Quote:I am not guessing. I am giving you logical reasons. I already mentioned that I don’t have any type of communication with God. I communicate with God only through the text of Quran.

When you read a statement from the quran and think it predicts finger prints when it does NOT mention even the word unique or anything that could be another word for unique and it does not even claim to be making a prediction about anything then you definitely most certainly ARE guessing.

The word guess means

Quote:Estimate or suppose (something) without sufficient information to be sure of being correct.

This is the quote of the quran.

Quote:Nay, We are able to put together in perfect order the very tips of his fingers.

Not a mention of the word unique, not a mention of the word prints, not a mention of anything to do with fingerprints uniqueness or anything of the sort.

Now tell me how you know god is telling you in this verse information regarding finger prints.

Are you guessing?

If not please let me know how you know for sure how this verse is telling you about fingerprints.
And don't just use one word answers like LOGIC or REASONING.

I'll give you an example, if I was a policeman and doing an investigation into a murder and the judge asked me why I thought the clues pointed to the suspect I had arrested I wouldn't just say LOGIC or REASONING would I?

I'd have to put up some good arguments such as CCTV footage, forensic evidence, non bias witnesses and so on.


I already am almost certain that you are guessing as I'm not blind or illiterate, I can read the verse and have a good understanding of english enough to know there is no information here or even clues about fingerprints,
AND lets say god does just like to give very vague clues about fingerprints in ancient texts you are still GUESSING what the clue is telling you.

Because after you sat down and thought to yourself "this text must be telling me about fingerprints" god didn't come down and congratulate you on getting it right did he? There were no signs that you are right or correct in your guess work.

Bare in mind also that finger tips were known for having an intricate shape before Islam, Babylonians used fingerprints so did the Chinese.

(September 12, 2013 at 3:54 pm)genkaus Wrote: You know how I know when I have won a debate? When the opponent starts flinging poo instead of actual arguments. And that is precisely what you've been reduced to here.

Yes, it is my style to use confrontational and provocative language. That does not reduce the potency of my arguments. Anyone intent on a "healthy debate in an educated manner" would've considered it irrelevant. Which is precisely what theists, deists and agnostics I've debated with before have done.

As for your responses, they're anything but disciplined or educated. You like to vomit walls of text to obfuscate your arguments - but that doesn't work here. You resort to indignant and grandiose posturing to compensate for lack of counter-arguments - but that doesn't work here. Then you move on to ad-hominems, accusing your opponents of makign their arguments "by hook or by crook" - and even that doesn't work here. So, this is what you've been reduced to - using every negative stereotype associated with atheists and throwing them out there regardless of their actual applicability.

Allow me to disillusion you of them. No, I do not enjoy killings of millions of Muslims - but I do appreciate death of those who initiate violence. No, neither Hitler and Stalin would get anything but contempt from me because both of their ideologies are contradictory to mine - one was a Christian and the other a communist. No, I do not represent Atheism. Yes, I am rude - but I am neither brutal nor insane - given that I provide rational justification for all my positions and don't condone violence (unless you meant 'brutal' in the sense of being 'brutally honest', in which case- guilty as charged). Yes, I do believe that atheism is about facing harsh reality - but that is my personal view and not of all atheists. And no, my view does not mean that atheism is about "brutality, cruelty, harshness, and ruthlessness". I am doing more that saying NO to your claims - I've given sufficient reason for saying NO. And though I am most certainly not a skeptic (as the resident skeptics here would happily testify to) - it is still wrong to say that skeptics have no beliefs. And yes, by all means, try telling the resident skeptics here that "the only good skeptic is a dead skeptic" - I can't wait to see them tear you apart.

Here's a little but of disillusionment regarding your own arguments. Making a claim is not enough. If you cannot support your claim, then I don't need to do anything more that say NO to it. Its not my responsibility to go about disabusing you of whatever insane notion you might have. Since you have failed to prove your case, I have no reason to treat your Quran as anything other than what it is - ramblings of a delusional man with an over-exaggerated sense of self-importance. Your arguments have been no different that any of the other theists before you. As a matter of fact, if I so chose, I could've simply linked you to the relevant posts made in the past refuting whatever argument you make. Your posts have been anything but intelligent or educated - in fact, they seemed to have been borrowed straight out of the apologetic junkyard floating around the web. In this thread, I kept looking forward to Chad's and Benny's responses for a dose of intelligent conversation.

“You know how i know when i have won a debate? When the opponent starts flinging poo instead of actual arguments. And that is precisely what you've been reduced to here.”

You are only exhibiting your overconfidence here, which is nothing special.


“Yes, it is my style to use confrontational and provocative language. That does not reduce the potency of my arguments.”
Usually, people use confrontational and provocative language and scandals to hide their deficiency and try to win “by Hook and by Crook”.

If I am answering your confrontational and provocative arguments its only because I feel its important to stop any confrontation and provocation among people as these help in spreading hatred. I don’t think Atheism is teaching how to hate people or maybe I am wrong.


“Anyone intent on a "healthy debate in an educated manner" would've considered it irrelevant. Which is precisely what theists, deists and agnostics I've debated with before have done.”

You are building almost every of your argument based on guesstimates.

“As for your responses, they're anything but disciplined or educated. You like to vomit walls of text to obfuscate your arguments - but that doesn't work here.”

You are ceaselessly spitting right into my eyes for no reasons. I am not abusing you or your Atheism yet you are spitting and spitting. I have not yet vomited, as my health is good enough for the survival.

“You resort to indignant and grandiose posturing to compensate for lack of counter-arguments - but that doesn't work here.”

Agreed! I have not yet presented my counter arguments. You have not given me any serious reason for that. You are saying only NO or maximum pushing me to some web sites administered by crooks.

For example:

What argument have you given against Kalam other than rejecting all its premises in the air?

“Then you move on to ad-hominems, accusing your opponents of makign their arguments "by hook or by crook" - and even that doesn't work here.”

For your rejections in air, I don’t have any other option than to say “by hook or by crook”. Sorry for that

“So, this is what you've been reduced to - using every negative stereotype associated with atheists and throwing them out there regardless of their actual applicability.”

I have never attacked your person as well as your atheism. For sure, you have some kind of superiority or inferiority complex. Perhaps you have both. You are mistaken in comparing me with others as no matter how strongly I am against your idols, I still respect you as a human being and avoid any personal attacks on you. On the other side, you are not letting any chance go empty where you can attack on my person and on my faith.

“Allow me to disillusion you of them. No, i do not enjoy killings of millions of Muslims - but i do appreciate death of those who initiate violence.”

If Bin Laden is one culprit, would that justify killings of innocent Muslims in millions? Do you favour that act of the secular west?

“No, neither Hitler and Stalin would get anything but contempt from me because both of their ideologies are contradictory to mine - one was a Christian and the other a communist.”

I understand Christian is your enemy, but what happened with the communist who is your cousin.

“No, I do not represent Atheism.”

Then why are you defending Atheism?

“Yes, I am rude - but I am neither brutal nor insane - given that I provide rational justification for all my positions and don't condone violence (unless you meant 'brutal' in the sense of being 'brutally honest', in which case- guilty as charged).”

I don’t think a brutal man can be an honest man. “Brutally honest”, I consider it a good term for self-satisfaction.

The authentic person is one who lives in clear, honest recognition of existential freedom. This is best understood in contrast with the various ways of being inauthentic that Sartre calls ‘bad faith’. These are strategies for denying or disguising one’s freedom and responsibility in order to minimize the ‘anxiety’, which full appreciation of these, would induce.

“Yes, I do believe that atheism is about facing harsh reality - but that is my personal view and not of all atheists. And no, my view does not mean that atheism is about "brutality, cruelty, harshness, and ruthlessness".”

It is not Atheism, which is facing harsh realities; it is a harsh person who faces harsh realities irrespective to whether he is theist or atheist. Peaceful atheists are normal people living with normal people in harmony and mutual understands. I personally have many atheist and communist friends and I never had problems with them.

“I am doing more that saying NO to your claims - I've given sufficient reason for saying NO.”

Your reasons are reasons for you only. They have no potentials to be recognised as reasons.

“And though I am most certainly not a skeptic (as the resident skeptics here would happily testify to) - it is still wrong to say that skeptics have no beliefs. And yes, by all means, try telling the resident skeptics here that "the only good skeptic is a dead skeptic" - I can't wait to see them tear you apart.”

If sceptic has beliefs then he is not sceptic. By definition, antonym of sceptic is believer. You are saying you are not sceptic but you are behaving like a sceptic by saying NO to everything.

“Here's a little but of disillusionment regarding your own arguments. Making a claim is not enough. If you cannot support your claim, then I don't need to do anything more that say NO to it. Its not my responsibility to go about disabusing you of whatever insane notion you might have.”

Okay! Let me make my claim again. Here I claim:

There is nothing so called “Nothingness” and universe has a cause. The cause is God. In support of my claim, I give Kalam cosmological argument.

Disprove my claim and prove there exist something called “Nothingness” and universe came into existence without a cause out from this “Nothingness”.

I hope this time you will present some serious argument in place of rejecting everything in thin air or pushing me towards strange videos or web sites.

“Since you have failed to prove your case, I have no reason to treat your Quran as anything other than what it is - ramblings of a delusional man with an over-exaggerated sense of self-importance.”

You have not presented any criticism on even a single verse of Quran. Paulpablo is doing a good job. At least he is arguing by presenting verses from Quran and criticising them with logical reasoning. You haven’t done such so far. If I have no criticism from you, how comes you are expecting refutation from me.

“Your arguments have been no different that any of the other theists before you. As a matter of fact, if I so chose, I could've simply linked you to the relevant posts made in the past refuting whatever argument you make.”

Maybe they are not different. It is not important they are similar or unique rather what facts they are revealing it is important.

“Your posts have been anything but intelligent or educated - in fact, they seemed to have been borrowed straight out of the apologetic junkyard floating around the web.”

Cheers.

---

(September 12, 2013 at 5:24 pm)paulpablo Wrote: When you read a statement from the quran and think it predicts finger prints when it does NOT mention even the word unique or anything that could be another word for unique and it does not even claim to be making a prediction about anything then you definitely most certainly ARE guessing.

The word guess means

Quote:Estimate or suppose (something) without sufficient information to be sure of being correct.

This is the quote of the quran.

Quote:Nay, We are able to put together in perfect order the very tips of his fingers.

Not a mention of the word unique, not a mention of the word prints, not a mention of anything to do with fingerprints uniqueness or anything of the sort.

Now tell me how you know god is telling you in this verse information regarding finger prints.

Are you guessing?

If not please let me know how you know for sure how this verse is telling you about fingerprints.
And don't just use one word answers like LOGIC or REASONING.

I'll give you an example, if I was a policeman and doing an investigation into a murder and the judge asked me why I thought the clues pointed to the suspect I had arrested I wouldn't just say LOGIC or REASONING would I?

I'd have to put up some good arguments such as CCTV footage, forensic evidence, non bias witnesses and so on.


I already am almost certain that you are guessing as I'm not blind or illiterate, I can read the verse and have a good understanding of english enough to know there is no information here or even clues about fingerprints,
AND lets say god does just like to give very vague clues about fingerprints in ancient texts you are still GUESSING what the clue is telling you.

Because after you sat down and thought to yourself "this text must be telling me about fingerprints" god didn't come down and congratulate you on getting it right did he? There were no signs that you are right or correct in your guess work.

Bare in mind also that finger tips were known for having an intricate shape before Islam, Babylonians used fingerprints so did the Chinese.

Quran brings up case of fingertips explicitly in the verse and by this; it has given a hint to a hidden fact. Hint means a slight or indirect indication. Hint always contains slight part of a universal fact in an indicative form only. Here part is fingerprints (hidden part) and whole is fingertips. It is a universal truth that fingertips have fingerprints with which no one can contradict.

God says in the verse, He would recreate fingertips without any flaw and with precision. Fingertips cannot be perfect without fingerprints being in perfect order too.

When I say apple is red, this phrase holds more hidden information about the apple. The information is, only red apple has adequate ripeness for eating. Before people didn’t know what does red mean but now they have discovered this fact hidden behind the word red. Now the phrase “apple is red” is enough to convey the universal truth and there is no need for elaboration on what does red means.

That is how verses in Quran hold universal truths without revealing their intricate details.

“He it is Who has sent down to thee the Book (Quran): In it are verses basic or fundamental (of established meaning); they are the foundation of the Book: others are allegorical. But those in whose hearts is perversity follow the part thereof that is allegorical, seeking discord, and searching for its hidden meanings, but no one knows its hidden meanings except Allah. And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say: "We believe in the Book; the whole of it is from our Lord:" and none will grasp the Message except men of understanding.”
Ali Imran (3)
-Verse 7-

“Bare in mind also that finger tips were known for having an intricate shape before Islam, Babylonians used fingerprints so did the Chinese.”

First, you have not given any historical reference for Babylonians and Chinese, which show they were using fingerprints. Second, if I agree for the sake of argument that Babylonians and Chinese where using fingerprints, then for the discovery of fingerprints why all credit goes to Frances Gold why not to Babylonians and Chinese.

So why weren't medieval muslims using finger prints to track down criminals? Could it be that the scientific "knowledge" in the koran only becomes revealed once someone else actually discovers it.
Seems muslims were the worst people to "reveal" this information too coz they did shit all with it.

But as I've said elsewhere the holy texts are written in such ambiguous language you can get it to mean almost anything.

Quote:First, you have not given any historical reference for Babylonians and Chinese, which show they were using fingerprints. Second, if I agree for the sake of argument that Babylonians and Chinese where using fingerprints, then for the discovery of fingerprints why all credit goes to Frances Gold why not to Babylonians and Chinese.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fingerprint#History

Quote:Fingerprints were used as signatures in ancient Babylon in the second millennium BCE.[44] In order to protect against forgery, parties to a legal contract would impress their fingerprints into a clay tablet on which the contract had been written. By 246 BCE, Chinese officials were impressing their fingerprints into the clay seals used to seal documents. With the advent of silk and paper in China, parties to a legal contract impressed their handprints on the document. Sometime before 851 CE, an Arab merchant in China, Abu Zayd Hasan, witnessed Chinese merchants using fingerprints to authenticate loans.[45] By 702, Japan allowed illiterate petitioners seeking a divorce to "sign" their petitions with a fingerprint.[46]

http://onin.com/fp/fphistory.html

Quote:Chinese records from the 221-206 BC Qin Dynasty include details about using handprints as evidence during burglary investigations.

http://www.aladdinusa.com/documentations...istory.htm

Quote:Pre-historic picture writing of a hand with ridge patterns was discovered in Nova Scotia. In ancient Babylon, fingerprints were used on clay tablets for business transactions. In ancient China, thumb prints were found on clay seals.

Show me the information you have about frances gold, if that is how you spell his name, then we can talk about why he has been given credit for anything.

---

Quote: Hint means a slight or indirect indication. Hint always contains slight part of a universal fact in an indicative form only. Here part is fingerprints (hidden part) and whole is fingertips. It is a universal truth that fingertips have fingerprints with which no one can contradict.

I know fingertips have fingerprints so what?

You believe gods final message to you was via the quran, therefore if he gives you a piece of information in the quran which is only a hint, then all you can do is guess about what the hint is telling you.

It is actually impossible for you to not be guessing what god is hinting to you since he hasn't come down and told you if you are correct or not has he?

You are guessing but just won't admit it.

---

Quote:Yes, it is obvious that when people are burned the skin is damaged, roasted. However, before people did not know that skin has pain receptors and it is responsible for pain. I wrote above that whenever Quran speaks specifically about something there is some hint behind it. God stated that he would change the roasted skins with the fresh ones so the pain of burning will continue. If there won’t be skins there won’t be pain and punishment. There is a special mention of changing of skins, which is related to continuation of punishment, and this is the clue that skins are special.

The quran doesn't mention pain receptors, the quran just says people will get their skins roasted then have them replaced by more skins so they get roasted again.

People knew if they were going to get their skins roasted, then replaced by another skin and roasted again it would cause them a lot of pain.

---

Quote:Most interestingly there are no links between these four humanlike species. It is an absurd to derive roots of present day humans out from the fossils.

Secondly, according to molecular biology theory (the genetic coding), visualization of single ape DNA evolving into Human DNA is almost infinitesimally improbable.

What do you mean no links between the 4 humans?

We are classified as apes.

other apes who are humans are unlikely to evolve into humans because it is correct that 2 different species evolving into exactly the same species independantly is very very unlikely to happen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape#Greater_and_lesser

(September 15, 2013 at 7:52 am)Harris Wrote: You are only exhibiting your overconfidence here, which is nothing special.

However, you are the one ignoring all my actual arguments and focusing on overconfidence.

(September 15, 2013 at 7:52 am)Harris Wrote: Usually, people use confrontational and provocative language and scandals to hide their deficiency and try to win “by Hook and by Crook”.

If I am answering your confrontational and provocative arguments its only because I feel its important to stop any confrontation and provocation among people as these help in spreading hatred. I don’t think Atheism is teaching how to hate people or maybe I am wrong.

You are wrong - in assuming that usage of confrontational and provocative language indicates any sort of deficiency or is used to spread hatred. Given this error of premise the rest of your argument is invalid.

(September 15, 2013 at 7:52 am)Harris Wrote: You are building almost every of your argument based on guesstimates.

What's the "guesstimate" here?

(September 15, 2013 at 7:52 am)Harris Wrote: You are ceaselessly spitting right into my eyes for no reasons. I am not abusing you or your Atheism yet you are spitting and spitting. I have not yet vomited, as my health is good enough for the survival.

Well, I'm hoping that my spitting would force you to clean out the religious gunk out of your eyes and open them to reality. Unfortunately, that hasn't happened yet. And if you think that vomiting walls of text is bad for your health, you should stop doing that.

(September 15, 2013 at 7:52 am)Harris Wrote: Agreed! I have not yet presented my counter arguments. You have not given me any serious reason for that. You are saying only NO or maximum pushing me to some web sites administered by crooks.

For example:

What argument have you given against Kalam other than rejecting all its premises in the air?

You haven't presented any "arguments" worthy of countering to begin with. You are making ridiculous claims all over the place without any proof for them and ask for "serious" counters when they don't even qualify for being taken seriously. You haven't given any evidence to show that your quran is anything other than a madman's babblings. You haven't proven that any of the Islamic sites is run by "crooks". And as for Kalam, I reject his arguments because his premises have not been show to be true.

(September 15, 2013 at 7:52 am)Harris Wrote: For your rejections in air, I don’t have any other option than to say “by hook or by crook”. Sorry for that

But you do have another option - actually giving evidence for your claims. If you did that I wouldn't be able to "reject in air". But that's a tad difficult when what you are trying to claim is ridiculous to begin with.

(September 15, 2013 at 7:52 am)Harris Wrote: I have never attacked your person as well as your atheism. For sure, you have some kind of superiority or inferiority complex. Perhaps you have both. You are mistaken in comparing me with others as no matter how strongly I am against your idols, I still respect you as a human being and avoid any personal attacks on you. On the other side, you are not letting any chance go empty where you can attack on my person and on my faith.

Actually, when you make claims like "you are spreading hatred" or "You are likely to admire Hitler and Stalin" or "You are being rude, brutal and insane" - then you are, in fact, attacking my person. It doesn't bother me, because these accusations are false, but that is what you are doing.

Secondly, I don't have any of those complexes, but I do feel justifiably superior to anyone who can only repeat the oft-refuted arguments found on the web.

I don't have any "idols" for you to be against.

And I'm not letting of a single chance to attack your faith because, well, that's one of the reasons I am here.

(September 15, 2013 at 7:52 am)Harris Wrote: If Bin Laden is one culprit, would that justify killings of innocent Muslims in millions? Do you favour that act of the secular west?

I don't justify killing of innocent Muslims - but Bin Laden is not the only culprit.

(September 15, 2013 at 7:52 am)Harris Wrote: I understand Christian is your enemy, but what happened with the communist who is your cousin.

A cousin? Where did you get that stupid idea?

(September 15, 2013 at 7:52 am)Harris Wrote: Then why are you defending Atheism?

I'm not defending atheism - I'm attacking your faith.

(September 15, 2013 at 7:52 am)Harris Wrote: I don’t think a brutal man can be an honest man. “Brutally honest”, I consider it a good term for self-satisfaction.

The authentic person is one who lives in clear, honest recognition of existential freedom. This is best understood in contrast with the various ways of being inauthentic that Sartre calls ‘bad faith’. These are strategies for denying or disguising one’s freedom and responsibility in order to minimize the ‘anxiety’, which full appreciation of these, would induce.

What you think and what reality is are two different things. Living in clear, honest recognition of existential freedom entails stringent denial of any imagined shackles upon that freedom - no matter how comforting those chains may be or how brutal their denial may seem.

(September 15, 2013 at 7:52 am)Harris Wrote: It is not Atheism, which is facing harsh realities; it is a harsh person who faces harsh realities irrespective to whether he is theist or atheist. Peaceful atheists are normal people living with normal people in harmony and mutual understands. I personally have many atheist and communist friends and I never had problems with them.

Do you make your nonsensical arguments to them as well?

Preservation of "peace and harmony" to justify continued ignorance is a poor excuse.

(September 15, 2013 at 7:52 am)Harris Wrote: Your reasons are reasons for you only. They have no potentials to be recognised as reasons.

Wrong again. See my reasons for clarification.

(September 15, 2013 at 7:52 am)Harris Wrote: If sceptic has beliefs then he is not sceptic. By definition, antonym of sceptic is believer. You are saying you are not sceptic but you are behaving like a sceptic by saying NO to everything.

This is what you get when you get your "knowledge" from ignorant theistic philosophies. A skeptic questions and doubts beliefs - that does not mean that he does not have any beliefs. By Most commonly, a skeptic is a firm believer of evidence. Therefore, by definition, a believer is not an antonym of a skeptic. And I'm not behaving like a skeptic because I'm not saying NO to everything - only to your unjustified claims.

(September 15, 2013 at 7:52 am)Harris Wrote: Okay! Let me make my claim again. Here I claim:

There is nothing so called “Nothingness” and universe has a cause. The cause is God. In support of my claim, I give Kalam cosmological argument.

Disprove my claim and prove there exist something called “Nothingness” and universe came into existence without a cause out from this “Nothingness”.

I hope this time you will present some serious argument in place of rejecting everything in thin air or pushing me towards strange videos or web sites.

You do realize that repetition of unjustified claims does not constitute supporting the said claim. For example, I cannot claim that "all Muslims are violent psychopaths" and as support, give Bush's statement that "all Muslims are violent psychopaths". Kalam's cosmological argument says the exact same thing you do and therefore does not consitute support for your claim.

As for you argument - I reject the premise that "Universe had a cause". The reason - causality is not universe-independent. I don't have to prove "Nothingness" because that is irrelevant to the argument. You haven't proven that the universe has or even could have a cause and that assertion can be rejected for that very reason.

(September 15, 2013 at 7:52 am)Harris Wrote: You have not presented any criticism on even a single verse of Quran. Paulpablo is doing a good job. At least he is arguing by presenting verses from Quran and criticising them with logical reasoning. You haven’t done such so far. If I have no criticism from you, how comes you are expecting refutation from me.

I don't have to repeat the work others have done for me. I have presented criticism on hundreds of verses of Quran - by pointing them out to you. And that qualifies for a refutation from you.

(September 15, 2013 at 7:52 am)Harris Wrote: Maybe they are not different. It is not important they are similar or unique rather what facts they are revealing it is important.

The importance comes form the fact that they've all been refuted before.

other apes who aren't humans are unlikely to evolve into humans because it is correct that 2 different species evolving into exactly the same species independantly is very very unlikely to happen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape#Greater_and_lesser


I edited the bold part from my last post.

(September 9, 2013 at 3:52 pm)Harris Wrote:

(September 7, 2013 at 2:25 pm)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: Do you believe the Quran has scientific facts in that predate the current understanding of reality that we have today?
Eg. That the earth is an oblate spheroid?

I do believe that Quran has scientific clues. I do believe that clues in Quran predate the current understanding of reality that we have today. Embryological stages as mentioned in Quran and around 1,000 other clues made me to believe so. There are clues, which supersede our present day knowledge, and those would be the clues for the coming generations.

So what currently unknown scientific discoveries does the Quran predict?

---

(September 12, 2013 at 1:33 pm)Harris Wrote:

(September 7, 2013 at 5:34 pm)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: So effectively it operates a retrospective pat on the back for believers utilising a confirmation bias to enforce what they already wanted to believe, right?

Scientific clues in Quran are for those non-believers who are in search of truth and trying to get to it by means of their contemplations on nature and natural processes.

SEE: Above. What currently unknown scientific discoveries does the Quran predict?

(September 12, 2013 at 1:33 pm)Harris Wrote: People in the life of Prophet Mohammad were illiterate. First, they were far from cultural and educational environment second no one knows anything about science. Prophet Mohammad was one of those illiterate people. However, they believed in Quran not because they had all the scientific knowledge to understand scientific clues in Quran. They were believers because they have understood the nature of their own beings through the teachings of Quran.

Circular reasoning.

Also, why people believe the words written down in a holy book is irrelevent in respect to whether there is any evidence behind the words. That sounds like an argumentum ad populum fallacy.

(September 12, 2013 at 1:33 pm)Harris Wrote: The prime mode of this prudential knowledge is self-awareness, and every being existing in itself which is capable of self-awareness is a pure and simple light, as evinced by the pellucid clarity with which it is manifest to itself. In fact, being a pure and simple light is precisely the same as having self-awareness, and this is true of all self-aware entities up to and including God, the Light of Lights, the intensity of whose illumination and self-awareness encompasses everything else. The main constituent of reality is the hierarchies of such pure lights, differing solely in the intensity of their Illumination, and thus of self-awareness

I struggle to draw any meaning from the above paragraph. I suspect it might be waffle.

(September 12, 2013 at 1:33 pm)Harris Wrote: Nature is self-evident for anyone who is sentient and keen about it. Quran attracts attention towards the common sense nature that can easily be perceived by the common sense faculties of man. Quran helps an endeavouring person and reveals common truths to the eye of his consciousness.

More waffle. I want hard facts and evidence based research, not anecdote and personal testimonies.

(September 12, 2013 at 1:33 pm)Harris Wrote: Quran invites people to ponder over the nature because understanding of nature is the right path to the understanding of God.

Waffle.

(September 12, 2013 at 1:33 pm)Harris Wrote: It is He Who has created for you (the faculties of) hearing, sight, feeling and understanding: little thanks it is ye give!
Al Mu'minuun (23)
-Verse 78-

The exquisiteness of Quran is in its text. The text is so eloquent that it does not demand any scholarly background from a person to understand this message, yet scholars cannot comprehend scopes of its meanings in totality.

Waffle.

The eloquence of the words is irrelevent to the substance behind them, of which currently, there is none aside the meaningless spiritual revelation of believers. Nothing tangible.

(September 12, 2013 at 1:33 pm)Harris Wrote: “He it is Who shapes you in the wombs as He pleases. There is no god but He, the Exalted in Might, the Wise.”
Ali Imran (3)
-Verse 6-

Not father, mother, any scientist nor doctor or all of them together are responsible in the making of human body inside the mother’s womb. The only effort in the whole process is the sexual intercourse and Voilà.

What does this even mean? I'm struggling to understand anything youre writing. The only thing required to make a baby is sperm and an egg. But I don't see the relevance?

(September 12, 2013 at 1:33 pm)Harris Wrote: We cannot and can never control the universe according to our desires. Trillions of stars in billions of galaxies are in perfect order. Every object has its own path and no star comes in the way of other star. Is not that a wonder?

Is this an attempt at fine tuning? Please, fine tuning has been debunked so many times I feel silly for even writing about it. The universe is not fine tuned for us as a species. The fact we can only inhabit an infinitesimally small % of it should be testament to this. Really, this kind of just strikes me as confirmation bias, and seeing what you want to see because you believe what you see is true. And who said anything about controlling the universe? :S

And what do you mean "no star comes in the way of other star", you mean, as in a physical collision?:



Interacting galaxies. The vastness of space means that stars physically colliding is a minute possibility, but it does happen, quite often actually. When you say 'perfect order', I suspect this is because your knowledge of the cosmos is extremely limited, and that your definition of 'perfect order' relates to our own star Sol and the fact that it hasn't as of yet eradicated life on our planet (which it will of course do, if we haven't been eradicated already by some other means).

Also, black holes swallow stars all the time, so I don't know what you mean. Clarify.

(September 12, 2013 at 1:33 pm)Harris Wrote: In terms of general human behaviour, only a sceptic requires exhausting details on evidences and proofs because he is dependent over his personal standards of pain and pleasure and judge things based on that. How deeply someone is dependent over his own desires that stubborn character he would have. Adamant man denies the facts deliberately by playing a role of an antagonist to disprove any evidence, which may become hindrance in his personal likings and this way he defends his personal preferences.

Waffle.

Evidence is provided to support claims in order to convince people of its legitimacy. I'm sure in your time you've benefitted from this process countless times in the fields of medicine, or in the general living of your life (you're benefitting from this process right now when you type on your PC/laptop).

Being skeptical of claims is a virtue. Blindly believing hogwash because you've been brought up/indoctrianted to believe it is a vice. The latter is an antithesis to the former. The former generates consistent results, the latter generates nothing.

(September 12, 2013 at 1:33 pm)Harris Wrote: “If the Truth had been in accord with their desires, truly the heavens and the earth, and all beings therein would have been in confusion and corruption! Nay, We have sent them their admonition, but they turn away from their admonition.”
Al Mu'minuun (23)
-Verse 71-

Waffle.

But really, none of what you have posted amounts to anything like evidence that the Quran is true or correct in any way, at least not in comparison to all the other holy books and tomes.

(September 15, 2013 at 8:01 am)downbeatplumb Wrote: So why weren't medieval muslims using finger prints to track down criminals? Could it be that the scientific "knowledge" in the koran only becomes revealed once someone else actually discovers it.
Seems muslims were the worst people to "reveal" this information too coz they did shit all with it.

But as I've said elsewhere the holy texts are written in such ambiguous language you can get it to mean almost anything.

"So why weren't medieval muslims using finger prints to track down criminals?"

I guess there were no criminals there


“Could it be that the scientific "knowledge" in the koran only becomes revealed …”

Quran is not revealing anything. Knowledge is already there.

“… Once someone else actually discovers it”

Correct! When our acquired knowledge reaches to a higher level it is only then more facts becoming visible in the verses of Quran. That is how Quran is maintaining its divine characteristics.

Quran is not intended to give education of science, history, literature, geography etc. Although there are hints on all these subjects in Quran, the main topic however is human morals and how should one live his life.

Quran is not imposing its commandments over people. It totally let people to decide according to their own free wills to accept this message or not. The purpose of Quran is to give warnings to non-believers. It is a warning especially to those who knowingly oppose the truth only for the sake of personal pleasures and joys. On the other hand, Quran provides good tidings for believers and for the people who accept the truth and live their lives within the limits of certain boundaries for the welfare of their society and for the good of their close ones.

"Seems muslims were the worst people to "reveal" this information too coz they did shit all with it."

You are wrong. Muslims did not reveal this information. This hint was in Quran but nobody had any idea about it. Quran is only indicating that God who has created everything first time is able to recreate everyone for the second time in their original forms with precision.

And among His Signs in this: thou seest the earth barren and desolate; but when We send down rain to it, it is stirred to life and yields increase. Truly, He Who gives life to the (dead) earth can surely give life to (men) who are dead. For He has power over all things.
Fush Shilat (41)
-Verse 39-

"But as I've said elsewhere the holy texts are written in such ambiguous language you can get it to mean almost anything."

Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder?
Al Anbiyaa' (21)
-Verse 30-

What is ambiguous in above verse?

---

(September 15, 2013 at 10:17 am)paulpablo Wrote: Show me the information you have about frances gold, if that is how you spell his name, then we can talk about why he has been given credit for anything.

Hi Paul,
Thank you for correcting my mistake. It’s not Frances Gold but Sir Francis Galton (1822) so in short instead of writing Galt I was writing Gold.

“The method of identifying criminals by their fingerprints had been introduced in the 1860s by Sir William James Herschel in India, and their potential use in forensic work was first proposed by Dr Henry Faulds in 1880, but Galton was the first to place the study on a scientific footing, which assisted its acceptance by the courts (Bulmer 2003, p. 35). Galton pointed out that there were specific types of fingerprint patterns. He described and classified them into eight broad categories. 1: plain arch, 2: tented arch, 3: simple loop, 4: central pocket loop, 5: double loop, 6: lateral pocket loop, 7: plain whorl, and 8: accidental.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Francis_Galton

“The system of fingerprints in universal use today derived from this work.

Galton's application of exact quantitative methods gave results which, processed mathematically, developed a numerical factor he called correlation and defined thus: "Two variable organs are said to be co-related when the variation of the one is accompanied on the average by more or less variation of the other, and in the same direction. Co-relation must be the consequence of the variations of the two organs being partly due to common causes. If wholly due … the co-relation would be perfect." Co-relation specified the degree of relationship between any pair of individuals or any two attributes.”

“Having been thus inspired to study fingerprints for ten years, Galton published a detailed statistical model of fingerprint analysis and identification and encouraged its use in forensic science in his book Finger Prints. He had calculated that the chance of a "false positive" (two different individuals having the same fingerprints) was about 1 in 64 billion.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fingerprint

So as you see that Forensic Science is not old and before the discovery made by Frances Galt people did not know that two different individuals don’t have identical fingerprints.

Maybe ancient people were using fingerprint only for aristocratic commitments and/or for the endorsement of a noble decree.

(September 15, 2013 at 10:17 am)paulpablo Wrote: I know fingertips have fingerprints so what?

You believe gods final message to you was via the quran, therefore if he gives you a piece of information in the quran which is only a hint, then all you can do is guess about what the hint is telling you.

I don’t need to guess. I am not hunting for what is behind the hint. No one can know the meanings of these hints until the acquired knowledge won’t reach to a certain level where these meanings become clear without any investigations and of guesswork.

(September 15, 2013 at 10:17 am)paulpablo Wrote: It is actually impossible for you to not be guessing what god is hinting to you since he hasn't come down and told you if you are correct or not has he?

It seems you are debating quite a lot with Christians. Jesus is god in flesh or Jesus coming in the visions of true Christians and other such claims in Islam are counted as blasphemy. There is no free lunch in Islam. Every person would get his/her results according to what he/she had earned in this life. It can be explained simply as; we have to work in order to earn our food. How good we work that good food we’ll eat. It’s not like only believing in Jesus gives a free salvation.

So, no, God has not come to me and has not told me anything. And, I am not guessing anything.

(September 15, 2013 at 10:17 am)paulpablo Wrote: You are guessing but just won't admit it.

You are trying to prove that I am guessing about a universal truth which is known to everyone. It is something as if I am saying that Quran states apple is red. In addition to that, I say it means apple is ready for eating but you are arguing Quran does not mention that apple is ready for eating. Because Quran does not mention red apple is ready for eating for that reason you are accusing me for building deductive reasoning.

I simply know fingertips have fingerprints, which are not identical among people. Until, Frances Galt had made his discovery this fact was hidden from people.

(September 15, 2013 at 10:17 am)paulpablo Wrote: The quran doesn't mention pain receptors, the quran just says people will get their skins roasted then have them replaced by more skins so they get roasted again.

People knew if they were going to get their skins roasted, then replaced by another skin and roasted again it would cause them a lot of pain.

After reading your comment, I made a small research. Unfortunately, I did not find any clue from the history that people actually knew that it is in fact skin, which causes all the pain.

Before the age of this scientific discovery, it was commonly believed that the whole human body could feel pain. It was not until the role of nerve endings in the skin were discovered, that people learned skin is associated with sensitivity because it contains the majority of nerve endings.

There are two groups of feelings:

1) Epictritic which senses light things, like a light touch or a slight change in temperature; and
2) Protopathic which feels pain and considerable change in temperature.

These receptors can be categorized into four kinds:

1) Exteroceptors which are concerned with the faculty of sense and touch and which contain meissners and merkels corpuscles,
2) Krause End Bulbes which are concerned with coldness,
3) Ruffini Cylinders which are concerned with heat and
4) Nerve Endings that can transmit any feeling of physical pain.

The skin is considered the part of the body that is rich with such nerve endings that transmit heat and pain.

Anatomists have proved that people whose skin has been completely burnt cannot feel pain because their nerve endings are damaged.

The verse says that the skin is the part of the body that will receive the punishment, i.e. there is a connection between the skin and the sensation of pain. The verse also tells us that when the skin is burnt (i.e. in the Fire), man can no longer feel the pain of the punishment and so his burnt skin is replaced with new fresh skin where the nerve endings are functioning properly and can transmit the feeling of pain.

Prior to the invention of microscopes and the progress made in the field of anatomy, no human being could have any knowledge about this scientific fact mentioned in Qur'an fourteen centuries ago.

(September 15, 2013 at 10:17 am)paulpablo Wrote: What do you mean no links between the 4 humans?

Scientists don’t have any clues on how:

1. Lucy evolved in Homo sapiens
2. Homo sapiens evolved in Neanderthal man
3. Neanderthal man evolved in Cro-Magnon man and
4. Cro-Magnon man evolved into present day humans.

Scientists have also found fossils of some other human like species but there are no historical links among all these fossils and so no one can derive any relation between contemporary humans and these fossils due to these missing links. Scientist can’t even develop relations among these fossils as well.

(September 15, 2013 at 10:17 am)paulpablo Wrote: We are classified as apes.

other apes who are humans are unlikely to evolve into humans because it is correct that 2 different species evolving into exactly the same species independantly is very very unlikely to happen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape#Greater_and_lesser

I don’t have any problem if you say humans are classified as apes for the classification purpose only.

Like Darwin himself said to his friend Thomas Thomson in a letter (1861):

“I don’t believe in the word natural selection (theory of evolution) because I don’t have any proof. I only believe in it because it helps me in classification of Embryology, in morphology, in rudimentary organs”.

So if we say lion is classified as cat or human is classified as ape then there is no harm in that.

Trouble starts when someone says:

No, no, lion in fact evolved from cat, which is where scientific facts go in opposite directions.

How much literature I have read on the topic of evolution, nowhere I found anything based on molecular biology, which confirms that human genes evolved from ape genes.

Maximum, based on some similarities between human and ape genes, people are speculating that human genes evolved from ape genes. This is again scientifically no more than a speculation as according to the molecular biology such probability is almost zero.

Quote:Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder?
Al Anbiyaa' (21)
-Verse 30-

Who is we, what is the definition of heavens? Is it the sky is it the galaxy, the universe is it heaven in the sense that christians see heaven?

You tell me what you guess this verse is talking about because I can only guess that you're repeating other islamic people and you're going to say this is talking about the big bang.

The big bang has nothing to do with the earth being clove asunder from the universe, this would be a really stupid description of the big bang.

---

Quote:After reading your comment, I made a small research. Unfortunately, I did not find any clue from the history that people actually knew that it is in fact skin, which causes all the pain.

Instead you should do research on if it is a fact that skin is the only organ that senses "all the pain".

Try researching if people feel pain in their stomach or bladder, and research what happens to things like stomachs and bladders if they were burned.

---

Quote:You are trying to prove that I am guessing about a universal truth which is known to everyone. It is something as if I am saying that Quran states apple is red. In addition to that, I say it means apple is ready for eating but you are arguing Quran does not mention that apple is ready for eating. Because Quran does not mention red apple is ready for eating for that reason you are accusing me for building deductive reasoning.

I simply know fingertips have fingerprints, which are not identical among people. Until, Frances Galt had made his discovery this fact was hidden from people.

No I'm arguing that the quran has given you no information about unique fingerprints, the word unique isn't even in the verse and there is not even a hint towards the uniqueness.

It is actually like you have read a verse which says god will reconstruct peoples bodies even their fingertips, and then you have guessed that it is talking about the uniqueness of fingerprints.

Even after being told fingerprints aren't the only unique part of human bodies.

Even though the verse does not mention the word unique.

Even though the word prints or fingerprints isn't even used or hinted at whatsoever.

You are guessing.

---

Quote:Trouble starts when someone says:

No, no, lion in fact evolved from cat, which is where scientific facts go in opposite directions.

How much literature I have read on the topic of evolution, nowhere I found anything based on molecular biology, which confirms that human genes evolved from ape genes.

Maximum, based on some similarities between human and ape genes, people are speculating that human genes evolved from ape genes. This is again scientifically no more than a speculation as according to the molecular biology such probability is almost zero.

I repeat again that human genes are ape genes we are apes.

What molecular evidence have you been looking for in your research?

Because I want to put the nail in the coffin of this argument just let me try my hardest to finish it off.

Quote:Nay, We are able to put together in perfect order the very tips of his fingers. (Quran 75:4)

This is the information given to you by the quran.

If this verse is true then you know for sure that

1. There is a god.
2. He can put together in perfect order the tips of the fingers.

This is the information provided.

The information which you have guessed the verse is telling you.

Fingerprints are unique in every person in the world.


Now you have used the comparison

Quote:It is something as if I am saying that Quran states apple is red. In addition to that, I say it means apple is ready for eating but you are arguing Quran does not mention that apple is ready for eating. Because Quran does not mention red apple is ready for eating for that reason you are accusing me for building deductive reasoning.

It is nothing like this, there is nothing within the words

Quote:put together in perfect order the very tips of his fingers.

that describes even a hint of uniqueness.

The quran describes an order to the fingertips, I'll give you that point.

But in no way is this miraculous, I've already shown that civilizations knew about fingerprints and that they were complex and had some order to them.

If you continue to try and tell me that a verse which doesn't even mention uniqueness, doesn't mention prints, and especially doesn't mention fingerprints being unique for every single person in the world is a message from muhammad about fingerprints being unique for everyone in the world all it is going to do is make me doubt how logical you are towards any other topic of discussion.