IslamiCity Forum - Islamic Discussion Forum: Every living thing made from water.

Message

schmikbob stated, “Thales of Miletus proposed exactly
this over a millenium prior to the life of Mohammed.”

Thales thought that ALL
things were made of water. But the Quran states that LIVING things are made of
water, not ALL things.

If the Quran had repeated that, the Quran would both be
wrong, and open to accusations of being influenced by human thought.

But the Quran does not repeat Thales’ claim either word for
word or in meaning. The Quran, rather, says that all living things are made of
water. This is both correct and different than what Thales claimed.

When the Quran states that all living things are made from
water, the unbelievers feel pressured to explain away this miracle of the
Quran.

One of their arguments is to argue that the Quran is copying
knowledge that was already known, such as copying a Greek philosopher such as
Thales.

Thales states that water transforms into earth.

Wikipedia states, “Thales applied his method to objects that
changed to become other objects, such as water into earth….”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thales

The Quran does not repeat this error.

Thales believed that the world floated on water and that
earthquakes were from waves.

The Quran does not state that. 

If the Quran was copying Greek philosophers, the Quran would
have contained that, or at least something of what they were saying. But the
Quran does not do that.

Thales thought that all matter was living things. The belief
that all matter is alive is called, “Hylozoism.” He goes so far as to say that
magnets show life because of their ability to attract.

The Quran does not state that magnets are alive, evinced by
their ability to attract metals. The Quran makes it clear that regular matter
is lifeless

If the Quran was copying Thales, it could have copied that.
Rather, it rejected that.

Thales thought that amber and lodestone must be alive
because when rubbed together, they can attract objects.

The Quran does not make that error.

Thales thought that because all matter was alive, that there
is no difference between the living and the dead.

For Thales, “there could be no difference between the living
and the dead.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thales

The Quran, on the other hand, makes a sharp distinction
between the living and the dead, stating that God can bring the living out of
the dead (implying that they are two different things.)

We know today that living things are made of the stuff of
non-living matter, but as Thales’ beliefs show, such an idea was not obvious in
the ancient times.

Let’s look at some other Greek philosophers to see if the
Quran was copying them.

Anaximenes was another pre-Socratic Greek philosopher like
Thales. However, Anaximenes believed that everything is composed of air.

The Quran does not copy that.

If the Quran was copying Greek philosophers, the Quran would
have contained that.

Whereas Thales, who thought that all things were composed of
water, Anaximenes thought that all things were composed of air.

If the Quran was copying ancient Greek philosophers, the
Quran could have copied either of their statements, but the Quran does not copy
either.

Anaximenes asserted that “the earth let out an exhalation of
air that rarefied, ignited and became the stars.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaximenes_of_Miletus

The Quran does not state any such thing.

Anaxinemes asserted that “the moon and sun are likewise
considered to be flat and floating on streams of air.”

The Quran does not state any such thing.

Anaxinemes stated that earthquakes are caused by too much
moisture in the earth (causing it to swell), or not enough, causing it to
crack.

The Quran does not state any such thing.

Heraclitus thought that everything was made of fire.

“Every thing is really fire. “

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_in_the_Tragic_Age_of_the_Greeks

The Quran does not make any such mistake and does not assert
that.

Anaxagoras was a Greek philosopher who believed that
everything was already at its most basic form. For him, water could not be
reduced down to anything else such as oxygen and hydrogen. Bone could not be
reduced down to something more basic, hair could not be reduced down to more
basic elements. Everything in nature was already at its most basic form.

Again, the Quran does not copy the Greeks.

I can write ad infinitum about how the Quran does not copy
the ancient Greeks and how what they stated differed in sharp contrast to what
the Quran states, but suffice it for now that the examples are many.

The disbelievers who see the miracles of the Quran and know
in their hearts that it is a sign of Allah, but who do not want to believe
because it would require too much change in their lives and too much
responsibility, are forced to rationalize away the miracles.

They glibly blurt out that the Quran’s ideas already
existed, but a careful and detailed scrutiny shows that the Quran does not
randomly repeat the ideas of the ancients.

As the Quran predicts, the disbelievers will argue that the
Quran retells the stories of the ancients, but the Quran tells the believers to
respond that the Quran does not do that, and is instead the undoubted word of
the Almighty.

As for the human body being composed of liquids like blood,
as I stated earlier, the human body is only 8 percent blood, which is itself
not entirely water.

So, whereas it is obvious to us today that living things are
made mostly of water, such an idea was not obvious to the ancients, especially
when plants might give off a little thick sap, but can be chopped such as
trees, and can burn when used as firewood. 

Little by little, I will expose the fallacies of the
disbelievers who attempt to hide the miracles of Allah with illogical and
fallacious arguments.

I did a little in my last post, and God willing, I will do
so again in my next post. 

Author	Message
Beebok Male Islam Groupie Joined: 12 May 2012 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 72	Posted: 20 May 2012 at 10:05am
	schmikbob stated, “Thales of Miletus proposed exactly this over a millenium prior to the life of Mohammed.” Thales thought that ALL things were made of water. But the Quran states that LIVING things are made of water, not ALL things. If the Quran had repeated that, the Quran would both be wrong, and open to accusations of being influenced by human thought. But the Quran does not repeat Thales’ claim either word for word or in meaning. The Quran, rather, says that all living things are made of water. This is both correct and different than what Thales claimed. When the Quran states that all living things are made from water, the unbelievers feel pressured to explain away this miracle of the Quran. One of their arguments is to argue that the Quran is copying knowledge that was already known, such as copying a Greek philosopher such as Thales. Thales states that water transforms into earth. Wikipedia states, “Thales applied his method to objects that changed to become other objects, such as water into earth….” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thales The Quran does not repeat this error. Thales believed that the world floated on water and that earthquakes were from waves. The Quran does not state that. If the Quran was copying Greek philosophers, the Quran would have contained that, or at least something of what they were saying. But the Quran does not do that. Thales thought that all matter was living things. The belief that all matter is alive is called, “Hylozoism.” He goes so far as to say that magnets show life because of their ability to attract. The Quran does not state that magnets are alive, evinced by their ability to attract metals. The Quran makes it clear that regular matter is lifeless If the Quran was copying Thales, it could have copied that. Rather, it rejected that. Thales thought that amber and lodestone must be alive because when rubbed together, they can attract objects. The Quran does not make that error. Thales thought that because all matter was alive, that there is no difference between the living and the dead. For Thales, “there could be no difference between the living and the dead.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thales The Quran, on the other hand, makes a sharp distinction between the living and the dead, stating that God can bring the living out of the dead (implying that they are two different things.) We know today that living things are made of the stuff of non-living matter, but as Thales’ beliefs show, such an idea was not obvious in the ancient times. Let’s look at some other Greek philosophers to see if the Quran was copying them. Anaximenes was another pre-Socratic Greek philosopher like Thales. However, Anaximenes believed that everything is composed of air. The Quran does not copy that. If the Quran was copying Greek philosophers, the Quran would have contained that. Whereas Thales, who thought that all things were composed of water, Anaximenes thought that all things were composed of air. If the Quran was copying ancient Greek philosophers, the Quran could have copied either of their statements, but the Quran does not copy either. Anaximenes asserted that “the earth let out an exhalation of air that rarefied, ignited and became the stars.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaximenes_of_Miletus The Quran does not state any such thing. Anaxinemes asserted that “the moon and sun are likewise considered to be flat and floating on streams of air.” The Quran does not state any such thing. Anaxinemes stated that earthquakes are caused by too much moisture in the earth (causing it to swell), or not enough, causing it to crack. The Quran does not state any such thing. Heraclitus thought that everything was made of fire. “Every thing is really fire. “ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_in_the_Tragic_Age_of_the_Greeks The Quran does not make any such mistake and does not assert that. Anaxagoras was a Greek philosopher who believed that everything was already at its most basic form. For him, water could not be reduced down to anything else such as oxygen and hydrogen. Bone could not be reduced down to something more basic, hair could not be reduced down to more basic elements. Everything in nature was already at its most basic form. Again, the Quran does not copy the Greeks. I can write ad infinitum about how the Quran does not copy the ancient Greeks and how what they stated differed in sharp contrast to what the Quran states, but suffice it for now that the examples are many. The disbelievers who see the miracles of the Quran and know in their hearts that it is a sign of Allah, but who do not want to believe because it would require too much change in their lives and too much responsibility, are forced to rationalize away the miracles. They glibly blurt out that the Quran’s ideas already existed, but a careful and detailed scrutiny shows that the Quran does not randomly repeat the ideas of the ancients. As the Quran predicts, the disbelievers will argue that the Quran retells the stories of the ancients, but the Quran tells the believers to respond that the Quran does not do that, and is instead the undoubted word of the Almighty. As for the human body being composed of liquids like blood, as I stated earlier, the human body is only 8 percent blood, which is itself not entirely water. So, whereas it is obvious to us today that living things are made mostly of water, such an idea was not obvious to the ancients, especially when plants might give off a little thick sap, but can be chopped such as trees, and can burn when used as firewood. Little by little, I will expose the fallacies of the disbelievers who attempt to hide the miracles of Allah with illogical and fallacious arguments. I did a little in my last post, and God willing, I will do so again in my next post.
	IP Logged

schmikbob Male Agnostic Senior Member Joined: 27 June 2010 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 422	Posted: 21 May 2012 at 6:47am
	Beebok, why you would list errors made over a thousand years prior to the life of Mohammed and say "look, the Quran doesn't say these things" doesn't argue your case. Science had moved on from the beginnings of science by the 7 th century AD. I was simply saying that Mohammed and the Quran didn't have anything relevatory to say that wasn't already known in the 7th century. You can state all you want that the Quran implies this or that. You state "The Quran, on the other hand, makes a sharp distinction between the living and the dead, stating that God can bring the living out of the dead (implying that they are two different things.)" However why it would be an implication only is very clear. Generalities can say many things. That is why the Bible's Book of Revelations and other religion's prophecies can be made to say many things. They are all generalities written that way on purpose so later on they can be said to imply this or that. Overall, not particularly impressive.
	IP Logged

Beebok Male Islam Groupie Joined: 12 May 2012 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 72	Posted: 23 May 2012 at 7:28pm
	schmikbob stated, " I was simply saying that Mohammed and the Quran didn't have anything relevatory to say that wasn't already known in the 7th century. " Your evidence that the Quran's knowledge already existed was to claim that Thales already made such statements. I demonstrated that he did not make such statements that the Quran made, so your evidence that the Quran's knowledge already existed was wrong. Thales was a pre-Socratic philosopher. So, the implication of what you are saying by proposing that the Quran was borrowing from a pre-Socratic philosopher is that the Quran could be borrowing from pre-Socratic philosophers in general. By showing that to be false, it does argue my case. Further, it shows that it has not been shown by you that such knowledge already existed. schmikbob stated: why you would list errors made over a thousand years prior to the life of Mohammed and say "look, the Quran doesn't say these things" As I stated, because you explicitly claimed that Thales demonstrated such knowledge, and so by showing that what Thales said was not what the Quran states, and that the major beliefs of Thales and others around his time are not copied by the Quran, I am showing the fallacy in the arguments against the Quran. So, on one hand, you claim that the Quran was using knowledge known by a pre-Socratic (Thales). But on the other hand, then you say it is pointless for me to point out the errors of the pre-Socratics and that the Quran does not copy them. You change your argument when it is shown wrong, which is fine, but then you act as if it were not your original argument. This is what disbelievers do when they are shown the miracles of the Quran. They invent fallacious arguments so that they don't have to believe, and when those arguments are shown to be fallacious, they back peddle and make new fallacious arguments. You yourself implied that the assertion of a pre-Socratic was significant, but now you change your story. schmikbob stated, "Mohammed and the Quran didn't have anything relevatory to say that wasn't already known in the 7th century. " And your evidence of that claim was proven wrong by my post. Yet you claim that my post doesn't argue my case. The Quran makes the distinction between life and death in many places. I only provided one example for brevity. When you say "generality" I think you mean to say ambiguity. Those are two distinct things. Comparing all of the Quran's statements about processes of nature to Revelation's manifestly vague statements is a fallacy of an incongruent analogy. I will demonstrate that more over time as I will continue to expose the fallacies of logic that the disbelievers make. I've only gotten started. I'm still on page one of this thread. Edited by Beebok - 23 May 2012 at 7:32pm
	IP Logged

Beebok Male Islam Groupie Joined: 12 May 2012 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 72	Posted: 23 May 2012 at 7:52pm
	I just noticed this. On one hand Schmikbob admits that what the Quran states is a statement accurate knowledge, and then he claims that it is just an ambiguity which could mean anything. Look closely. He writes on one hand: 1. "I was simply saying that Mohammed and the Quran didn't have anything relevatory to say that wasn't already known in the 7th century." Then he writes later: 2. made to say many things. They are all generalities written that way on purpose so later on they can be said to imply this or that. So, in the same post, what the Quran states is, according to Schmikbob, "already known" and then ambiguous and can mean "this or that." Think about that folks. If the Quran is stating something already known, then it is not an ambiguous statement. Conversely, it is an ambiguous statement, then it is not stating knowledge "already known." For example, if someone states first, "it is known that methane is a gas, and then later states, "oh, that's just vague and could mean this or that," they are showing that their argument contradicts itself. This confusion in the arguments of the disbelievers demonstrates what I stated earlier: They don't even believe their own arguments. They're just arguing for the sake of arguing so that they don't have to believe. It is the equivelant of sticking one's fingers in one's ears. Earlier I showed that he changed his argument from claiming that a pre-Socratic's knowledge was significant, to that it was irrelevant. Here I show that in the same post he simultaneously claims that what the Quran states about science was known, then later claiming that it could mean anything.
	IP Logged

Beebok Male Islam Groupie Joined: 12 May 2012 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 72	Posted: 25 May 2012 at 8:21pm
	I Love this thread ! I Love the gold that the disbelievers inadvertantly give to the believers. Watch this: 1. Matt Browne stated: "The ancient Greek knew far more about science than the people anywhere in the world in the 7th century." 2. Schmikbob stated: "Science had moved on from the beginnings of science by the 7 th century AD." Do you see that? Matt Browne, a disbeliever, stated that science was far more advanced among the ancient Greeks than anywhere in the world during Muhammad's time. Then Schmikbob, another disbeliever stated that science was much more advanced in Muhammad's time than in ancient Greece. See that? The disbelievers contradict each other and just argue for the sake of arguing. That's what I've been saying all along. Here is what they said in the full context, just to be fair: 1. Matt Browne, I don't see any need to keep searching for proofs to reinforce this belief. The ancient Greek knew far more about science than the people anywhere in the world in the 7th century. The Golden Age of Islam began more than 100 years later. 2. Schmikbob, Beebok, why you would list errors made over a thousand years prior to the life of Mohammed and say "look, the Quran doesn't say these things" doesn't argue your case. Science had moved on from the beginnings of science by the 7 th century AD. I was simply saying that Mohammed and the Quran didn't have anything relevatory to say that wasn't already known in the 7th century. ------------------------------ This is nothing against Schmikbob or Matt Browne personally. I'm sure they're great guys and if we knew each other we would get along swimmingly. But their arguments against the miracles of God Almighty are useful to me because they are representative of the typical arguments that disbelievers raise. So, first I showed how Schmikbob changed his argument from his original claim of Thales already knowing the knowledge contained in the Quran to later claiming that Thales and other scientists of his time were irrelevant because science had move far forward between Thales time and Muhammad's time. When one argument was disproven, he made an opposite one as if the first one never existed. Then I showed how Schmikbob's argument changed within the same post. He had first claimed that the Quran's statements were reflective of what was already known, and then later in the same post said that the Quran's statements could not be counted as any sort of knowledge because they were vague and could mean various things. Finally, I've shown how the claims made between two disbelievers contradict each other, based on whatever they find to be convenient at that time to try to disbelieve the clear miracles of God Almighty. As I've said before, and as I will point out repeatedly, the disbelievers do not believe their own arguments. They know that the Quran is the truth from God, but they don't want to believe so they just argue for the sake of arguing so that they can try to convince themselves that they don't have to believe. Go back and look at their comments and you will see that they are: 1. intelligent 2. sane 3. decent So why are their arguments so ridiculous? Because that is what people do when they are in denial. Perfectly normal people who are intelligent, sane, and decent will resort to all sorts of sophistry in order to avoid a truth that they do not like. But such specious and disingenuous arguments are easily disproved after careful scrutiny and precise logic. That is what I will do in this thread over and over again, God willing. I will examine every word of the disbelievers with laser like focus, apply it to the known academic rules of logic, and expose their fallacies. People who are insane or defective in intelligence have an excuse on the day of judgment as to why they did not believe. Normal people have no excuses. In my next posts, God willing, I will continue to examine the arguments of the disbelievers under a microscope of detailed and precise scrutiny and expose the fallacies present therein. I thank God for the disbelievers. Their failed arguments against the Quran increase the faith of the believers, inshaAllah.
	IP Logged

schmikbob Male Agnostic Senior Member Joined: 27 June 2010 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 422	Posted: 26 May 2012 at 10:56pm
	Nice try Beebok, you continue to impress only yourself. On the one hand you say "Here is an analogy to clarify why Ron’s assumption is illogical. If a person states that a car uses gasoline to run, is that person wrong for not having mentioned the oxygen with which to mix with the vaporized gasoline, compressed, and then ignited? In the context of a discussion on why a car could not run on the moon, a person may say that a car uses oxygen to run. That person is not wrong for not having mentioned gasoline because he was not claiming to give a full description on how cars run. He was talking about the part that was important for the context of his discussion." On the other hand you say "Thales thought that ALL things were made of water. But the Quran states that LIVING things are made of water, not ALL things. If the Quran had repeated that, the Quran would both be wrong, and open to accusations of being influenced by human thought. But the Quran does not repeat Thales’ claim either word for word or in meaning. The Quran, rather, says that all living things are made of water. This is both correct and different than what Thales claimed." Why, because he left out the rest and discussed only the portion that was “important for the context of his discussion”? You can’t have it both ways, as much as you’d like to. Your ability to blind yourself to your own fallacies is impeccable. Much like St Augustine could write entire chapters on the details of angels and the certainty of their existence, you seem to be able to write nonstop about the implications of what Mohammed didn't write. I am inspired. Perhaps my next post will be about what the possible implications of what you haven't said. The Quran is a brilliant book of religious faith and inspiration to believers in Islam. The Bible is the same to it’s believers. Neither is a science book as much as some would wish it to be so.
	IP Logged

Beebok Male Islam Groupie Joined: 12 May 2012 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 72	Posted: 27 May 2012 at 11:44am
	Schmikbob states: Why, because he left out the rest and discussed only the portion that was “important for the context of his discussion”? That's an amazingly illogical and deceptive argument that Schmikbob has glibly blurted out. So, if the Quran only discussed one of the constituents of what goes into making a human as was relevant to that discussion, then it must follow that when the Quran is stating a constituent of all living things, it must be leaving out that it thinks that it is also the constituent of all other things as well? That's just laughable. It doesn't even get a "nice try" award. Readers will have no probelm seeing the fallacy of that reasoning from the disbeliever. What is amazing is that the disbeliever making that argument had convinced himself that he was making a good point. We can see by the numerous fallacies within Schmikbob's arguments that, as I stated before, the disbelievers are just arguing for the sake of arguing and are not raising any serious and logical objections. Thus, every argument of a disbeliever gives me more opportunity to show to what extents disbelievers will go to deceive themselves in order to have an excuse to not believe. Edited by Beebok - 28 May 2012 at 8:08am
	IP Logged

Beebok Male Islam Groupie Joined: 12 May 2012 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 72	Posted: 27 May 2012 at 1:26pm
	RememberAllah wrote: { Quran does {21:30} - "do not the unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together befor WE clove them asunder?" what else does modern science say but that all matter and space was once concentrated which separated in Big Bang. } Actually, Quran 21:30 should be read with 51:47: It is We who have built the universe and truly, it is We who are expanding it. Put together, it states: 1. The universe was a single unit (joined together) 2. It was broken apart 3. The universe is expanding. It was in 1928 that the astronomer Edwin Hubble discovered that the universe is expanding. Then, scientists were able to figure out that the universe originated from a single source. Now, since the disbelievers can't deny that this knowledge didn't exist before the Quran, I anticipate that they will say that the interpretation has been altered to match with current scientific understanding. Ancitipating such possible objections, I will point out that in the past I have written further on it here: http://www.iranmilitaryforum.net/religion-and-society/quran-states-the-universe-is-expanding-centuries-before-astronomers-discovery/ Suffice it to say for now that the Quran's taken as a whole shows a consistency in its paradigm of how the universe works as seen by putting the two verses together where one verse strengthens the interpretation of another. --------------- Schmikbob stated: Then you should study in detail the hadiths on the Quran which detail the meaning in the Quran and Mohammed's words much differently than you and the majority of Muslims do. Actually, to give an example: Many Muslim scholars declared a mutual agreement (Ijma) that celestial bodies are round. Some of them were: Ibn Hazm (d. 1069), Ibn al-Jawzi (d. 1200), and Ibn Taymiya (d. 1328). Ibn Khaldun (d. 1406), in his Muqaddimah, also identified the world as spherical http://ramizq1.sitesled.com/spreadingofearth.html Technically, though, the above is not a hadith. It is a concensus of early scholars. ------------ Matt Browne: { Hadiths are in a similar situation as the Gospels are relying on oral traditions before they were written down. } They are similar that they are oral traditions that were later written down, but they are different in that those who wrote them also recorded who heard it from whom, and their reliability. If a hadith has multiple chains of narrators where each narrator in each chain is reliable, then it is called a strong hadith. If a hadith has only one chain of narrators where some of the narrators are unreliable, then it is called a weak hadith. --------- Schmikbob stated: { Matt, I am very familiar with what is referred to as 'higher criticism' of the Bible and I am also very aware that the vast majority of Christians are both unaware of and uninterested in its findings. Do you feel the same is true of Islam? } Unlike in Christianity where it was around the council of Nicea (325 AD) when debates raged as to what would be considered cannonical and what would be considered apocryphal, the Muslims have been very methodical in the recording of the Quran and hadith since the very early times. Whereas the early Christians were busy escaping persecution and believed that Jesus' return would be very soon such that there would be no need for recording events and quotations, memorization and writing of the Quran began while Muhammad was alive and within the safety of an Islamic state, and recording of the hadith occured a little later, but also within the safety and resources of an Islamic state. The similarity is superficial and the differences are significant. --------- Matt Browne stated: "Yes, Islam needs higher criticism too." Actually, higher criticism is built into Islam and the extremely rigorous methods of hadith categorization demonstrate that. Matt Browne stated: "But there are so few liberal Muslims. " That is because the more a Muslim learns about Islam and its history and science, the more a Muslim becomes devout. The opposite is the case for Christianity. The more a person learns about Christianity, the more he becomes filled with doubt. Edited by Beebok - 28 May 2012 at 8:12am
	IP Logged

	Active Topics Memberlist Calendar Search Help
	Register Login Old Forum

Interfaith Dialogue
IslamiCity Forum - Islamic Discussion Forum : Religion - Islam : Interfaith Dialogue

Topic: Every living thing made from water.
	<< Prev Page of 36 Next >>