Do you know WikiIslam ?

[The Grand Nudger]

When a person definitively answers a question despite all effort not to. Bravo.

The "science of the hadith" was the same process that gave you magic book. You and I have discussed this before, and iirc you and I were together in mentioning to winter that if the game of telephone couldn't be trusted for hadith, it couldn't be trusted for magic book either. Up to and including any notion....as told in the narrative chain certified by this vry srs science..that magic book is inerrant.

But hey, I guess you're a plus 1 for the nutball explanation of gods great and holy magic book..instead of something that's true and profound and very well written. God, in short, is a fuckup - and you're going to have to insist as much as an article of faith because the game of telephone says so, huh?

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

Wikislam?

Is that another Space Jam movie?

Weird.

Could'a sworn it was that new Wrestling show....

[R00tKiT]

The "science of the hadith" was the same process that gave you magic book.  You and I have discussed this before, and iirc you and I were together in mentioning to winter that if the game of telephone couldn't be trusted for hadith, it couldn't be trusted for magic book either.  Up to and including any notion....as told in the narrative chain certified by this vry srs science..that magic book is inerrant.  

That's true. But believing in a miracle because it's reported in the Qur'an is not the same as believing in it because we trust the chain of narrators of that particular event. A Muslim has independent reasons to believe that the Qur'an is God's words, and the Qur'an says an event E happened, therefore the Muslim believes that E happened. No need to investigate who was there when E took place.

I think you're missing the bigger picture though, it only makes sense to assess the qur'an, or its historical reliability, or the miracle it reports if one believes in a God who interacts with our world and wouldn't let people go astray. Yes, God did allow for earlier scriptures to be corrupted, but this can still be accounted for by human free will and using religion for political purposes. But allowing for the final Abrahamic religion to also be susceptible to corruption can't really be reconciled with theism.

[The Grand Nudger]

You have independent reasons to believe magic book is gods word, magic book says an event happened, therefore it happened is a non sequitur, you realize? You might need to lay out those silent premises, and where you heard they were certified.....but that would bring us right back round to that chain of narration, wouldn't it? To a game of telephone called a science.

As to the rest you're a loon. Some people assess magic books for what they tell us about mere reality, and about the people who believed them, and about how that effected their societies. Makes plenty of sense to do. It doesn't matter whether a fairy blessed a warlord. I guess god is learning on the job, or something - or at least you could believe as much. The idea that it's latest fuckup is it's final and best fuckup is...I'd suggest..premature. Your fellow believers are already trying to outdo you in that regard after all, aren't they? Further, that this or that can't be reconciled with theism is an evergreen statement. It applies to reality as a whole as equally as it does to any poorly formed theistic belief within reality. It can't really be a problem if some fact can't be reconciled with theism, though. It can't be reconciled with your version of theism that no god ever split the moon in two, for example - but there it is nevertheless.

[R00tKiT]

You have independent reasons to believe magic book is gods word, magic book says an event happened, therefore it happened is a non sequitur, you realize? 

No, I don't realize that. Someone who believes that the Qur'an is truly God's words, verbatim, is justified in believing that all events recounted in the Qur'an really happened, in so far as his initial premise is justified. This argument is definitely valid in structure, its soundness, however, is controversial, because not all people accept that the Qur'an is divine.

That's why a Muslim believes angels exist, that's why they believe an afterlife with very specific descriptions exists, it's essentially because scripture contains these doctrines.

You might need to lay out those silent premises, and where you heard they were certified.....but that would bring us right back round to that chain of narration, wouldn't it?  To a game of telephone called a science.

I don't think I hid any premises, a Muslim's independent reasons for believing that the Qur'an is divine can be summarized as follows: the content of the Qur'an can't possibly be the product of Muhammad PBUH(*), it's precisely to avoid this fact that you have revisionist scholars who reject even the clearest facts about the surrounding milieus in Early islamic times. Some say the location of early Islam is not mecca, but somewhere else like Petra in Jordan.. some say the Qur'an is posthumous writing.. some say Islam rised in a milieu where christian texts were well-known, etc. All kinds of wild ideas are suggested to explain how the content in the Qur'an could possibly appear in the middle of pagans in the desert. 

I don't think the reliability of narrators matters at this point, as people dispute the divinity of the Qur'an/the prophethood of Muhammad even if they grant their historicity. 

As to the rest you're a loon.  Some people assess magic books for what they tell us about mere reality, and about the people who believed them, and about how that effected their societies.  Makes plenty of sense to do.

If these people don't believe in God, I don't think it makes sense to discuss any religious text. All religious claims are false by default if one doesn't think belief in God is justified. As for the effect on people or society, this is a non-sequitur, because true facts can have a bad effect.. say, our knowledge of the atom made nuclear weapons possible.. for the lack of a better example.

(*) I really need to point this out, it's tempting to say that this is an argument from ignorance/incredulity. But this kind of arguments is not always fallacious. In fact, all inductive arguments are more or less arguments from ignorance: the conclusion is more general than the premises.

[The Grand Nudger]

You have independent reasons to believe magic book is gods word, magic book says an event happened, therefore it happened is a non sequitur, you realize? 

No, I don't realize that. Someone who believes that the Qur'an is truly God's words, verbatim, is justified in believing that all events recounted in the Qur'an really happened, in so far as his initial premise is justified. This argument is definitely valid in structure, its soundness, however, is controversial, because not all people accept that the Qur'an is divine.

That's why a Muslim believes angels exist, that's why they believe an afterlife with very specific descriptions exists, it's essentially because scripture contains these doctrines.

That may be how islam works, at least according to you - but it's not how logic works.  You'll need at least one more premise before it's even valid.  You probably don;t recognize it as much because it's a fundamental article of your faith.  When you imagine gods, you can't imagine them outside this silent premise, and so don't realize that you've made it.

Can you identify what the silent premise is or at least could be, to give you something like a valid form?  

I don't think I hid any premises, a Muslim's independent reasons for believing that the Qur'an is divine can be summarized as follows: the content of the Qur'an can't possibly be the product of Muhammad PBUH(*), it's precisely to avoid this fact that you have revisionist scholars who reject even the clearest facts about the surrounding milieus in Early islamic times. Some say the location of early Islam is not mecca, but somewhere else like Petra in Jordan.. some say the Qur'an is posthumous writing.. some say Islam rised in a milieu where christian texts were well-known, etc. All kinds of wild ideas are suggested to explain how the content in the Qur'an could possibly appear in the middle of pagans in the desert. 

I don't think the reliability of narrators matters at this point, as people dispute the divinity of the Qur'an/the prophethood of Muhammad even if they grant their historicity. 

Magic book could be the product of god and still recount events that never were, unless we add another premise.  Whether or not it's just so awesome that Big Mo was too dumb to have come up with it, again according to you, is both hilarious and completely irrelevant.  Though I will point out, that you've gone from "hadith science"...to hadith irrelevancy, at this point, haven't you? It's not even important whether or not the thing you're so embarrassed of you'd bullshit strangers about it really is worthy, can really cash that check. Me neither, telephone.

If these people don't believe in God, I don't think it makes sense to discuss any religious text. All religious claims are false by default if one doesn't think belief in God is justified. As for the effect on people or society, this is a non-sequitur, because true facts can have a bad effect.. say, our knowledge of the atom made nuclear weapons possible.. for the lack of a better example.

(*) I really need to point this out, it's tempting to say that this is an argument from ignorance/incredulity. But this kind of arguments is not always fallacious. In fact, all inductive arguments are more or less arguments from ignorance: the conclusion is more general than the premises.

I don't have to believe in gods to notice you do, nor do I have to believe in gods to see that the authors who crammed words in gods mouth were at least trying to express some profound sets of truths they felt compelled to share.  I think that a great many religious claims are true, despite all theistic claims being false.  Your gods are free riders. Yet again you manage a non sequitur because neither gods nor religions are allowed....yet again according to you, to exceed the meager extent of your own islam riddled imagination.

[R00tKiT]

That may be how islam works, at least according to you - but it's not how logic works.  You'll need at least one more premise before it's even valid.  You probably don;t recognize it as much because it's a fundamental article of your faith.  When you imagine gods, you can't imagine them outside this silent premise, and so don't realize that you've made it.

Can you identify what the silent premise is or at least could be, to give you something like a valid form?  

Maybe you're referring to the premise that anything God says is true. Yeah, I thought this one is too obvious to be spelled out because, obviously, I mean by God here the God of classical theism, and I think omnibenevolence entails not leading people astray i.e. not relaying false accounts in scripture.

You could say that this premise is included in the word "God" that entails a personal agent who is truthful. In this sense, the argument is valid, and a Muslim is indeed justified in believing an event E happened based on the sole fact that the Qur'an recounts it, provided, of course, that they have adequate justification for the Qur'an being God's word.

Though I will point out, that you've gone from "hadith science"...to hadith irrelevancy, at this point, haven't you?  It's not even important whether or not the thing you're so embarrassed of you'd bullshit strangers about it really is worthy, can really cash that check.   Me neither, telephone.

Well, this is because the specific event of the splitting of the Moon is in the Qur'an. There are however, as I already said, other reported miracles that aren't in the Qur'an. And in this case, the credibility of these events is solely contingent upon the chain of narrators.

I think that a great many religious claims are true, despite all theistic claims being false. 

Maybe we don't have the same definition of religious claims. But regardless I'm curious to know which ones you think are true and why. Regarding the Qur'an, I really think it's futile for someone who doesn't believe in God to try and speculate on its origins.

[Ferrocyanide]

But why did you not mention that islam killed the scientific golden age of arab cultures?

Lol, it's called the Islamic golden age, not the Arabic Golden age.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age

Many famous scholars of this era weren't Arabs, such as Al-Khwarizmi (persian), who presented the first systematic solution of linear and quadratic equations.

I didn't say the Arabic golden age.
You also didn't respond to my comment's point.

However, thanks for the reply.

---

You declared than Wikiislam : "Attempts to find scientific errors in the Qur'an [News flash : there are none]"
My answer is the next. If we interpret literally Al-Qur'an evolution of species isn't mentioned and this is scientifically proven.

The Qur'an not mentioning something doesn't mean it's against it. The Qur'an also doesn't mention that there are five daily prayers, a central tenet of Islam, which all Muslims (are supposed to) apply rigorously.

It's normal that the Koran won't mention Evolution theory. Primitive humans had forgotten much of their past and also, they were not there to witness the development of the Universe, stars, planets, life on Earth.
At some point in time (history doesn’t record this. We call it pre-history), humans started to develop a language and expressed themselves.
So, at some point in time, some human asked the big questions:
1. What am I?
2. Where do I come from?
3. Why does stuff exist?
4. Who made all this?
5. What happens when I die? What happened to my dead parents, my dead child, my dead friend?
and so on.

Who knows who that first person was.
It is clear that multiple cultures developed their own answers to these questions and so, they ended up with different religions.
Sure, most of them settled on the idea of gods, which are basically supermen or some fantastic alien lifeforms, and the most important thing: the idea of the soul.

These are the lowest hanging fruits, that any primitive human can reach and pluck out of the tree.

Things like Evolution theory, plate tectonic theory, the shape of the Earth, the internal composition of the Earth, the solar system, the periodic table of the elements and plenty more are the high hanging fruits.

On other words, all religions do not mention these things and one could claim that all religions are not against such scientific concepts.

However, if the gods are making humans and so on, then it is not nature that is doing it and therefore, religions and science do not fit together.

Non sequitur. Our species appearing "slowly" doesn't mean there is no first human. The first member of our species to ever appear can be the first human, what's the problem with that?

The problem with that is that you are going to have to explain it to biologist.

It is hard to determine who is the first human since in terms of biology, a human doesn't have an exact definition.
All that a biologist can do is give a rough description of what a human is.
We if are going to use DNA, then which sections of DNA make us human? What happens when those sections are slightly changed?

The same concept arises with words such as short and long. They don’t have an exact definition.
If you have a bunch of sticks of different lengths and you order them from short to long, at what point does the transition takes place from short to long?

And if you are claiming that there was a first human, who were his family members? Were they human as well?

[The Grand Nudger]

[quote='The Grand Nudger' pid='2098334' dateline='1650315395']

That may be how islam works, at least according to you - but it's not how logic works.  You'll need at least one more premise before it's even valid.  You probably don;t recognize it as much because it's a fundamental article of your faith.  When you imagine gods, you can't imagine them outside this silent premise, and so don't realize that you've made it.

Can you identify what the silent premise is or at least could be, to give you something like a valid form?  

Maybe you're referring to the premise that anything God says is true.  True, and only literally true, in this case, wouldn't you say?  It cannot be, for example...according to you, that allah splitting the moon in two was intended for you to be understood as splitting the moon cults social authority in two.  I suppose it might not have dawned on big mo to make that more explicit - but he'd have been dealing with people who were intimately familiar with the matter, which is to say, decidedly not yourself.

I guess, when you put it that way, that's too much to expect of you, or of your god.  That's not actually any god of classical theism - it's just you.

Well, this is because the specific event of the splitting of the Moon is in the Qur'an. There are however, as I already said, other reported miracles that aren't in the Qur'an. And in this case, the credibility of these events is solely contingent upon the chain of narrators.

Solely contingent on a game of telephone.  If you don't have the courage of your convictions to call a game of telephone a game of telephone, then I don't think you do have much conviction in games of telephone.

Maybe we don't have the same definition of religious claims. But regardless I'm curious to know which ones you think are true and why. Regarding the Qur'an, I really think it's futile for someone who doesn't believe in God to try and speculate on its origins.

All of them, katie.  You think alot of things, scant few of which are lucid. I think that a great many religious claims are true for the same reason that I think any other thing is true, none of which have anything to do with whether or not gods (of any kind) exist. That's what we use gods for, after all. Characters in explanatory plays. You're only interested in magic book insomuch as you think it supports your beliefs. I'm interested in it even though not a word it says about gods is true. Mull that over.

[Angrboda]

The "science of the hadith" was the same process that gave you magic book.  You and I have discussed this before, and iirc you and I were together in mentioning to winter that if the game of telephone couldn't be trusted for hadith, it couldn't be trusted for magic book either.  Up to and including any notion....as told in the narrative chain certified by this vry srs science..that magic book is inerrant.  

That's true. But believing in a miracle because it's reported in the Qur'an is not the same as believing in it because we trust the chain of narrators of that particular event. A Muslim has independent reasons to believe that the Qur'an is God's words, and the Qur'an says an event E happened, therefore the Muslim believes that E happened. No need to investigate who was there when E took place.

What are those independent reasons?