"Why not a proof/Sign/indication" - challenge and various responses to it in Quran.

[WinterHold]

Peer reviews of one's conclusions is a correct thing Magi; but even the jury that might produce these studies is not quite "unbiased".
Eventually it comes to you and listening to your inner voice.

That's not how peer review works. If scientist x makes an observation, it doesn't count as evidence if scientist y can't make the same observation. If scientist x obtains data from an experiment, that data - even if it's accurate - must be discounted if scientist y can't reproduce the experiment.

Scientists are just as biased as everyone else; but the scientific method is deliberatly designed to reduce or even remove those biases as much as is possible.

Blind assumption that everybody in the jury is doing the experiment "honestly"; is a blind slack cutting in the sake of the jury's authenticity.
I know what peer review mean; and that is not what I'm presenting here.

I'm presenting that humans tend to repeat the same actions of others; so the trials and experiments get repeated despite having different judges; and that produces identical opinions; or in other words: biased opinions.

Scientific experiments are totally different than philosophical ones, or historical ones.
You can smell bias when the peers chosen are usually from the same field of study. I just think so many people are subject to bias in their opinion and conclusions.

[Aoi Magi]

That's not how peer review works. If scientist x makes an observation, it doesn't count as evidence if scientist y can't make the same observation. If scientist x obtains data from an experiment, that data - even if it's accurate - must be discounted if scientist y can't reproduce the experiment.

Scientists are just as biased as everyone else; but the scientific method is deliberatly designed to reduce or even remove those biases as much as is possible.

Blind assumption that everybody in the jury is doing the experiment "honestly"; is a blind slack cutting in the sake of the jury's authenticity.
I know what peer review mean; and that is not what I'm presenting here.

I'm presenting that humans tend to repeat the same actions of others; so the trials and experiments get repeated despite having different judges; and that produces identical opinions; or in other words: biased opinions.

Scientific experiments are totally different than philosophical ones, or historical ones.
You can smell bias when the peers chosen are usually from the same field of study. I just think so many people are subject to bias in their opinion and conclusions.

If one doesn't do the experiment "honestly" they are going to get caught out by others performing that experiment. That's how many fraudsters have been outed so far... by the scientist community itself.

And what do you mean with "historical ones"? Archaeological finds are indeed testable and are peer reviewed, just like any other branch of science.

[Whateverist]

Oh for fuck's sake. Every one of his threads is the fucking same horseshit over and over.

I like the way he messages the horse shit into funny shapes.  This one looks like a horsey.

[Cyberman]

Blind assumption that everybody in the jury is doing the experiment "honestly"; is a blind slack cutting in the sake of the jury's authenticity.
I know what peer review mean; and that is not what I'm presenting here.

You clearly don't know what it is or how it works, because you go on to say this despite it being explained to you:

I'm presenting that humans tend to repeat the same actions of others; so the trials and experiments get repeated despite having different judges; and that produces identical opinions; or in other words: biased opinions.

Yeah; the fundamental flaw in the scientific method is its bias towards the truth.

Scientific experiments are totally different than philosophical ones, or historical ones.
You can smell bias when the peers chosen are usually from the same field of study. I just think so many people are subject to bias in their opinion and conclusions.

Are you fucking serious? You don't think that other scientists would seize the opportunity to overturn the scholarly consensus and make themselves incredibly famous?

As I said, scientists might be biased to one position or another, but if they're doing science as opposed to simply proselytising then the scientific method is as impartial as it gets.

[Mystic]

Different then the signs proving God are the signs proving a Prophet from God.

 And We did not show them a sign but it was greater than its sister, and We overtook them with chastisement that they may return.[43:38]


The first sign was a staff turning in to a snake, the next was a bright light emitting from his hand that would have blinded people due to its illumination but it was without evil. And so on and so forth, bigger signs than previous one.

A sufficient sign would be sufficient, what happens when people demand more signs usually is not really to be certain, but they are trying to move the goal posts.



[Shakir 6:109] And they swear by Allah with the strongest of their oaths, that if a sign came to them they would most certainly believe in it. Say: Signs are only with Allah; and what should make you know that when it comes they will not believe?
[Shakir 6:110] And We will turn their hearts and their sights, even as they did not believe in it the first time, and We will leave them in their inordinacy, blindly wandering on.


Once a soul commits to rebellion against proofs and signs of a guide from God like Moses, there is not much that can be done for that person to believe.

If a sign is a proof then a sufficiently clear proof should prove the case to the person and be enough.  To move the goal posts over and over again, of course, is something, and in this regard Quran says:

[Shakir 17:59] And nothing could have hindered Us that We should send signs except that the first ones(from your people demanding such signs) rejected them; and We gave to Samood the she-camel-- a manifest sign-- but on her account they did injustice, and We do not send signs but to cause fear.


When signs of God to not even cause fear in the people demanding them, there is no longer a point in sending them.  It would just make them more bold against God and the Guide because they are bending the Prophet and the Lord of the universe like a play thing to their will:

[Shakir 17:90] And they say: We will by no means believe in you until you cause a fountain to gush forth from the earth for us.
[Shakir 17:91] Or you should have a garden of palms and grapes in the midst of which you should cause rivers to flow forth, gushing out.
[Shakir 17:92] Or you should cause the heaven to come down upon us in pieces as you think, or bring Allah and the angels face to face (with us).
[Shakir 17:93] Or you should have a house of gold, or you should ascend into heaven, and we will not believe in your ascending until you bring down to us a book which we may read. Say: Glory be to my Lord; am I aught but a mortal messenger?
[Shakir 17:94] And nothing prevented people from believing when the guidance came to them except that they said: What! has Allah raised up a mortal to be a messenger?
[Shakir 17:95] Say: Had there been in the earth angels walking about as settlers, We would certainly have sent down to them from the heaven an angel as a messenger.
[Shakir 17:96] Say: Allah suffices as a witness between me and you; surely He is Aware of His servants, Seeing.


Next, we will look at the common conditions that prevented people from accepting not only such clear signs for the Prophets but also ignored the essential philosophical arguments by the Prophets.

Some of these are "mockery" "joking laughing behaviour" "deeming the followers of the Prophets as low people and they are much more higher in class then them" "rebellion against themselves" and "envy towards God grace on his chosen ones" and "due to that God has given them the authority" (power struggle) and "following what our forefathers have followed".  

All these manifest in different ways some more so in some class of disbelieving humans than others, but overall they are found in every disbeliever, and it stems from a firm belief in the Satanic magic of dark forces which is believed heedlessly and a false identity is heightened by which is meant to break by God and his Messengers, which is the primary reason they are rebelled against.

[WinterHold]

If one doesn't do the experiment "honestly" they are going to get caught out by others performing that experiment. That's how many fraudsters have been outed so far... by the scientist community itself.

And what do you mean with "historical ones"? Archaeological finds are indeed testable and are peer reviewed, just like any other branch of science.

It's not pessimism from my side; but it's a claim not to trust humans.
Archeological findings mean different things sometimes, take the ancient astronaut community, I can join the masses making fun of them or listen to a totally different story being told, based on the same archeological finding.

I don't watch "ancient aliens"; neither am I supporting it. But I do believe archeological evidence shows signs of advanced civilizations, and the mainstream analysis is quite....biased?

[The Grand Nudger]

-and yet you trust the humans that wrote magic book, no matter how ludicrous their -many- claims.

[WinterHold]

Blind assumption that everybody in the jury is doing the experiment "honestly"; is a blind slack cutting in the sake of the jury's authenticity.
I know what peer review mean; and that is not what I'm presenting here.

You clearly don't know what it is or how it works, because you go on to say this despite it being explained to you:

I don't quite trust the people who wage the people who proved to wage peer reviews that lead to invasions of places like Palestine and Iraq.

I'm presenting that humans tend to repeat the same actions of others; so the trials and experiments get repeated despite having different judges; and that produces identical opinions; or in other words: biased opinions.

Yeah; the fundamental flaw in the scientific method is its bias towards the truth.

Only if you have self respect and respect to the reader

Scientific experiments are totally different than philosophical ones, or historical ones.
You can smell bias when the peers chosen are usually from the same field of study. I just think so many people are subject to bias in their opinion and conclusions.

Are you fucking serious? You don't think that other scientists would seize the opportunity to overturn the scholarly consensus and make themselves incredibly famous?

As I said, scientists might be biased to one position or another, but if they're doing science as opposed to simply proselytising then the scientific method is as impartial as it gets.

Yes I'm dead serious; Cyberman!
People and humans in general cannot be trusted, 100% certainty is impossible, that's why there are athiests -for example-. Atheism is born from the lack of trust in humans. Peer reviews are carried out by the same creature; with the same biased reality towards lust, cash, personal gain...etc.

If scientists were so pure; the scientific method would've gave birth to a mechanism to prevent atomic weapons from hurting people.
They would've made medicine cheap.
Frankly;humans are a-hole. And trusting them is a very big mistake.

[Whateverist]

Well how else is he to access the infinite wisdom of god other than to believe that wisdom was written into said magic book? That way he can argue confidently that the rest of us are not in touch with the ultimate .. *and thank gawd for that*

[Aoi Magi]

Archeological findings mean different things sometimes, take the ancient astronaut community, I can join the masses making fun of them or listen to a totally different story being told, based on the same archeological finding.

I don't watch "ancient aliens"; neither am I supporting it. But I do believe archeological evidence shows signs of advanced civilizations, and the mainstream analysis is quite....biased?

No Atlas, see there is a very big difference between the "ancient aliens" community and the actual scientist community. Archaeologists while encountering a past monument might not always know how it was made, and they will claim that they don't know. Then they'll present their hypothesis on how it might have been built and move on to finding proof for their hypothesis. On the other hand, a person from the AA community simply points to that gap in knowledge and claims "aliens did it". There is no attempt to form an actual hypothesis and/or back it up with evidence.

Also, regarding your or any other holy scriptures, they are written by humans claiming to be inspired by god. There is no reason to believe that claim if you don't trust humans. And in reality you shouldn't trust humans, rather you should base your trust upon evidence that can be verified and re-verified as needed.