His throne is on water..stunning scientific theory that the Quran foretold 1400 y ago

[ReptilianPeon]

There is so much to be said about the following things:


I'm astonished by Mohammed's -peace be upon him- great wide mind, that could :

1-Decipher ancient Egyptian language
2-Travel to Greece and learn there
3-Write in Arabic, despite him not knowing how to read or write
4-Learn in different languages, while he can't even write in his own language.

It all hinges on restrictive conditions and circular reasoning. I could author a book claiming it's from Allah and I'm illiterate and people didn't know I was literate they'd have to take my word for it. You don't need to be literate to smart; studies have shown the minds of illiterate people work differently to those who was literate .

One thing I will say is: Gondēshāpūr, Persia. Some of the Sahsbah went there. I'll link to some resources when I get home. Secondly, Muhammad didn't need to know Egyptian. I believe your statement about Egyptian relates to the Pharaoh.

There was a topic posted in December of 2013 about the Quranic use of the title Pharaoh:

http://atheistforums.org/thread-22923.ht...raoh+Quran

[WinterHold]

There is so much to be said about the following things:


I'm astonished by Mohammed's -peace be upon him- great wide mind, that could :

1-Decipher ancient Egyptian language
2-Travel to Greece and learn there
3-Write in Arabic, despite him not knowing how to read or write
4-Learn in different languages, while he can't even write in his own language.

It all hinges on restrictive conditions and circular reasoning. I could author a book claiming it's from Allah and I'm illiterate and people didn't know I was literate they'd have to take my word for it. You don't need to be literate to smart; studies have shown the minds of illiterate people work differently to those who was literate .

One thing I will say is: Gondēshāpūr, Persia. Some of the Sahsbah went there. I'll link to some resources when I get home. Secondly, Muhammad didn't need to know Egyptian. I believe your statement about Egyptian relates to the Pharaoh.

There was a topic posted in December of 2013 about the Quranic use of the title Pharaoh:

http://atheistforums.org/thread-22923.ht...raoh+Quran

MNMP I will comment to your povs, and to the rest, but I wanted to answer this first.
Some of the Sahaba "WERE" from there; Salman Al Faresy is one of them

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

He contributed with the idea of the trench in the failed invasion of Madina; in the siege that was well known as the battle of the trench. Trenches and such tactics were foreign to Arabs.

As for Ancient Egyptians..I didn't get you, that topic was interesting, but what I meant to say is that Mohammed existed in the era that hieroglyphic interpretation was lost:

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

After the loss of the knowledge of hieroglyphic writing, the decipherment of hieroglyphs remained an enduring puzzle which would only be solved in the 1820s by Jean-Francois Champollion, with the help of the. 

and continued to be used up until about 400 CE, when non-Christian temples were closed and their monumental use was no longer necessary.

Mohammed was born in the seventh century AD. hieroglyphs were out of business fir 200 years by then, it's not like the spread of knowledge was that easy.

Since harvesting iron from celestial projectiles is mentioned in ancient egyptian religion mainly.


As for the term pharoh, the Quran does contain foreign words; the book is for all of humanity after all. Pharoh, Taghut, Torah, Engeel (bible), Seggeel, Adan (Eden),...etc.

[ReptilianPeon]

In regards to embryology, Muhammad's erroneous knowledge about human embryos likely comes from Gondēshāpūr, probably via the 7th century Arab physician named Harith ibn Kalada*. The Salafi/Waabis Dawah people were so owned on Embryology in the Quran that they had to completely change their narrative. After Hamza forced himself upon the embryologist PZ Myers in Dublin, Ireland, he actually conceded that afterwards got a barrage of e-mails from people, who he previous had on puppet strings, who were now doubting the Quran. Don't make the same mistakes as the close-minded idiots suckling on Saudi penis.

*Harith ibn Kalada was trained in the Hellenic (Greek) sciences at the Persian School/Academy. And this elaborated on in my next link. I forgot the name so I had to spend some time searching; I knew Harith ibn Kalada existed just I forgot his name.

The Salafi/Wahaabis try to deny Harith ibn Kalada even existed (though I can't say that I've properly investigated the sources myself). That's their argument. They have also been known to deny the existence of Gondēshāpūr. I will be doing more investigation on Harith ibn Kalada hopefully.

You can read the paper (which I have not read in full myself; I was looking through it on the chance it had the name I was looking for, because I remembered Muhammad met some medical guy who went to Gondēshāpūr and I needed to refresh my memory):
Embryology in the Quran: Much Ado about Nothing by Captain Disguise (somebody who I believe is a native Arab speaker, though I'm not sure).
http://embryologyinthequran.blogspot.co.uk/
And also:
Download the paper itself
Remember, Muhammad was a merchant so he will have met loads of people on his extensive travels. There was not a supernatural force field preventing Muhammad from acquiring knowledge. The science in the Quran narrative degrades Muhammad by trying to convince people that Muhammad was completely retarded or something like that. I happen to think more highly of Muhammad than that: Muhammad was not an idiot

Video one:
You can watch part one of Hamza (and Adnan Rashid) VS scientists here:
(as one commentor on YouTube pointed out, at 3:35 in the video, even birds laugh at his nonsense.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5rNtEdptaY

Also note video two by Captain Disguise addressing the content of video one:
Hamza Tzortzis Refuted - Version 1 vs Version 1.1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fh0Wh7UGflY

[WinterHold]

In regards to embryology, Muhammad's erroneous knowledge about human embryos likely comes from Gondēshāpūr, probably via the 7th century Arab physician named Harith ibn Kalada*. The Salafi/Waabis Dawah people were so owned on Embryology in the Quran that they had to completely change their narrative. After Hamza forced himself upon the embryologist PZ Myers in Dublin, Ireland, he actually conceded that afterwards got a barrage of e-mails from people, who he previous had on puppet strings, who were now doubting the Quran. Don't make the same mistakes as the close-minded idiots suckling on Saudi penis.

*Harith ibn Kalada was trained in the Hellenic (Greek) sciences at the Persian School/Academy. And this elaborated on in my next link. I forgot the name so I had to spend some time searching; I knew Harith ibn Kalada existed just I forgot his name. 

The Salafi/Wahaabis try to deny Harith ibn Kalada even existed (though I can't say that I've properly investigated the sources myself). That's their argument. They have also been known to deny the existence of Gondēshāpūr. I will be doing more investigation on Harith ibn Kalada hopefully.

You can read the paper (which I have not read in full myself; I was looking through it on the chance it had the name I was looking for, because I remembered Muhammad met some medical guy who went to Gondēshāpūr and I needed to refresh my memory):
Embryology in the Quran: Much Ado about Nothing by Captain Disguise (somebody who I believe is a native Arab speaker, though I'm not sure).
http://embryologyinthequran.blogspot.co.uk/
And also:
Download the paper itself
Remember, Muhammad was a merchant so he will have met loads of people on his extensive travels. There was not a supernatural force field preventing Muhammad from acquiring knowledge. The science in the Quran narrative degrades Muhammad by trying to convince people that Muhammad was completely retarded or something like that. I happen to think more highly of Muhammad than that: Muhammad was not an idiot

Video one:
You can watch part one of Hamza (and Adnan Rashid) VS scientists here:
(as one commentor on YouTube pointed out, at 3:35 in the video, even birds laugh at his nonsense.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5rNtEdptaY

Also note video two by Captain Disguise addressing the content of video one:
Hamza Tzortzis Refuted - Version 1 vs Version 1.1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fh0Wh7UGflY

The greatest disaster that Muslims inherited, is claiming to be unique.
Unique as in claiming that Islam is one of a kind. Islam is an ancient religion, ancient as in existing since the dawn of history.

Hamza will never win, because the problem is in the goal he tries to prove. 
The Quran can contain things that other people have known ages before, it is even mentioned in the verses so baldly and clearly:

Sura 17
( 107 )   Say, "Believe in it or do not believe. Indeed, those who were given knowledge before it - when it is recited to them, they fall upon their faces in prostration,

( 108 )   And they say, "Exalted is our Lord! Indeed, the promise of our Lord has been fulfilled."
( 109 )   And they fall upon their faces weeping, and the Qur'an increases them in humble submission.
===
Sura 22
( 54 )   And so those who were given knowledge may know that it is the truth from your Lord and [therefore] believe in it, and their hearts humbly submit to it. And indeed is Allah the Guide of those who have believed to a straight path.
===

"Those who were given knowledge" is such an interesting phrase. So the Quran does acknowledge that there are other people who have knowledge, and reading the Quran will make both intersect; leading the honest of them to believe.

Notice that the knowledge here is not the religious knowledge. The religious knowledge has a different verse:

Sura 74
( 31 )   And We have not made the keepers of the 
Fire except angels. And We have not made their number except as a trial for those who disbelieve - that those who were given the Scripture will be convinced and those who have believed will increase in faith and those who were given the Scripture and the believers will not doubt and that those in whose hearts is hypocrisy and the disbelievers will say, "What does Allah intend by this as an example?" Thus does Allah leave astray whom He wills and guides whom He wills. And none knows the soldiers of your Lord except Him. And mention of the Fire is not but a reminder to humanity.

"Those who were given the scripture" is another interesting phrase; these are Christians, Jews. The remaining religions of God that survived, even though they are mere fragments.

Hamza should debate from this pov.

Technically, modern theories -like dark matter for example- are a total different case. If these are proved to be in the Quran, then that's it. It's done. And I believe -judge me for it- that judgement day is closer than the laptop I'm writing through, that if stuff like super fluid theory or dark matter turned out to be true..

 Anyhow, for a Muslim, these verses make me believe more, but I wouldn't claim it was uniquly mentioned in the Quran; maybe knowledge was given to others? even if they don't believe in God, as this verse states:

Sura 
( 18 )   Whoever should desire the immediate - We hasten for him from it what We will to whom We intend. Then We have made for him Hell, which he will [enter to] burn, censured and banished.

( 19 )   But whoever desires the Hereafter and exerts the effort due to it while he is a believer - it is those whose effort is ever appreciated [by Allah].
( 20 )   To each [category] We extend - to these and to those - from the gift of your Lord. And never has the gift of your Lord been restricted.

The debate should go like this.

[WinterHold]

I wanted to add, that the real argument that would destroy Islam -just like I told the member before you, MNMP-, would be an to find mistakes in the scientific refrences in the book.

[robvalue]

There aren't any scientific references. So you've set up an impossible standard there.

There are extremely vague statements which don't come anywhere close to being scientific.

Also, if you're allowed to interpret metaphorically all the things that are just plain incorrect, it's again an impossible standard to "prove it wrong".

The sensible position is to try and prove something positive about the book, not assume it is right and ask someone to prove it wrong. That's the argument from ignorance.

[ReptilianPeon]

I believe this video adequately sums up how I feel on 'scientific fact in the Quran':
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=77AyMPZkUSc

[paulpablo]

I wanted to add, that the real argument that would destroy Islam -just like I told the member before you, MNMP-, would be an to find mistakes in the scientific refrences in the book.

See if you can spot the difference between the scientific statement and the 1400 year old rambling of a cult leader in a religious book.

Example 1)
Gravity or gravitation is a natural phenomenon by which all things with energy are brought toward (or gravitate toward) one another, including stars, planets, galaxies and even light and sub atomic particles. Gravity is responsible for many of the structures in the universe, by creating spheres of  — where hydrogen fuses under pressure to form stars — and grouping them into galaxies. On Earth, gravity gives weight to physical objects and causes the tides. Gravity has an infinite range, although its effects become increasingly weaker on farther objects.

Example 2)
And his throne is above the none specific liquid type thing.

One has specific statements which can be proven or disproved with detailed specifics.  The other isn't specific, it's vague and can't be disproved.   I honestly can't disprove that this god character put a throne (whatever his throne might be) above the liquid type thing, whatever this liquid might be, it's not specific enough to prove or disprove.
One statement can be read and information can be learned from it, the other statement panders to suggestible people who are prone to confirmation bias and superstition, you can't use that information to learn anything, it means nothing unless you attach your own meaning to it.

[Jenny A]

Then you have a logical problem.  If the verse describing super fluid provides stunning proof of the divine inspiration of the Koran because the Koran predicted a scientific finding hundreds of years in advance, than it's describing a the failed hypothesis must be proof it's not being divinely inspired.  The only way out of the dilemma is to admit the truth, which is that it doesn't really describe super fluid or at the very least doesn't describe it well enough to be evidence of anything.

No, it means that my interpretation was wrong, that's all.
Mohammed  -the prophet- is dead. I can't ask him.

Though I can ask God, until we swim out to shore or drink from the void, nobody can be certain; Jenny.

Choose either:

1) The verses are too vague to be relied upon as a description of super fluids;

OR

2) The verses clearly describe super fluids.


In the first case there is nothing miraculous. In the second, the accuracy of the Koran hangs in the balance.

I choose 1. I don't think super fluid is even hinted at in the verses you quote. Therefore the hypothesis of super fluid is irrelivant to the accuracy or inaccuracy of the Koran.

You are attempting to choose 2 if the theory of super fluids is correct and 1 if is not. That won't wash. Either the verses are clear or they aren't. If they aren't, there is nothing miraculous about them. If they are, then disproving super fluids disproves them.

[Redbeard The Pink]

Ok, so are there any books of magic that you don't accept as god-inspired? Something non-Abrahamic, perhaps? If I could find a vague reference to fluid or liquid in one of those books, would you suddenly start believing in that? What if I found something about magical fluid in one of the Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings books? Would those be prophecies about super-fluid?


I'm just trying to parse out when a block of text that talks about liquids is or isn't a prophecy about super-fluid, and how you tell the difference.