heaven" is now, with 20/20 hindsight being used to mean "universe". Who knows if that is what was meant at the time, or if it's just the actions of one over-zealous person trying to contort the words to mean whatever modern science reveals?

That's just the first 10 minutes. I won't waste any more of my time listening to this drivel - my time is far more valuable than that.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Critiquing the video as I go.

1) The Christians believed the earth to be flat too, especially in the dark ages. However, the ancient Greeks knew it wasn't, 600 years before the Qu'ran was written. The Greeks knew the earth to be spherical, and had calculated its diameter.

2) Phrase "God is he that raised up the mountains without support". Thi e of my time listening to this drivel - my time is far more valuable than that.

1) The Christians believed the earth to be flat too, especially in the dark ages. However, the ancient Greeks knew it wasn't, 600 years before the Qu'ran was written. The Greeks knew the earth to be spherical, and had calculated its diameter.

When exactly? and who? (References Please)


2) Phrase "God is he that raised up the mountains without support". This does not invalidate the possibility that the mountains held the sky up. It merely suggests that the mountains have no support, or perhaps that God had no support.

I think you miss heard it: It say "He raised the Skys without support you see". So the meaning is totally different.

3) The video suggests that the Quran was written "at a time when people knew very little of astronomy, physics or biology" is simply wrong. The ancient Greeks (esp. Ptolemy - see Almagest) had advanced studies of the heavens, and indeed, of biological anatomy (esp. Hippocrates).

May be you are right but what does this prove. What do you think is taken from Greeks. Prophet Muhammed don't know how to read Arabic so sure he was not able to read Greek science. Also Quran is written in Arabic not Greek. And he didn't leave the Arabic area.


4) Creation of the Universe. The phrase "He is the creator of the heaven and the earth", is hardly unique. Genesis claims exactly the same thing. Both are wrong though.

The video doesn't talk about this point as science. I didn't see it in the video, where exactly.


5) expansion of the universe. Some vague statement about "we steadily expanding it [heaven]". That statement could equally apply simply to the study of the universe, rather than the actual universe itself. Hardly conclusive. Amazingly, "heaven" is now, with 20/20 hindsight being used to mean "universe". Who knows if that is what was meant at the time, or if it's just the actions of one over-zealous person trying to contort the words to mean whatever modern science reveals?

So when Quran say universe is expanding so it should mean something else because it is not true. It could be chance, it could be luck , but it could not be the words of GOD, because there no GOD.!!!!

That's just the first 10 minutes. I won't waste any more of my time listening to this drivel - my time is far more valuable than that.

Sure don't waste your time. Good luck

Originally posted by ahosyney
[When exactly? and who? (References Please)

[b]2) Phrase "God is he that raised up the mountains without support". This does not invalidate the possibility that the mountains held the sky up. It merely suggests that the mountains have no support, or perhaps that God had no support.

I think you miss heard it: It say "He raised the Skys without s ...[text shortened]... far more valuable than that.[/b]

Sure don't waste your time. Good luck[/b]

[When exactly? and who? (References Please)

Pythagoras believed the earth to be a sphere 1200 years before the Qu'ran was written. Plato, 150 years later knew it to be spherical, even stating that if man could soar high above the clouds, Earth would resemble "a ball made of twelve pieces of leather, variegated, a patchwork of colours." Tectonic plate theory anyone??? Aristotle, Plato's student, observed "there are stars seen in Egypt and [...] Cyprus which are not seen in the northerly regions." Since this could only happen on a curved surface, he too believed Earth was a sphere "of no great size, for otherwise the effect of so slight a change of place would not be quickly apparent. The final proof for Aristotle was that the shadow of the earth on the moon during a lunar eclipse is round.

Eratosthenes (276 BC - 194 BC) estimated Earth's circumference around 240 BC. He had heard about a place in Egypt where the Sun was directly overhead at the summer solstice and used geometry to come up with a circumference of 250,000 stades. This is within 2% of the modern value of ~40,000 KM.

Ptolemy (~100BC) used a spherical earth in his astronomical calculations, as did the Indian astronomer Aryabhatta (c. 476 - 550). It is likely that Aryabhata's results influenced European astronomy, because the 8th century Arabic version of the Aryabhatiya was translated into Latin in the 13th century. Thus, the source of the "spherical earth idea" was not only known long before the Qu'ran, but they were known in the Arabic world long (50 years) before the writing of the Qu'ran.

I think you miss heard it: It say "He raised the Skys without support you see". So the meaning is totally different.

Watch it again.

May be you are right but what does this prove. What do you think is taken from Greeks.

It shows that everything written in the Qu'ran had been figured out before. Whilst Muhammed may not have read the Greek work, it seems likely that he knew about it. Anyway, MAN had already figured it out once - he could do it again. The fact that man figured it out, even just once, proves Gods are not necessary to explain the origin of that knowledge.

The video doesn't talk about this point as science. I didn't see it in the video, where exactly.

It is in the video you linked to. Watch it again, if you don't believe me.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
[b][When exactly? and who? (References Please)

Pythagoras believed the earth to be a sphere 1200 years before the Qu'ran was written. Plato, 150 years later knew it to be spherical, even stating that if man could soar high above the clouds, Earth would resemble "a ball made of twelve pieces of leather, variegated, a patchwork of colours." Tect
It is in the video you linked to. Watch it again, if you don't believe me.[/b]

It shows that everything written in the Qu'ran had been figured out before. Whilst Muhammed may not have read the Greek work, it seems likely that he knew about it. Anyway, MAN had already figured it out once - he could do it again. The fact that man figured it out, even just once, proves Gods are not necessary to explain the origin of that knowledge.

Everything, what everything?. It is only one point. It may be or may not be taken from Greek, but sure it is not everything.!!!

This point may not imply directly that its origin is GOD, but it also doesn't prove the reverse.


For the other parts you go watch the video again. It was talking about the heaven not mountains.

The part talking about the creation of the Heaven and Earth, the vedio is talking about the Big Bang. Quran say that heaven and earth were one unit. And GOD clove them to creating the heaven and earth.

021.030
YUSUFALI: Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?
PICKTHAL: Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens and the earth were of one piece, then We parted them, and we made every living thing of water? Will they not then believe?
SHAKIR: Do not those who disbelieve see that the heavens and the earth were closed up, but We have opened them; and We have made of water everything living, will they not then believe?

You can say that it meets Big Bang or not. It is up to you.


Watch it again and complete... But don't waste your time !!!

Originally posted by scottishinnz
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wcG3yoSAdk

Well?

he strung a bunch of words together, sounded intelligent, and people clapped. those people are ignorant as he is; i bet he was describing himself.