numerical mriacle.....again

[lordofgemini]

It 'was'

[jesus_wept]

http://quran.com/search?q=%D9%82%D9%85%D8%B1

Shows all 27? Counted it.

The otheone idk looks like bad search engine showing only 25. All Qur'an's are same BTW only different search engines.

Im not really interested in discussing the reliability of Arabic search engines with someone who clearly doesn't understand Arabic, not enough to tell the difference between moon and the moon at least, so I shall instead ask why you think it is miraculous that the Quran mentions the moon 27 times? It certainly wouldn't have been hard for someone to write a book which mentions the moon 27 times and it was known at the time that the moon takes 27 (and a bit) days to orbit the earth at the time, the Islamic calendar is lunar afterall. This isn't a miracle IMO, its clutching at straws. If it had told us something like the exact speed of light 1600 years before it was verified you might've been onto something but these sort of miracles are laughable really.

[Hoopington]

That particular pattern is very unlikely. However finding some sort of pattern is not. If you look for patterns in random numbers you will also find them. There must be thousands of different patterns that one could look for. However normally with this stuff it is done the wrong way round. People add the numbers together in certain ways until they get a pattern. You will also find that almost every old document that exists has had the numerology treatment.

There was an even simpler more powerful pattern that you missed. The chapter numbers are each one greater than that of the last chapter. Perhaps the work of an all powerfull God...

thats exactly what i disagree with, there are not thousands of different pattern you could look for. It is quite limited and you might wanna define a pattern x or y to make it a specific pattern, but we would consider that to be absurd.

And i also agree that you might find patterns in every text, but not these ones, i consider them to be extremly unlikely to happen.

---

Did you check the calculations yourself?
No credit awarded if you don't show all steps and partial results.

In a standard scientific report, there is a section on materials and methods which allows anyone with suitable background and resources to confirm or deny the conclusions of the experimenters.

In this case, I'm highly suspicious that there are errors in the unchecked results. It is a repeatedly observed phenomenon that the devout will slant/fabricate data in order to confirm their preferred conclusions. My default position is that this is what has occurred.

My time is too valuable to look for where the fudging took place. Even if this investigation was done honestly, the argument that coincidences happen is valid. A true positive result is only circumstantial evidence of supernatural intervention of any kind. After that you still have to show which god, devil or impersonal ectoplasmic instantiation did it.

All numbers are correct, your comment implies that you find this pattern also kind of "special", i might be wrong.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzTXNjGbavk he does it in front of your eyes and i also did both myself.

I do not understand why people really post things about the biblecode. The biblecode is not interesting, it would be intersting if you would not find any patterns or "prophecies" because the liklihood that these occur is very high.

And no, "you dont find patterns everywhere" .

Yes, you do, humans see patterns everywhere, it's what we do.

For better or worse.

[lordofgemini]

http://quran.com/search?q=%D9%82%D9%85%D8%B1

Shows all 27? Counted it.

The otheone idk looks like bad search engine showing only 25. All Qur'an's are same BTW only different search engines.

Im not really interested in discussing the reliability of Arabic search engines with someone who clearly doesn't understand Arabic, not enough to tell the difference between moon and the moon at least, so I shall instead ask why you think it is miraculous that the Quran mentions the moon 27 times? It certainly wouldn't have been hard for someone to write a book which mentions the moon 27 times and it was known at the time that the moon takes 27 (and a bit) days to orbit the earth at the time, the Islamic calendar is lunar afterall. This isn't a miracle IMO, its clutching at straws. If it had told us something like the exact speed of light 1600 years before it was verified you might've been onto something but these sort of miracles are laughable really.

Yes I know it doesn't carry any weight. Nor it was ever told to anyone that it might contain such patterns.
And it wasn't know at that time. Simple observations from earth make it seem like 29 days BTW.

Lol tbh there are articles of speed of light in the Quran. I didn't check them, but if u do tell me what are they like.

[Chas]

Im not really interested in discussing the reliability of Arabic search engines with someone who clearly doesn't understand Arabic, not enough to tell the difference between moon and the moon at least, so I shall instead ask why you think it is miraculous that the Quran mentions the moon 27 times? It certainly wouldn't have been hard for someone to write a book which mentions the moon 27 times and it was known at the time that the moon takes 27 (and a bit) days to orbit the earth at the time, the Islamic calendar is lunar afterall. This isn't a miracle IMO, its clutching at straws. If it had told us something like the exact speed of light 1600 years before it was verified you might've been onto something but these sort of miracles are laughable really.

Yes I know it doesn't carry any weight. Nor it was ever told to anyone that it might contain such patterns.
And it wasn't know at that time. Simple observations from earth make it seem like 29 days BTW.

Lol tbh there are articles of speed of light in the Quran. I didn't check them, but if u do tell me what are they like.

All of the alleged 'science' in the qur'an isn't there. There are only tortured interpretations of verses be apologists.

[Ksa]

People at the time of the compilation had a lot different concerns than including patterns and it would have been difficult to do without a PC.

Finding a good place to eat without a PC is difficult nowadays. I guess any man who was able to find a restaurant without a PC 1,400 years ago was God.

Also, describing the shapes of clouds is very difficult without taking an airplane to go there, so someone who described what clouds looked like 1,400 years ago was God.

Very idiotic indeed.