Did we really need 260 posts to convince anyone that miracle aren't real?
Are they really that thick or just attention whores?

Did anyone else notice that the OP is not consistent with their choice of Quran translator? They use a different translation depending on the verse so that they always get a favourable translation. They appear to be flip-flopping between an obscure translation by "Dr. M. Taqiud-Din & Dr. M. Khan" and that of Abdullah Yusuf Ali. And they want to be taken seriously?

(August 21, 2015 at 2:30 pm)Harris Wrote: In nature, coincidences happen rarely

If you say so, Mr. Quranbot.

Quote:whereas Quran is full of so-called coincidences.

Okay.

Harris,

You're asking for references that the Quran is not divinely inspired from people who do not believe it was divinely inspired.

Are you some sort of lunatic or something? Is this how you usually approach a conversation?

Let me break it down for you. You posit something (eg. The Quran is the word of Allah), i say "provide evidence that corroborates your story" and you say "certainly, here you are".

What does NOT constitute evidence is blatant and demonstrable post hoc reasoning which is very obviously you shoehorning your knowledge of the universe which comes from the 21st century into a text written in the 7th century which cannot possibly contain such knowledge unless you can provide definitive evidence which suggests that to be the case. Thus far, you haven't.

So you want evidence that the Quran is not divinely inspired? Ok, the evidence is your very shoddy and poorly reasoned argument as to why it is, coupled with the complete and utter lack of evidence to support the claims you are making.

The end.

Quote:Please quote verses with the phrase “SENT DOWN”, and I will tell you which of those “SENT DOWNS” are FOREIGN and which not. Unlike you and as always, I will give you REFERENCES and EXAMPLES so you will not feel yourself in a WONDERING STATE.

How do you know which verses mean something foreign and which don't?

Quote:Interesting point is none of you guys can give a single historical reference on numbness, 3rd degree burn, and skin as pain receptor yet you adamantly reject Quran which evidently revealed the reality of skin at the time when all people were blaming “HEART” for their painful miseries after having experiences of burn.

The only difficulty I have with replying to you sometimes is that I don't know which thing to correct first.

It seems to me that in order to reach the conclusion of a miracle you have certain boxes that need ticking then according to you something is a miracle, but with total lack of thought about the topic you're talking about.

The quran doesn't mention skin as a pain receptor, neither do any other ancient documents.  The two words "Pain" and "Receptor" were never used in conjunction with each other in ancient time to describe what we now know as being a pain receptor.

Quote:At this time, neither Aristotle nor Hippocrates believed that the brain had any role to play in pain processing but rather implicated the heart as the central organ for the sensation of pain.[4]

Read this very very carefully.  This sentence implies that ancient people believed the heart was responsible for pain RATHER than the brain. The brain is the central organ responsible for sensation of pain being unpleasant and something to avoid.

This doesn't exclude the burning of skin being what would initially cause the pain.  There doesn't need to be any ancient documents to provide proof that ancient people knew burning their skin would cause them pain, the same way you don't need ancient documents to prove they would know being punched in the balls would hurt, it's just plain simple logic they would know about what they have experienced.


The quran doesn't exclude the heart being a central organ responsible for the sensation of pain, it doesn't say the heart doesn't sense that the skin is burned, it doesn't say the brain does sense the skin is burned, it simply says the skin is burned and it will cause pain.

If the heart WAS responsible for the sensation of pain the quran verse would still be totally 100% correct wouldn't it?

The only information given by the quran is a primitive threat of punishment void of ANY scientific knowledge whatsoever.  It says the skin is burned and causes pain, so the pain could be sensed by the heart, it could be sensed by the big toe, it could be sensed by a donkey, who knows?  The quran gives no information about what is sensing the pain, just that having your skin burned hurts and that is all.

Quote:Do you know people can see by their skins, smell sounds, taste words and see numbers as colours? Yes! That is true and this phenomenon is known as synaesthesia. No one knows how skin generate real world vision in mind. Can you give any explanation how synaesthesia is happening? I am sure you cannot.

Likewise, ancient people were experiencing pain caused by burn but they were not conscious of degrees of burn, numbness, and properties of skin. A good evidence is, as I said earlier, THEY WERE BLAMING HEART FOR ALL THEIR PAINFUL MISERIES. They had no idea about 3rd degree burn just as you do not have any idea about synaesthesia.

Quran is the only historical document that accurately points to the SKIN by totally ignoring HEART for the cause of pain when skin burn. This information is contrary to what everyone was thinking at the time it revealed in Quran. However and unfortunately, people had not given any attention to Quran until after centuries scholars had discovered this fact by natural means.

Stop avoiding the question and answer it, would ancient people have experienced the symptoms of 3rd degree burns or not?

Quote:Do you agree with this statement or not:

“The things, which are obvious to you, were not obvious to them. For example, you know what stars are but to ancient people it was not obvious to what they are looking at, in the night sky.”

Let me know your opinion and I will give you what you have requested.

I don't like to make blanket statements about the entire population of the world in ancient times but it is most likely that the majority of people back then did not have the understanding of stars that I do, although I can't say for certain that there weren't some people who did have a correct theory on what stars actually were.

I don't actually know that much about stars, I'm sure I could find out more about them than any ancient person knew if I searched google but I don't apply the knowledge of stars much in my day to day activities so I've never retained much knowledge about stars in my lifetime.

Did I request you give me something?  I don't remember that.  But I answered your question anyway unlike you when I ask you a question.