Miracle

[bennyboy]

Exactly wrong. Science is an organized system of physical observation and inquiry. Therefore, if the "facts" in the Quran are science, they were made by people making physical observations-- the exact opposite of miracle. Here are the possibilities as I see them:

The writers of the Quran knew some things, or knew people who knew some things, and included them in the Quran.

You are repeating the same mistake on and on. These scientific facts are not trivial even in today’s world. How comes someone have found these facts in seventh century and remained indifferent to them.

The scientific facts AS WE KNOW THEM are not trivial. The shitty explanations given in the Quran about mud turning to semen turning to blood clots is not only trivial. . . it can be observed in autopsy, stillbirths, etc. It's also factually imprecise.

The writers of the Quran said a bunch of things that you or others interpret as science, but which only appear so to you because of confirmation bias.

I had given you nine verses. Selects any verse of your choice and prove it a misrepresentation of the real scientific fact.

I didn't say there was any misrepresentation. I'm saying you are reading into the Quran modern knowledge which the actual words in that text do not demonstrate those writers to have had. What they DID have was eyes and language-- and their observations are consistent with that.

Modern educated person should concentrate on the morals and human values, which is the real message of Quran in place of searching means of somatic comfort in it.

Morals like jihad? Like torture? Like subjugating women? I'll pass.

It was not in the competence of seventh century people to write anything about modern scientific discoveries. People were able to make these modern discoveries only with the help of special scientific tools and equipment, which were not available to ancient people. You cannot bring real evidence to support the idea that ancient people had the knowledge about present day scientific facts and exactly that inability of yours is the proof that Quran is a Miracle.

I never said they had knowledge about specific scientific facts. I said they had eyes. They could see, for example, that where a river runs into the ocean, there seems to be a line which divides the two bodies (specifially, by their differences in color). I've been to the ocean, and this is a simple and common sight. You apparently have not been to such a place, or know anyone who has, or you wouldn't think it was a miracle.

Just bring one evidence showing that someone had put all that scientific information in Quran in seventh century.

Stop calling clay and blood clots "scientific information." It doesn't require science. . . just simple observation. The things you keep calling miracles are a mix of observations and conjecture. . . some of which seems to be basically correct, and some of which (as in the case of foetus development) is a little off. This is consistent with smart and educated guys at a time in which scientific tools were too primivite to make more precise observations.

Again repeating, out of nine verses choose any verse of your choice and show that it is not speaking about real Science of today’s world.

None of it. It's a combination of observation and conjecture, and you haven't demonstrated in any capacity the source of those observations and conjectures. All you done is make a question-begging assumption: that the people of the time were too primitive to know anything, so if they knew anything, it must have come from God. My position is that the ideas first of all don't really demonstrate any deep knowledge of the subjects you are talking about, and secondly that what they DID know is consistent with their powers of observation at the time.

My position: they wrote what they knew.
Your position: they couldn't know anything, therefore God.

My position is far simpler and more supportable than yours, and no amount of word salad, special pleading or unfounded assumptions on your part will change that.

[robvalue]

[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.

Perhaps, I am the only person who is giving authentic historical and scientific references along with my arguments and justifications. You guys are rejecting Quran based on mere speculations. Only saying Quran is a comic book is not adequate.

Except, Sirius is actually two stars. Allah apparently didn't know this. Sirius is so bright because the system contains more than one star. Yet the verse you quoted clearly claims Sirius is only one star! That Iyaht would have been the perfect opportunity for Allah to say that Sirius is actually two stars.

But the Iyaht manages to be scientifically inaccurate! Well done for 'shooting yourself in the foot'. Is it painful? You even linked to the Wikipedia page yourself in your own post.
Here is an image of Sirius by the Chandra X-ray Observatory.
More information
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sirius#System

Any System has its unique identity. System’s Name cannot be used in plural to indicate distinct elements of which it is made. Before the discovery of Sirius System, Sirius was an identity of a single star and after the discovery Sirius is still a valid identity of Sirius System. In both cases, Sirius is in singular form.

The singular form used in this verse for Sirius is perfectly valid for Sirius System. Moreover, do not undermine the verse:

“And was at a distance of but TWO BOW-LENGTHS or (even) nearer;”
An-Najm (53)
-Verse 9-

http://earthsky.org/space/how-astronomer...uble-stars

This chapter of the star also would have also been a perfect opportunity for Allah to tell us how astronauts as supposed to do Salat and fast. Since Sirius is two stars, if you lived in the Sirius system, which star would be used to determined prayer times and Ramadan fasts? Would you have to pray ten times a day? And how would you find the Qibla in the Sirius system?

In regard to Embryology here is a good video:
PZ Myers (an embryologist) argues embryology with Islamists
We see the two bumbling buffoons Hamza Tzortis and Adnan Rashid demonstrate how little they know about science and history. So funny! P. Z. Myers demonstrates that the author of the Quran used incorrect Greek science!

1. If P. Z. Myers think that Greeks had the knowledge on different stages of foetus development and someone has copied that information in Quran then P. Z. Myers should give an authentic record on the foundation of which he is accusing Quran for coping thing. Up until today, he failed to provide a record that can be taken as evidence. In the absence of such evidence, Myers is in place of a liar.

2. Please have a look at the following article which compared how Indians and Greeks were perceiving embryological stages and how Quran defined those embryological stages.

http://www.islamicwritings.org/quran/med...mbryology/

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

Simply quote the verses with the phrase “SENT DOWN” and I will show you how I know the meaning of those verses.

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

If you do not know which thing to correct first that means you do not have idea which thing is incorrect.

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.

Have you ever given any historical reference along with your arguments? Having that deficiency, do you think you have better understanding on the topic?

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.

Why is Quran mentioning, “Roasted through?”
Why is Quran mentioning that replacement of skin is necessary for them to feel penalty?

This verse says:

“as often as their SKINS are ROASTED THROUGH, We shall change them for FRESH SKINS, that they may TASTE THE PENALTY”.

Is not that detail enough to give a clear understand?

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.

It is a FALSE LOGIC.

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?

Not at all. Man’s words always are influenced by the popular concepts. However, Quran does not reflect any popular idea of its time rather by giving skin a preference over the heart it had challenged all popular concepts concerning pain caused by burning skin.

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?  

You are trying to dramatize a common sense idea. Not heart, not big toe, and not donkey feel the pain of burning other than the person who is going through that burning experience.

“The Muslims are like a single person. IF HIS EYE IS IN PAIN, HIS WHOLE BODY IS IN PAIN, AND IF HIS HEAD IS IN PAIN, HIS WHOLE BODY IS IN PAIN."

Hadith 6589
Chapter 17
Book 45 (Nurturing Ties and Manners)
Sahih Muslim
Volume 6
Translated by:
Nasiruddin al-Khattab

The quran gives no information about what is sensing the pain, just that having your skin burned hurts and that is all.

Fire causes nasty pain is an enough warning for a rational person so he/she could take proper measures for keeping himself/herself away from hell fire in any/all circumstances.

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

Perhaps you are the one who is ignoring and rejecting the truth. Does it matter for anyone to have 3rd degree burn or 10th degree burn if he has no idea of DEGREES?

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.

That means you think that in ancient time there were people who had the information about stars similar to what general people have in today’s world even though ancient did not have the telescopes and advanced techniques of calculations.

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.

Your previous response is BEGGING THE QUESTION.

The scientific facts AS WE KNOW THEM are not trivial.

Ancient people had not even the least idea about today’s scientific facts. Saying they did know something about contemporary scientific facts is a self-deception. All modern scientific discoveries were made possible because of cutting-edge scientific tools, which were not present even in the dreams of ancient people.

The shitty explanations given in the Quran about mud turning to semen turning to blood clots is not only trivial. . . it can be observed in autopsy, stillbirths, etc. It's also factually imprecise.

Is there any living being on earth, which is not a product of clay i.e. soil and water?

Do not hasten to answer. Better, you ponder over this question rather than giving a reckless response.

I didn't say there was any misrepresentation. I'm saying you are reading into the Quran modern knowledge which the actual words in that text do not demonstrate those writers to have had. What they DID have was eyes and language-- and their observations are consistent with that.

I ask you to go out in the night along with your eye and language skills and look at the sky. Then come back and tell me using your language skills that your eyes has clearly seen how UNIVERSE IS EXPANDING.

Morals like jihad? Like torture? Like subjugating women? I'll pass.

Do not you know people in the west are fond of Jihad, Torture, and subjugating women? Otherwise, why they are accepting Islam as their religion?

I never said they had knowledge about specific scientific facts. I said they had eyes. They could see, for example, that where a river runs into the ocean, there seems to be a line which divides the two bodies (specifially, by their differences in color). I've been to the ocean, and this is a simple and common sight. You apparently have not been to such a place, or know anyone who has, or you wouldn't think it was a miracle.

Although you or anyone else cannot bring even one historical record that may give perfect sense that ancient people had idea about halocline yet for the sake of argument I agree that perhaps someone had observed this phenomenon somewhere in the Arabian Desert (perhaps in some Oasis) and wrote about it in Quran.

But what about Darkness in Depth of a deep Ocean, Big Bang, Expanding Universe, etc. Were ancient people able to observe these phenomena with their bare eyes?

Stop calling clay and blood clots "scientific information." It doesn't require science. . . just simple observation. The things you keep calling miracles are a mix of observations and conjecture. . . some of which seems to be basically correct, and some of which (as in the case of foetus development) is a little off. This is consistent with smart and educated guys at a time in which scientific tools were too primivite to make more precise observations.

http://www.islamicwritings.org/quran/med...mbryology/

None of it. It's a combination of observation and conjecture, and you haven't demonstrated in any capacity the source of those observations and conjectures. All you done is make a question-begging assumption: that the people of the time were too primitive to know anything, so if they knew anything, it must have come from God. My position is that the ideas first of all don't really demonstrate any deep knowledge of the subjects you are talking about, and secondly that what they DID know is consistent with their powers of observation at the time.

What do you think, which OBSERVATION the ancient people are trying to convey in this verse?

“Were they to see a piece of the sky falling (on them), they would (only) say: "Clouds gathered in heaps!"”
Ath-Thuur (52)
-Verse 44-

My position: they wrote what they knew.

You mean to say they knew how universe is expanding or how Dark Ocean is in its depths.

Your position: they couldn't know anything, therefore God.

My position is far simpler and more supportable than yours, and no amount of word salad, special pleading or unfounded assumptions on your part will change that.

You have yet to create your position by proving how Ancient people learned about Expanding Universe without having the luxury of telescopes and modern scientific techniques.

[The Grand Nudger]

Oh, I give up, -must- have been magic.  Guess what.....still don't care, still not joining your club.  Satisfied?

[Fidel_Castronaut]

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.

Perhaps, I am the only person who is giving authentic historical and scientific references along with my arguments and justifications. You guys are rejecting Quran based on mere speculations. Only saying Quran is a comic book is not adequate.

RE-read bold part. There is no reason to believe anything you are positing based on the (little to no) evidence you have given.

Everything you have posited thus far is ignored for this reason alone.

I'm with Rhythm. No reason to join your club based on what you've said.

[bennyboy]

The scientific facts AS WE KNOW THEM are not trivial.

Ancient people had not even the least idea about today’s scientific facts. Saying they did know something about contemporary scientific facts is a self-deception. All modern scientific discoveries were made possible because of cutting-edge scientific tools, which were not present even in the dreams of ancient people.

And the Quran doesn't show a deep understanding of scientific facts, either.

Is there any living being on earth, which is not a product of clay i.e. soil and water?

Do not hasten to answer. Better, you ponder over this question rather than giving a reckless response.

First of all, this idea was in the Old Testament, maybe 1000 years before the Quran. Second, it is not a scientific idea, but a statement of observable reality. Also, clay doesn't turn into sperm, there's a lot more to it than that. Important details are missing, and now you say. . . wait for it. . . "Yeahbut the Quran is not a science text book."

I ask you to go out in the night along with your eye and language skills and look at the sky. Then come back and tell me using your language skills that your eyes has clearly seen how UNIVERSE IS EXPANDING.

Look at any number of mythologies, and they talking about how something comes from nothing, then grows into even more. Unless you know WHY the Quran writers said that, you do not know that they are talking about the expanding of the universe as we know it, or just the idea that God has the capacity to make stuff.

Do not you know people in the west are fond of Jihad, Torture, and subjugating women? Otherwise, why they are accepting Islam as their religion?

I can't speak for anyone who has access to Western education but chooses a fairy tale for their world view. Maybe they weren't paying attention in science class, or didn't go on to university and study 1st-year logic?

Although you or anyone else cannot bring even one historical record that may give perfect sense that ancient people had idea about halocline yet for the sake of argument I agree that perhaps someone had observed this phenomenon somewhere in the Arabian Desert (perhaps in some Oasis) and wrote about it in Quran.

I don't need to deeply study history to tell you that anybody with eyes can see that where a river joins the ocean, you can see a line between the two patches of color. I've seen it myself, and I have to assume that desert people like the prophet Mohammed weren't as stupid and uneducated as you keep insisting they are.

But what about Darkness in Depth of a deep Ocean, Big Bang, Expanding Universe, etc. Were ancient people able to observe these phenomena with their bare eyes?

I don't find the words Big Bang anywhere in the Quran. What I find are relatively ambiguous statements that you choose to insist mean the Big Bang.

You mean to say they knew how universe is expanding or how Dark Ocean is in its depths.

No. You haven't established that they knew the universe is expanding. As for the darkness of the ocean, I'm surprised by your lack of life experience. If you go into the ocean and dive just a couple meters down, you can instantly discover that the ocean is dark. I mean, seriously. Just go swimming and fucking look down. It's dark down there.

You have yet to create your position by proving how Ancient people learned about Expanding Universe without having the luxury of telescopes and modern scientific techniques.

You have to first prove they were actually talking about the expansion of the physical universe, not just a metaphor for God creating a bunch of stuff. But you can't, because you take a single line of scripture, and add a hundred lines of metacommentary and interpretation.

[paulpablo]

Why is Quran mentioning that replacement of skin is necessary for them to feel penalty?

This verse says:

“as often as their SKINS are ROASTED THROUGH, We shall change them for FRESH SKINS, that they may TASTE THE PENALTY”.

Is not that detail enough to give a clear understand?

1)  The quran is not mentioning that it is NECESSARY, it says that they may taste the penalty.
If I say I am opening a door so that I may leave the house, I am not saying that it is essential, needed to be done so that I can leave my house.
If I say it is necessary for me to open a door in order to leave the house I'm saying that it is essential, needed to be done.
I am opening a door so that I may leave my house, but I may also smash through a window and get out that way, I might climb through a hole in the wall or dig a tunnel out of the house, I MAY do many things in order to leave the house. 
So the quran is giving no specific information, it is basically saying its going to burn the skin repeatedly as a form of punishment.  So that they may feel the torment.

The quran is not saying anything about what is necessary in order to feel pain.

The only information given is that burning skin causes pain.

2) As we already discussed this is just one of the many methods people could feel punishment, other organs also have pain receptors.

[paulpablo]

Perhaps you are the one who is ignoring and rejecting the truth. Does it matter for anyone to have 3rd degree burn or 10th degree burn if he has no idea of DEGREES?

I don't understand why you're uncomfortable answering a question that only requires a simple yes or no.   Do you think people in ancient times would have EXPERIENCED 3rd or 4th degree burns.

I did NOT ask the question would they have understood 3rd degree burns, the degrees of burns is just a term we are using in order to communicate with each other.
I could just as easily ask, do you believe ancient people experienced severe enough burns to cause nerve damage?
It doesn't matter if they knew what nerves were or not.

Remember we are talking about the quran?  That was the topic wasn't it?  The quran doesn't mention degrees of burns or nerve damage or anything but you seem to think the quran mentions the symptoms of 3rd degree/severe burns.

So I'm asking you a simple question, do you think ancient people experienced the symptoms of 3rd degree burns?  Yes or no will be fine, I don't need an in depth answer.

[ReptilianPeon]

Bringing my sledge hammer to a pillow fight again I suppose...

Clearly Harris has no answer on how to fast anywhere other than the Earth. Muhammad didn't know people would be needed to fast in space otherwise there would be Iyaht or Hadith address the topic. Allah, for some reason, didn't foresee this. The Quran even says Allah created humans to be weak and yet it is left up to weak humans to retrofit the Quran.

You're missing the point on embryology and it actually doesn't matter what anybody else says because the Quran gives incorrect information. The Quran says that bones come before the flesh/skin which is wrong. Hamza was forced to admit he was wrong after talking to P. Z. Myers.
Let's adress the word Alaqah

First look at this photographs of embryological stages (that do not come from a crooked Dawah website):
http://embryo.soad.umich.edu/carnStages/...uttons.gif
Also:
https://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/embry.../Main_Page
I have a number of problems with the Quran besides it not clarifying which stage of embryological development it's referring to.

1. Embryos do not look like leeches. They only way Embryos can look like leeches is if you remove the yolk sack (part of the embryo) and take the photograph from a very particular angle (i.e. be dishonest).
2. Also, the embryo does not cling to anything, in floats in the womb.
3. An embryo does not look like "chewed flesh". This is an insult to the intelligence.
4. Does not look like a clot either.

All verse translations below are Abullah Yusuf Ali.

I have another problem with the Quran and this is historical, not scientific. The Quran claims that Mecca is thousands of years old, the first settlement on Earth even:
3:96 Lo! the first Sanctuary appointed for mankind was that at Becca, a blessed place, a guidance to the peoples;

2:127 And when Abraham and Ishmael were raising the foundations of the House, (Abraham prayed): Our Lord! Accept from us (this duty). Lo! Thou, only Thou, art the Hearer, the Knower.

How can this be demonstrated archeologically? You would need to prove that Abraham existed and show that people have been visiting Mecca from the time of Abraham all the way to the time of Muhammad. We would expect to see lots of evidence for human activity around the site of the Masjid al-Haram since ancient times, but we do not.

Next, there are verses that appears to contradict Tawheed. The Holy Spirit isn't something expect from Allah as the Quran is a rejection of Christianity and people have all sort of wonderful arguments against the Trinity. They say the Christian go isn't one and yet Allah has a Holy Spirit too:

97:4 Therein come down the angels and the Spirit by Allah's permission, on every errand:
If we look at the Tafsir for 97:4 we see Al-Jalalayn agrees with my analysis.

12:87 "O my sons! go ye and enquire about Joseph and his brother, and never give up hope of Allah's Soothing Mercy: truly no one despairs of Allah's Soothing Mercy, except those who have no faith."

It's not clear in the Yusuf Ali translation but Al-Jalalayn agrees that Iyah 12:87 is referring to the Spirit of Allah:
http://www.quranx.com/Tafsirs/12.87


Quran 25:53 is also scientifically inaccurate:
It is He Who has let free the two bodies of flowing water: One palatable and sweet, and the other salt and bitter; yet has He made a barrier between them, a partition that is forbidden to be passed.

Stopspamming addresses the dishonesty surrounding this Iyaht beautifully and mixes fresh and salt water together, something anybody can try out at home.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXaf7wwt634+

[comet]

"miracles" what things that happen 1 in a million times? it might happen 7000 times today.

record all the seriously sick people in a hospital for five years. Assign a proper probability function that describes the likely hood of said events. The following year make a prediction on how many you might see in the next two years. It's a bell curve thong.

We deploy statistics sometimes to describe repeating events that we are not sure what the mechanism is causing the event we see.