Qur'an

Originally posted by twhitehead

I did not say I have 'absolute knowledge'. I said I 'know for sure'. That means it is something I have knowledge (stored information) about and I am sure that that information is correct.

Your questions are irrelevant to your claim that you know for sure that there is no God . OK, let's hear about that information then. Maybe you want to define "God" first, just so we know what you're talking about.

To me, "I know for sure" means "I have absolutely no doubt" or "I am absolutely certain".

I think your proof is worth a thread of its own.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Your questions are irrelevant to your claim that you know for sure that there is no God . OK, let's hear about that information then. Maybe you want to define "God" first, just so we know what you're talking about.

To me, "I know for sure" means "I have absolutely no doubt" or "I am absolutely certain".

And those are not the same as 'absolute knowledge'. Your are absolutely certain that I am human but you do not have absolute proof nor have absolute knowledge.

What do I mean when I say God? Well first, I capitalized it thus distinguishing it from 'gods' which is a much more vague term. By capitalizing it I implied that I was talking about a concept which is held by some of the worlds major religions especially Judaism, Christianity and in this particular thread Islam.
I intended to include most of the major attributes assigned to God by the three religions mentioned above.
Especially:
1. God is external to the universe (at least in part)
2. God influences the universe.
3. God created the universe.
4. God is eternal and does not have a creator.
5. God is almost omniscient and omnipotent.
6. God is a conscious intelligent being.
7. God is good and cares about the human race.
8. God is just.

My reasoning for having "absolutely no doubt" that such a being does not exist is largely the same for my reasoning that invisible flying pink unicorns exist except I have more reasons in the first case.
1. There is no reason to think that he does exist.
2. There is significant evidence that he doesn't exist.
3. Without some extremely twisted logic, his very definition is self-contradictory. (How can something that is invisible be pink?).
4. Since his existence would contradict the known laws of science (That I have "absolutely no doubt" are accurate up to a certain point) it is a direct logical conclusion that he cannot exist.

Originally posted by twhitehead
And those are not the same as 'absolute knowledge'. Your are absolutely certain that I am human but you do not have absolute proof nor have absolute knowledge.

What do I mean when I say God? Well first, I capitalized it thus distinguishing it from 'gods' which is a much more vague term. By capitalizing it I implied that I was talking about a concept wh ...[text shortened]... accurate up to a certain point) it is a direct logical conclusion that he cannot exist.

You didn't explain your reasoning. I discussed this point before, but lets explian it again, there is a timing propblem, you posted this while I was sleep 🙂 You have to wait for me 🙄

Originally posted by twhitehead
It will look like a miracle of course.

[b]-If I can prove to you that a miracle happned 1400 years ago will you belive it. The prophet Mohammed did some miracles and Islamic system insure the truth about anything the prophet said or did. will you accept this miracle?
Of course I will. But remember you must prove it.

-My argument is Quran is any possible error by twisting around the language and reading deeper meaning into every word.

[/b]This is unprovable. You can not foretell the future and you can claim that all corrupted versions are not the Quran. I can definitely present you with corrupted versions.

I posted this in another thread:
------------------------------------------
Actually all your points are broken with Quran:

-People memorize things; people forget things. Memory fails, to put it bluntly.

I know 6 years old boys who memorize the whole book. They don't forget it. Even if one forgot, he can easily remember it again, there millions today memorize the complete book. I know Muslims not only memorize the words, but page numbers, location in the page, and even the line number. They memorize every single word. I finished memorizing the complete book when I was 15, my brother when he was 13. I learned it from my teacher, who I have never seen read it from a book. His eye sight was so week to read. He only teached me from his memory. And guess what, there was no single difference between what he tought me and what in the book.

Languages change, and dialects morph. Idioms and other common semantic uses change over time. This is especially true of spoken language.

Quran originaly in Arabic, and remain in Arabic. The semantic used in the Quran is the same one in the Original. Actually because the Arabic language itself didn't change so much. So the language has no effect.

-No one teaches something the same way he or she received it. No one is a perfectly transparent conduit of external ideas.

I answered this before. Muslims memorize Quran acts as recorders. They say what they memorize as is.

Study the Quran is something else.

In my university we study Quran, there are several scinces related to Quran. One of them is to study its meaning. Other to study its pronounsation. This study doesn't allow any change in the pronounsation of the Quran. Every one who memorize Quran and read it should study this scince.

-Lastly, not everyone has the same mind or vested interest when it comes to preserving religious texts.

Quran is a book you like to read specially in Arabic. Memorizing it is not a big job. And when you love something you easily memorize it. I memorize it all, so my brother, and many of my friends. And I know many others. Millions are memorizing the book today the same way.

Several contest held every where in the Islamic world in memorizing Quran. I wish you can attend one of them to see how muslims care about memorizing the Book.
----------------------------------------
I don't understand how can I make it clear for you.

I memorize the whole book, I read regularly. I don't claim my memory is good but I still memorize it.

I can tell you thousands who memorize the book more than their names.

The prove is simple, come to visit Egypt and go to Al Azhar university. There you will find in the student of this university thousands who memorize the Book.

Not only that, there is a record or every teacher. Which mean teachers of Quran are registers from today to the Prophet. Every one in the chain is know. And It is not only a single chain. It is huge tree. So thousands memorize the Book from the Prophet and the tought to their students. If one forget the others not. If it is only one may be but thousands I don't think.

And the thousands tought Quran to their students and so, until today when we have millions of Muslims memorize Quran today.

If you cann't Imagin that it is your problem, but it is a fact.

If you know Arabic you can easily verify that.

http://quran.muslim-web.com/

In this site you can listen to Quran from different readers. Those readers don't read from the Book. they read from their memory. You can compare between them to find any difference.

If you can't do that, you can ask and read about that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qur%27an#Origin_and_development_of_the_Qur.27an
-------------------------------------

Your answer to #2 is not an answer, but rather an assertion. The statement that "the language has no effect" is never, ever true, in any context.

I forgot to mention this:

Many non Arabic speaking muslims who don't know how to speak arabic at all memorize the Quran in Arabic. They memorize it the same way Arabic speakers do.

Do you think the language has any effect?

I have seen a six years old girl who don't know Arabic. She only speaks Farsi, but she memorize the Quran, not only that, but also memorize the page numbers and the location of each word, all in Arabic.

Do you think this is possible for any normal book of the same size.
----------------------------------------------

I don't know if this will make any sense to you? But it do for me. I see it a mircale in the system build to insure the safity of the Book, I see it in the number of people who memorize it. I see it when non Arabic speaker memorize it like their name. I don't know any other book the same size could be treated the same way. Do you?

If you know a corrupted version, no musslim will accept, and it will easily recognized, and any corruption will be easily detected. More over you will not find the corruption in the memory of any Havez (The person who memorize the Quran), you may find it in a printed copy but that is not considered Quran, we muslims don't call printed copy quran. We call it Moshaf. Quran is what Hafez memorize. If a printed copy match what in memory it will be autherized.

Originally posted by ahosyney
I don't know if this will make any sense to you? But it do for me. I see it a mircale in the system build to insure the safity of the Book, I see it in the number of people who memorize it. I see it when non Arabic speaker memorize it like their name. I don't know any other book the same size could be treated the same way. Do you?

If you know a corrupted ...[text shortened]... . Quran is what Hafez memorize. If a printed copy match what in memory it will be autherized.

I do not see it as a miracle. Yes, Muslims have devised a system to keep the Quran accurate and it may be effective but it is no miracle.

The Bible has remained fairly accurate (as in an accurate copy of earlier copies) over the last 1500 years or so with far less effort. Most of the controversies regarding the Biblical text have to do with the correct translation and original meaning of the words and not whether or not it was copied correctly.

Yes, people could memorize a book of similar size.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I do not see it as a miracle. Yes, Muslims have devised a system to keep the Quran accurate and it may be effective but it is no miracle.

The Bible has remained fairly accurate (as in an accurate copy of earlier copies) over the last 1500 years or so with far less effort. Most of the controversies regarding the Biblical text have to do with the correct ...[text shortened]... ot whether or not it was copied correctly.

Yes, people could memorize a book of similar size.

OK,

I will not compare to the Bible because you know your comparison is not accurate. But this is not our point.

I hope you can give me an example of a book memorized by a six years old person, with the level of accurecy , and with a language he don't actually understand. (Actually sometimes he is not able to read at all).

Lets leave this point for now and talk about your reasnoning first. You didn't explain it. You just listed the attributes of GOD as you see it, but you didn't show your reasnoning. Why you are so sure?

I think if the possibility of GOD existance for you is 0% then there is no meaning to talk. But if it is at least 1% then there might be a chance.

Originally posted by ahosyney
I hope you can give me an example of a book memorized by a six years old person, with the level of accurecy , and with a language he don't actually understand. (Actually sometimes he is not able to read at all).

Give me an example of a family willing to get their six year old to memorize a book and I will find the book. I guess we could try "Lord of the rings." Though a book of poetry would probably work better.
I know a number of 4 year olds who have memorized short children's books.

Lets leave this point for now and talk about your reasnoning first. You didn't explain it. You just listed the attributes of GOD as you see it, but you didn't show your reasnoning. Why you are so sure?
I am not sure what reasoning you are looking for. Are you asking about the specific attributes of God or my reasoning as to why he cannot exist?
For the attributes I am merely taking the main points that I hear from theists.

I think if the possibility of GOD existance for you is 0% then there is no meaning to talk. But if it is at least 1% then there might be a chance.
If you read the posts carefully you would see that I stated that I am sure there is no God. I did not say 99% sure. I am therefore sure that the Quran contains an error.
Your reasoning for the accuracy of the Quran is circular: It contains no errors therefore what it says is the truth therefore it contains no errors.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Give me an example of a family willing to get their six year old to memorize a book and I will find the book. I guess we could try "Lord of the rings." Though a book of poetry would probably work better.
I know a number of 4 year olds who have memorized short children's books.

[b]Lets leave this point for now and talk about your reasnoning first. You It contains no errors therefore what it says is the truth therefore it contains no errors.

[/b]I'm talking about the reason why you are sure that there is no GOD.
Why are you sure?

I am therefore sure that the Quran contains an error.

This is the circular logic. God doesn't exist , so Quran must be wrong.

If you think this way then why do we talk.


No when you talk about Quran or any holy book, you should assume that GOD exist, because the Book main idea is to declare GOD existance, it is assumed to be the message. You must analysis the Book. Then you can make conolusion from that.

If you received a message from someone you don't know, do you just ignore the message because you are sure that you don't know him, or take a look at the message then decide wheather its important or not.

Your reasoning for the accuracy of the Quran is circular: It contains no errors therefore what it says is the truth therefore it contains no errors

That is what you try to say. But I didn't say that.

The Book claim you will not find a mistake. That is the Challange the Book raise to every one to know if its from GOD or not.

1- Quran say, read the book if you find an error or contradictions then it is not from GOD. A simple test.

2- It also say that it will remain uncorrupted and we discussed this point.

So now, does the book pass those two tests or not.

These two tests could be easily broken through out the 1400 years, but it didn't happen.

Originally posted by ahosyney
I'm talking about the reason why you are sure that there is no GOD.
Why are you sure?

I gave a summary of my reasoning. Here it is again:
My reasoning for having "absolutely no doubt" that such a being does not exist is largely the same for my reasoning that invisible flying pink unicorns exist except I have more reasons in the first case.
1. There is no reason to think that he does exist.
2. There is significant evidence that he doesn't exist.
3. Without some extremely twisted logic, his very definition is self-contradictory. (How can something that is invisible be pink?).
4. Since his existence would contradict the known laws of science (That I have "absolutely no doubt" are accurate up to a certain point) it is a direct logical conclusion that he cannot exist.

If you think this way then why do we talk.
Surely you did not think that everyone in this forum was Muslim. If they are not Muslim then they also do not think that the Quran is accurate.

No when you talk about Quran or any holy book, you should assume that GOD exist, because the Book main idea is to declare GOD existance, it is assumed to be the message. You must analysis the Book. Then you can make conolusion from that.
Now I see why Muslims are not very good evangelists.

If you received a message from someone you don't know, do you just ignore the message because you are sure that you don't know him, or take a look at the message then decide wheather its important or not.
It depends on how the message arrives. Most junk mail, I just delete.

The Book claim you will not find a mistake. That is the Challange the Book raise to every one to know if its from GOD or not.
1- Quran say, read the book if you find an error or contradictions then it is not from GOD. A simple test.
It is not simple. You yourself have pointed out that you must already accept most of it as fact before starting the test.
I can show you evidence that it has errors and contradictions but you will make excuses by allowing a broad range of meanings in the language. Do you believe the Bible has errors? Why do so many people claim it doesn't? How is your claim superior?

So now, does the book pass those two tests or not.
No, it fails.

Originally posted by twhitehead

1. There is no reason to think that he does exist.
2. There is significant evidence that he doesn't exist.
3. Without some extremely twisted logic, his very definition is self-contradictory. (How can something that is invisible be pink?).
4. Since his existence would contradict the known laws of science (That I have "absolutely no doubt" are accurate up to a certain point) it is a direct logical conclusion that he cannot exist.

Your list of divine characteristics is a strawman (eg. God is said to be incorporeal, rather than existing "outside the universe" ), but we can work with it.

1. That really depends on your point of view.
2. Let's hear some of it.
3. That's the inherent limitation of language. Mystics who "experience God" are unable to communicate their experience in everyday language.
4. Why would strawman-God's existence contradict the known laws of science?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Your list of divine characteristics is a strawman (eg. God is said to be incorporeal, rather than existing "outside the universe" ), but we can work with it.

It was not intended as a strawman. You asked for a definition of God and I listed what I interpret as some of the main characteristics of what I understand Christians and other theists believe in. I do not understand how an being could create the universe and not exist outside it but then most religious concepts are rather hard to understand and define.

1. That really depends on your point of view.
True but that does not invalidate it.

2. Let's hear some of it.
Will have to think about that one and put it in its own post.

3. That's the inherent limitation of language. Mystics who "experience God" are unable to communicate their experience in everyday language.
That may be so, but it renders most of the Bible (and probably the Quran) useless to us non-mystics. Despite several threads on the subject I cant even come close to understanding what lucifershamer means by 'essence' when describing the soul. Nobody else seemed to be willing to explain their understanding of it yet much of the Bible assumes you know what it is.
The same applies to the incorporeal you talked about.

4. Why would strawman-God's existence contradict the known laws of science?
That is almost the very definition of a miracle.

Originally posted by twhitehead

That may be so, but it renders most of the Bible (and probably the Quran) useless to us non-mystics. Despite several threads on the subject I cant even come close to understanding what lucifershamer means by 'essence' when describing the soul. Nobody else seemed to be willing to explain their understanding of it yet much of the Bible assumes you know wh ...[text shortened]... e contradict the known laws of science?
That is almost the very definition of a miracle.[/b]

"Mystical" thought is not very different to poetry. It's a different way of thinking which excessive reliance on formal logic will not help much with. If you're interested in developing this way of thinking, you could start by studying the principles of hieroglyphic symbols or Chinese writing.

I think a number of your objections fall away once you stop regarding the Bible / Koran etc as some sort of user's manual which has to be interpreted literally.

"God" could always be a name for something that science will be able to recognise at some point.

As for miracles, seeing is believing!

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
"Mystical" thought is not very different to poetry. It's a different way of thinking which excessive reliance on formal logic will not help much with. If you're interested in developing this way of thinking, you could start by studying the principles of hieroglyphic symbols or Chinese writing.

I am not particularly interested in mystical thought.
I would like to learn Chinese.

I think a number of your objections fall away once you stop regarding the Bible / Koran etc as some sort of user's manual which has to be interpreted literally.

"God" could always be a name for something that science will be able to recognise at some point.
Only if you use a definition for the word which is not common usage.
If you call the universe "God", as some people do, then of course it exists. The same would apply if you decide that electromagnetism is "God". But that is misuse of the English language and certainly not the same "God" that the Quran is talking about.

As for miracles, seeing is believing!
I need a lot more than seeing to believe something. I can do a number of very convincing card tricks!
You said you could not be certain of anything without absolute proof and absolute knowledge. Surely those require a bit more than sight.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am not particularly interested in mystical thought.
I would like to learn Chinese.

Because you've already concluded there's nothing to it? You aren't interested in human psychology?

Learning Chinese will do you good!

I don't see that having a different understanding of "God" to the common (mis)conception of some super-powerful bearded guy in the sky amounts to abusing the English language.

I don't believe in miracles. Are there miracles in the Koran?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I gave a summary of my reasoning. Here it is again:
My reasoning for having "absolutely no doubt" that such a being does not exist is largely the same for my reasoning that invisible flying pink unicorns exist except I have more reasons in the first case.

2. There is significant evidence that he doesn't exist.
3. Without some extremely twisted logic, ...[text shortened]... im superior?

[b]So now, does the book pass those two tests or not.
No, it fails.[/b]

1. There is no reason to think that he does exist.
No there is a big reason. It the reason of our existance. As long as you are not sure why do you exist, then GOD existance is a possibility.

2. There is significant evidence that he doesn't exist.
And there are a significant evidences that he exist. But the problem that you don't accept them as evidences. But can you show me what your significant evidences that he doesn't exist. Please don't skip this.

3. Without some extremely twisted logic, his very definition is self-contradictory. (How can something that is invisible be pink?).

What definition? The one you gave. Or the definition according to what. Give an example please. Don't just put words.

4. Since his existence would contradict the known laws of science (That I have "absolutely no doubt" are accurate up to a certain point) it is a direct logical conclusion that he cannot exist.

Why do you assume that?. It is simply an assumption. Give me an example please of such a contradiction.

Surely you did not think that everyone in this forum was Muslim. If they are not Muslim then they also do not think that the Quran is accurate.

I assumed that they have a margin of thinking. That they are flexiable and accept things if they see that they might be true. No sticking to their pre-assumptions and don't accept to change it. Your are behaviour is the same as the beliver who don't accept his faith might be wrong.

Now I see why Muslims are not very good evangelists.
I don't understand what you mean by this.

Here is your logic of this point again. GOD doesn't exist, this is an error in Quran, so Quran contains error, then it is not from GOD, and GOD doesn't exist.

Circular, isn't it?

It depends on how the message arrives. Most junk mail, I just delete.

Sure, and because you assumed that the sender doen't exist , you simply deleted it. Do you think this is reasonable.


It is not simple. You yourself have pointed out that you must already accept most of it as fact before starting the test.

Do you mean GOD existance? I didn't ask you to accept it, I asked you to assume he might exist. Do you think it is the same? The sender claim he is GOD, so he is talking as GOD, what do you excpect him to do in his message, to talk as someone else , then tell you at the end of the book , "Hay , I'm GOD"?

I can show you evidence that it has errors and contradictions but you will make excuses by allowing a broad range of meanings in the language.

Of course you can, can you show me this. That is what I said from the beging, and that why this thread started, I challanged stocken to read the Quran and find errors, or contradictions. And he started. So you are welcomed.

But saying that I will execuse means that you want me to accept what you say without a comment. It means you want to establish you opinion, not realy a debate.

Do you believe the Bible has errors? Why do so many people claim it doesn't? How is your claim superior?

Yes I belive it has errors, and I have seen them by my eyes. And there is a lot of research on that, from Christians themselves.Others claim not. The only difference between my claim and their claim , is so far no one shows a proven contradiction or errors.

No, it fails.
Sure because GOD doesn't exist, so it contain an error.

What a logic?