The Quran stressing on the link between winds and clouds: rain

[Anomalocaris]

Does Koran stress the link between fart and stench, sun and light, water and wet?

[robvalue]

I'll take a stab at the unspoken implication here.

The people who wrote this book "knew" things that they couldn't reasonably have known about at their point of scientific development (zero). This means that the information is likely to have come from an external source.

This wouldn't be too bad, if it was to stop there. It would better to just say we don't know how they "knew" these things, but I'll settle for the above. But we all know that the further implications are going to be:

Since their information source was right about this thing (and whatever other examples), we should trust the rest of what the book has to say too.

Nope. That is hopelessly flawed thinking. You're in a position where you'll literally believe anything this source says, about any subject. That is a total surrender of all scepticism. It's reasonable to have confidence in someone speaking about a certain field of which they have demonstrated a very firm grasp, but to extend that to every word they have to say is not justified.

At the very best, we could say that we have some confidence that everything the source says has some credibility and is worth looking into. But as we all know, when viewed without the lens of prior belief, all these books come off as exactly the kind of ramblings you'd expect from a primitive culture with zero scientific knowledge. It's guesswork at best, and those wanting to find meaning just fill in the blanks.

[Minimalist]

Most ancient religions had a wind god.  Even now, when the FSM rises from the pot in a cloud of heavenly steam he cuts a fart which causes the wind to blow.

Haven't you figured out by now that no one is impressed with your fucking koran?

[Angrboda]

I'll take a stab at the unspoken implication here.

The people who wrote this book "knew" things that they couldn't reasonably have known about at their point of scientific development (zero). This means that the information is likely to have come from an external source.

This wouldn't be too bad, if it was to stop there. It would better to just say we don't know how they "knew" these things, but I'll settle for the above. But we all know that the further implications are going to be:

Since their information source was right about this thing (and whatever other examples), we should trust the rest of what the book has to say too.

Nope. That is hopelessly flawed thinking. You're in a position where you'll literally believe anything this source says, about any subject. That is a total surrender of all scepticism. It's reasonable to have confidence in someone speaking about a certain field of which they have demonstrated a very firm grasp, but to extend that to every word they have to say is not justified.

At the very best, we could say that we have some confidence that everything the source says has some credibility and is worth looking into. But as we all know, when viewed without the lens of prior belief, all these books come off as exactly the kind of ramblings you'd expect from a primitive culture with zero scientific knowledge. It's guesswork at best, and those wanting to find meaning just fill in the blanks.

There's an even more fundamental error going on there. They assume that because the person is right about something that they, presumably, shouldn't have had knowledge about, that it isn't simply unexplained, but rather that the source of their knowledge was an omniscient God. Not only is this a non sequitur, but they are using this as the basis for believing other claims in the book, such as that Mohammed spoke to the angel Gabriel, based upon that non-sequitur, and using that as confirmation that the source of the things in the book was supernatural. It's an incestuous little circle of one fallacious conclusion supporting another fallacious conclusion, which supports yet another fallacious conclusion, and so on.

[robvalue]

I'll take a stab at the unspoken implication here.

The people who wrote this book "knew" things that they couldn't reasonably have known about at their point of scientific development (zero). This means that the information is likely to have come from an external source.

This wouldn't be too bad, if it was to stop there. It would better to just say we don't know how they "knew" these things, but I'll settle for the above. But we all know that the further implications are going to be:

Since their information source was right about this thing (and whatever other examples), we should trust the rest of what the book has to say too.

Nope. That is hopelessly flawed thinking. You're in a position where you'll literally believe anything this source says, about any subject. That is a total surrender of all scepticism. It's reasonable to have confidence in someone speaking about a certain field of which they have demonstrated a very firm grasp, but to extend that to every word they have to say is not justified.

At the very best, we could say that we have some confidence that everything the source says has some credibility and is worth looking into. But as we all know, when viewed without the lens of prior belief, all these books come off as exactly the kind of ramblings you'd expect from a primitive culture with zero scientific knowledge. It's guesswork at best, and those wanting to find meaning just fill in the blanks.

There's an even more fundamental error going on there.  They assume that because the person is right about something that they, presumably, shouldn't have had knowledge about, that it isn't simply unexplained, but rather that the source of their knowledge was an omniscient God.  Not only is this a non sequitur, but they are using this as the basis for believing other claims in the book, such as that Mohammed spoke to the angel Gabriel, based upon that non-sequitur, and using that as confirmation that the source of the things in the book was supernatural.  It's an incestuous little circle of one fallacious conclusion supporting another fallacious conclusion, which supports yet another fallacious conclusion, and so on.

You're absolutely right. The (broken) thinking is that a person producing the unexplained gets to explain it without question. Matt D made a good example of this. If a magician manages to "move" a card from one hand to the other, and you have no idea how it could have possibly have been done, he doesn't get to declare that he teleported the card.

[pocaracas]

The cycle of rain is discussed with great detail in the Quran:

Sura 30, The Quran:
( 48 )   It is Allah who sends the winds, and they stir the clouds and spread them in the sky however He wills, and He makes them fragments so you see the rain emerge from within them. And when He causes it to fall upon whom He wills of His servants, immediately they rejoice
( 49 )   Although they were, before it was sent down upon them - before that, in despair.

The clouds are linked directly with the winds; indicating their light weight and movement as God pleases with the direction of the winds.
This is a great find if you have no science books that tell you about the cycle of the rain.

Another verse that discussed the matter:

Sura 35, The Quran:
( 9 )   And it is Allah who sends the winds, and they stir the clouds, and We drive them to a dead land and give life thereby to the earth after its lifelessness. Thus is the resurrection.

You know the fundamental characteristic of a cycle is that it is cyclical...

In that book, winds move clouds, clouds produce rain, everyone rejoices...
But... how do you then get from everyone rejoices to winds and clouds, again?

[Minimalist]

8th century desert dwellers would have had to be stupid indeed not to notice that puffy white clouds do not bring rain but that dark gray clouds do.  Rainfall in a desert is an important event and one imagines they would have spent a lot of time noticing when it was likely and when it was not.

Don't need fucking allah as an explanation... any more than the Romans needed Boreas.

[WinterHold]

So, people were not capable of drawing a connection between clouds and rain before the Koran?

*Winds and clouds. The verse stressed on that. Winds were pinpointed as the cause of clouds to rise up. People in the past didn't know that as far as I know.

[Angrboda]

So, people were not capable of drawing a connection between clouds and rain before the Koran?

*Winds and clouds. The verse stressed on that. Winds were pinpointed as the cause of clouds to rise up. People in the past didn't know that as far as I know.

It doesn't say anything about causing them to "rise up." It says the winds stir the clouds and spreads them in the sky. You don't think people could have figured that out based on observation? Pull your head out.

[chimp3]

So, people were not capable of drawing a connection between clouds and rain before the Koran?

*Winds and clouds. The verse stressed on that. Winds were pinpointed as the cause of clouds to rise up. People in the past didn't know that as far as I know.

So people did not feel a wind and see the clouds moving across the sky before the Koran? The Koranic verses do not speak of the formation of clouds. Gods never know more than their creators. The iron  age writers of the Koran were ignorant compared to the average grade schooler today. Allah is more ignorant than a fifth grader today.