Active TopicsActive Topics  Display List of Forum MembersMemberlist  CalendarCalendar  Search The ForumSearch  HelpHelp
  RegisterRegister  LoginLogin  Old ForumOld Forum  Twitter  Facebook
Advertisement:
         

Interfaith Dialogue
 IslamiCity Forum - Islamic Discussion Forum : Religion - Islam : Interfaith Dialogue
Message Icon Topic: Every living thing made from water. Post Reply Post New Topic
<< Prev Page  of 36 Next >>
Author Message
Abu Loren
 
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 June 2012
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1148
Quote Abu Loren Replybullet Posted: 01 October 2012 at 2:12am
Originally posted by Caringheart


Greetings Abu Loren,I don't know that I say Muhammad made up the Qur'an.  He may very well have believed he was Divinely inspired.  The supposed beauty of the poetry of the Qur'an, which has been attested too, is certainly unaccountable.  I can't comment on that because I would not understand it in Arabic.  What I say is that any wisdom that I do see in the Qur'an is first seen in the Bible, and that since there is so much that does not make sense, or have any meaning, in the Qur'an, I can not believe it is the thing it is claimed to be, but rather Muhammad sharing what he understood from other sources.  He very well may have thought it was God revealing it to him.


Surat Al-Kāfirūn

Sahih International

Say, "O disbelievers,
I do not worship what you worship.
Nor are you worshippers of what I worship.
Nor will I be a worshipper of what you worship.
Nor will you be worshippers of what I worship.
For you is your religion, and for me is my religion."
IP IP Logged
Abu Loren
 
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 June 2012
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1148
Quote Abu Loren Replybullet Posted: 01 October 2012 at 2:26am
Originally posted by bunter

Originally posted by Abu Loren

I have read the Bible countless times as I used to be Christian :) In fact the Bible makes more sense after you read the Holy Qur'an because you will discern truth from fiction. The Qur'an differs in some ways because the falsehood is taken away and replaced with the truth, so actually the Qur'an makes more sense than the Bible.
I think you greatly exaggerate when you say you have read the Bible 'countless times' no matter some questions.

1. give me an example of a truth we might find in the Quran that is not in the Bible?

2. Tell me something in the Bible that makes more sense after reading the Quran?

3. The ten commandments are in the Bible, please explain how they are falsehoods or fiction?


1. give me an example of a truth we might find in the Quran that is not in the Bible?

Sahih International
4:171 O People of the Scripture, do not commit excess in your religion or say about Allah except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allah and His word which He directed to Mary and a soul [created at a command] from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers. And do not say, "Three"; desist - it is better for you. Indeed, Allah is but one God. Exalted is He above having a son. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. And sufficient is Allah as Disposer of affairs.

2. Tell me something in the Bible that makes more sense after reading the Quran?

Sahih International
They have certainly disbelieved who say that Allah is Christ, the son of Mary. Say, "Then who could prevent Allah at all if He had intended to destroy Christ, the son of Mary, or his mother or everyone on the earth?" And to Allah belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth and whatever is between them. He creates what He wills, and Allah is over all things competent. 5:17

3. The ten commandments are in the Bible, please explain how they are falsehoods or fiction?

Indeed the ten commands are in the Torah and that is not fiction. What I meant was all the other falsehood contain therein such as Noah (pbuh) being a drunkard, Isaac (pbuh) supposed to be sacrificed than Ishmael (pbuh), Prophet Lut (pbuh) having sexual intercourse with his daughters, Jesus (pbuh) being born in a stable with witnesses etc etc etc
IP IP Logged
Abu Loren
 
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 June 2012
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1148
Quote Abu Loren Replybullet Posted: 01 October 2012 at 2:29am
Originally posted by bunter

Originally posted by Abu Loren

There are no instructions either in the Torah, Injil or the Holy Qur'an in how to fit an electric plug. Now we are getting into silliness.
And who suggested they were? If this is about silliness then recall it was you who suggested that it was only the Quran that contained truth and that God was not concerned with Ohms law.
The Ten Commandments are still there in the Holy Qur'an, it tells you what to do with a murderer, adulterer etc etc. It just does not begin with...1) Thou shall not kill 2) Thou shall not commit adultery....

It would really help if you just read the Holy Qur'an in it's entirety and the hadiths of the Prophet (pbuh) so you will know what you are talking about. It's pointless debating with somebody who hasn't got a clue about what Islam is all about.


So the Quran only contains what was in the Bible? I have read the Quran and Hadith (not all of them) so presumably I do know at least a little of what I am talking about.


The Torah, the Injil and the Holy Qur'an contains the same message that is that there is only One God and instructions in how we should live a holy life that is pleasing to Him.

You have read the Holy Qur'an and hadiths but you still lack knowledge and understanding. Not trying to belittle you.
IP IP Logged
bunter
Male 
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 28 March 2011
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 123
Quote bunter Replybullet Posted: 01 October 2012 at 4:55am
Originally posted by Abu Loren

4:171 O People of the Scripture, do not commit excess in your religion or say about Allah except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allah and His word which He directed to Mary and a soul [created at a command] from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers. And do not say, "Three"; desist - it is better for you. Indeed, Allah is but one God. Exalted is He above having a son. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. And sufficient is Allah as Disposer of affairs.
I need to be clear, you are arguing that the above is truth without any evidence? The Gospel accounts are 600 years older that the Quran and say Jesus is God. For example, Jesus said "before Abraham was born I am" and I am sure you will agree it is only God who has a preexistence.

2. Tell me something in the Bible that makes more sense after reading the Quran? International They have certainly disbelieved who say that Allah is Christ, the son of Mary. Say, "Then who could prevent Allah at all if He had intended to destroy Christ, the son of Mary, or his mother or everyone on the earth?" And to Allah belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth and whatever is between them. He creates what He wills, and Allah is over all things competent. 5:17
See my first answer.

3. The ten commandments are in the Bible, please explain how they are falsehoods or fiction? Indeed the ten commands are in the Torah and that is not fiction. What I meant was all the other falsehood contain therein such as Noah (pbuh) being a drunkard, Isaac (pbuh) supposed to be sacrificed than Ishmael (pbuh), Prophet Lut (pbuh) having sexual intercourse with his daughters, Jesus (pbuh) being born in a stable with witnesses etc etc etc

If we think of the Old Testament concerning these prophets then we are talking about writings that are possibly 1,500 years older than the Quran, these are the first records. So you have to explain why you see these records as wrong - its because you BRING an Islamic notion of prophets (do you know where the notion comes from?) to the text and just assume the text is wrong not because of what it says but because of a preconceived notion. You must also explain why these stories are there if they are untrue, who in their right mind would sully their Religeon by adding stories of sin if they are not true.

Edited by bunter - 01 October 2012 at 4:56am
IP IP Logged
bunter
Male 
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 28 March 2011
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 123
Quote bunter Replybullet Posted: 01 October 2012 at 4:59am
Originally posted by Abu Loren

The Torah, the Injil and the Holy Qur'an contains the same message that is that there is only One God and instructions in how we should live a holy life that is pleasing to Him.

You have read the Holy Qur'an and hadiths but you still lack knowledge and understanding. Not trying to belittle you.

We agree there is only one God. But can't you see thatyiusaying I lack knowledge and understanding is exactly what I might say about you with regard to the Bible.
IP IP Logged
Beebok
Male Islam
Groupie
Groupie
Avatar

Joined: 12 May 2012
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 72
Quote Beebok Replybullet Posted: 01 October 2012 at 7:51pm

Just as I predicted, Bunter adds new deceptions to try to cover up his old deceptions, and repeats the same arguments which I’ve already refuted.

I’ll address his new deceptions, God willing, sometime in the future; but I still have not finished exposing his old deceptions.

 

 

How I demonstrated that Bunter was faking understanding and following the scientific method.

 

Part 1, Bunter faking his understanding.

 

How Bunter did not understand what was meant by the term “falsifiability.”

 

Bunter claimed to follow the scientific method.

Bunter had said, “What you may not understand is that in science we ….” (page 21)

 

Place 1 where Bunter was shown to not understand falsifiability:

 

Then, after he claimed to follow the scientific method, I showed he didn’t really understand the scientific method:

I pointed out that he had stated,

“ . . . we don't set out to find a test that will show something to be true but a test that will show it to be false if it is false.“

And I responded with,

Bunter’s explanation demonstrates an incorrect understanding of the scientific method.

According to the scientific method, a hypothesis must be falsifiable, but that is different than going out to prove that it is false.

 

In other words, Bunter thought that falsifiability meant a test that will show something to be false.

I pointed out that actually, according to the scientific method, falsifiability refers to a HYPOTHESIS must be stated in a way such that it CAN POTENTIALLY be shown to be false through empirical testing, not what he said, which is a TEST that it WILL show something to be false.

So, that was the first place that I showed that he did not understand falsifiability.

 

Place 2, where Bunter was shown to not understand falsifiability:

 

I had pointed out:

 

Bunter said, “I cannot think of any test that will prove or even indicate that Islam's message is perfect.“

 

Then I responded with:

 

First of all, that contradicts his other statement that he is looking for a test of falsifiability, not for a test of provability.

Remember, he had at one point said, “. . . we don't set out to find a test that will show something to be true but a test that will show it to be false if it is false.”

But here he says that he wants to “think of any test that will prove” it to be true.

So, in one place he says he wants a test of falsifiability, not provability; but then he says he wants a test of provability.

 

That is the second place where I showed that he was confused about falsifiability.

 

Bunter’s response after I showed that he did not understand what falsifiability meant, and then explained to him how it works:

 

After I explained to Bunter how his explanation of the scientific method and falsifiability were wrong, and then explained to him how it actually works, he responded with this:

 

But you do not or cannot explain what it means to be 'falsifiable?

 

That’s absolutely amazing !

 

What audacity !

 

After I showed that he didn’t really understand it, I guess he got desperate and tried to cover up his lost credibility by making the absurd assertion that I don’t understand it. How would anyone fall for that trick when everyone could see that it was I who explained it to him?

 

Then he goes on to try to explain what falsifiability means, as if I hadn’t just exposed him to everyone as someone who doesn’t really actually understand it.

 

Bunter responding to one of the Quran’s challenges of falsifiability:

 

Place 3, where Bunter was shown to not understand falsifiability:

 

Bunter had himself given an example of a test of falsifiability to the assertion that “all swans are white.”

He admits that such an assertion is falsifiable because all someone has to do is to find one swan that is not white.

Although his statement is correct, for once, apparently, he does not understand the meaning of his own statement.

 

Note that it doesn’t matter if someone finds a black swan in the future. Whether or not someone can or will find a non-white swan in the future has nothing to do with the assertion being falsifiable or not.

 

Bunter said,

“Of course we also know the human authorship has not come to an end so who knows if there is not something better in the future. You don’t really understand falsifiability do you? “

 

Bunter says above that the Quran’s eloquence test of is not falsifiable because someone might make something better “in the future.”

 

Just as in the case of the swans, just because a non-white swan might be born in the future, or a non-white swan has not been found yet, that possibility does not make the assertion a non-falsifiable assertion. The assertion qualifies as falsifiable despite the fact that someone might find a non-white swan in the future. Likewise the possibility that someone might create a similarly eloquent Quran in the future does not make the assertion non-falsifiable.

 

But Bunter apparently did not understand the explanation he himself presented on falsifiability because when it came to the Quran, he could not apply it. It looks like he just paraphrased an explanation he found somewhere else without understanding it in order to trick us into believing that he understands the scientific method after I had shown that he did not actually understand it.

 

Yet, he had the audacity to state, “You don’t really understand falsifiability do you? “

 

Bunter repeatedly claimed that I don’t understand what falsifiability means, but it turns out that it is he who does not understand it.

 

Doesn’t it occur to Bunter that when he is talking to someone who actually does understand logic and science, Bunter is going to just keep getting exposed, over and over again?

 

 

Assumptions are scientific, according to Bunter.

 

Bunter stated on page 21,
There is nothing unscientific about making assumptions: every theory is an assumption.”

 

Actually, making assumptions is the opposite of the scientific method.

 

So, Einstein’s theory of relativity would be just an assumption, just a guess, just a shot in the dark, according to Bunter

 

A theory is based on massive amounts of observation and experimentation, or mathematical reasoning.

An assumption, on the other hand, is just a conjecture taken for granted without proof.

 

A hypothesis becomes a theory after repeated testing produces the same conclusion, or after carefully examined mathematical formulas based on prior observations are carefully and critically examined by the scientific community.

 

But according to Bunter,

There is nothing unscientific about making assumptions: every theory is an assumption.”

 

An assumption is used in the scientific method only in the case of using a null-hypothesis while empirical testing ensues; but that is not the context in which Bunter was using it, and explaining it to him will be too difficult.

 

But even a hypothesis, which in fact precedes a theory, is not an assumption.

 So, Bunter exposes that he does not understand what the scientific method is, and that he does not understand what a theory is. Assuming things to be true is not scientific, and a theory is not just an assumption as he wrongly claimed.

Summary of part 1

 

On the one hand Bunter rejects the test of falsifiability that the Quran presents.

Bunter says that somebody in the future might come along and create a text as eloquent as the Quran and if he believed in it now, then he would have been wrong.

In other words, he is showing that he thinks that a test of falsifiability proves something to be true (a test of provability). So, he does not understand what a test of falsifiability does. It proves something false; but being unable to prove it false doesn’t prove it to be true.

 

So, Bunter repeatedly claimed that I don’t understand what falsifiability means, but it turns out that it is he who does not understand it.

Hmmm. typical.

 

He had claimed that he wanted a test of falsifiability for the Quran. When I showed him one, he claimed that what I showed him demonstrated my lack of understanding what the test means, even though I had explained the meaning before and I had corrected him on similar things before.

Then, the objection he makes shows that he does not understand it.

 

So, in summary of part 1, the disbeliever claimed he wanted a test of falsifiability for the Quran.

When he got one, he rejected it.

What does that show us?

It shows us the truth of what the Quran says: that when you give evidences or reasonable arguments to the disbelievers, they will reject it because they just don’t want to believe in the first place. It shows that all their excuses for more and more evidence are just that, excuses.

 

 

Part 2, Bunter faking his adherence to the scientific method:

 

 

The disbeliever Bunter says that he wants Muslims to follow the scientific method in proving that the Quran is true, and that the criteria should apply for all books.

Bunter, “What you may not understand is that in science we ….” (page 21).

But for Christians like him, it is enough for him that they just “know,” and the Holy Spirit guides them.

Bunter says, “…when I read the Bible, even in translation I know that it is the whole council of God …” on page 21.

In other words, he just knows it.

And then he says that the Holy Spririt guides the Christians.

Bunter says,

“Christians would say it is the Holy Spirit that brings these words to life when a person lets him, when a person is open to His prompting. “ (page 23)

 

But if we Muslims believe that God has guided us, he complains:

“The mistake you are making is that you believe the Quran is supernatural and so go hunting about for things you regard prove that . . . .”

Bunter concluded that we believe that we start off with the belief that the Quran is supernatural.

And he just jumped to that conclusion.

He didn’t even attempt a scientific method there.

Yet he had claimed earlier that he was a man of science.

Bunter, “What you may not understand is that in science we ….” (page 21).

 

Thus, clearly identifying himself with science and the scientific method, and complains that we Muslims don’t follow that.

In other words, he does not require the scientific method for himself, but later does claim to use the scientific method, and requires it of others.

 

And then even deigned to attempt (wrongly) to explain it to us, as if he were indeed a man of science. Thus he had boasted that he is a man of science and believes things because of science. Ironically, he tried to explain the scientific method, he got it wrong, despite repeated attempts on my part to explain it to him.

 

So, when we Muslims say that God guides us to see the miracles of the Quran, the disbeliever complains that this is not good enough. Muslims must follow the scientific method of proof.

When we give him reasonable arguments, he rejects them out of demonstratable insincerity. But for his own Bible, it is good enough to say that the Holy Spirit has guided them despite the frequent contradictions and errors therein.

 

So, for us Muslims, it is a mistake to just believe in the Quran, and he claims that he is a scientist who would do no such thing. But then elsewhere he admits, for him, he can just read it and know, and that’s fine.

 

This is similar to how they complain that the Quran says that guides punishes disbelievers by hardening their hearts, and when we point out that the Bible says the same thing, they deny it.

That is also similar to the denial they show when we point out that their own Bible admits that their scriptures have been corrupted.

 

I predict that Bunter’s response will be his usual, make straw-man fallacies, try to redefine scientific terms as if he really did understand them all along, try to cover his embarrassment by trying to make it seem like I’m the one who didn’t understand science even though I’ve been the one correcting his errors repeatedly, change the point of the discussion, or some other similar deceptions as he has done so far.

 

The insincere and hypocritical behavior of the disbelievers shows that there is indeed corruption in the hearts of those who deny Islam, and that the Quran’s explanation of the characteristics of the disbelievers is indeed true.



Edited by Beebok - 01 October 2012 at 7:58pm
IP IP Logged
bunter
Male 
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 28 March 2011
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 123
Quote bunter Replybullet Posted: 02 October 2012 at 10:46am
[QUOTE=Beebok] [quote]
Some responses:
1.     Falsifiability means that we must be able to find a test that will show something to be false IF it is false. Falsifiability is the belief that for any hypothesis to have credence, it must be inherently disprovable before it can become accepted as a scientific hypothesis or theory. For example, if a scientist asks, “Does God exist?” then this can never be science because it is a theory that cannot be disproved. Now we need care here but underpinning this is the idea that we as yet as far as I know don’t have any step-by-step test or you can call it an experiment to use. Interestingly, William Lane Craig lists 5 reason for the existence for God and these do not prove God exists but do increase the plausibility of such an idea and at present we can do no more. If any one here knows of a test that in principle any one can do and always get the same result with the same data then tell us about it.

There are problems with falsification and those that are interested might like to research what is known as the Raven Paradox (much the same as the all swans are white idea), which at bottom is a difficulty with inductive reasoning.

No theory is ever completely correct and is always regarded as tentative (hence we think about the future) but if not falsified, it can be accepted as truth within those limits. For example, Newton’s Theory of Gravity was accepted as truth for centuries, because objects do not randomly float away from the earth. It appeared to fit the figures obtained by experimentation and research, but was always subject to testing.

2.     It is always unwise to let your thinking be dominated by provability because it is all too easy to then cherry pick the data to get your proof. You might like to know that about half of all medical science tests are not repeatable – why is that do you think? Now of course you want to prove your theory true but you must do it by thinking ‘how can `I show this idea to be false.’ Now it is of course very hard to do this but in science there are checks and balances such as others look at you methods, data and results and sooner or later if you have made a mistake or fudged the data it will show up. If anyone wants to follow this up have a look at Professor David Goodstein’s book “On Fact and Fraud” (Goodstein is a physicist and vice provost at Caltech “

3.     Let us just dwell on the idea of eloquence be it the Quran or anything else. Now the issue is how do we determine eloquence, is there a set of steps that everyone agrees on that we can use. We might also try to figure out a way of showing that one text is more eloquent that another. Notice, no matter what test we might use we cannot preclude that someone in the future might create a different test and of course may get different results. So here we have the difficulty of agreeing that a particulate test is a valid one. Finally, validity also implies that the test is applicable to all similar objects – meaning for example, that Ohms law applies to all circuits not just a select few. Now I don’t know of any such agreed test of eloquence or its quality and would such a test show the idea to be false if it is false. In other word we might start by say what would show a text to be non eloquent. Do you not see the difficulty if you ask a Muslim he will say the Quran is eloquent but that is like asking a doting father if his son handsome – well it’s a matter of opinion not fact.

Now, saying I don’t know how to test for eloquence is not the end of the story as others might. But if such a test exists then we can apply it everywhere and if we can’t apply it everywhere then it becomes special pleading and therefore fallacious. We see this in one of Beebok’s arguments where he insists the Quran is true regarding when you give evidences or reasonable arguments to the disbelievers, they will reject. Here he assumes the Quran is true, that he has convincing evidence and all his arguments are reasonable. Now there is absolutely nothing wrong with him believing all this but that is as far as it goes. For example, I happen to find the books of P.G. Wodhouse beautifully eloquent but my wife thinks them a bit on the dull side.

4.     Assumptions are part and parcel of science; indeed science itself is based on some basic assumptions such as: cause and effect, evidence from the natural world can be used to learn about those causes; there is consistency in the causes. This might sound obvious but there are several phenomena that have no know cause – radioactive decay for example.

Science starts with guesses that is what its all about so its absurd to say no assumptions are made. What is important when we look at results is to make sure we are aware of any assumptions made. For example, commonly in medical work there may be hundreds of variables, because each patient is unique, and we cannot track them all so we make assumptions about which ones may be safely ignored – we may make a mistake of course as we have all too often seen in medical science. Of course Einstein’s theory was a guess, an assumption because he had absolutely no data to work with and indeed it would be 11 years before any was available – that is why his work is so brilliant, he created the model in his own brain.

The idea that every scientific discovery is based on masses of data is an absurdity. Two further examples are Maxwell’s laws that predicted radio waves but no one had observed any such thing and again it would be years before anyone would. Secondly, the periodic table was a brilliant example of a priori reasoning and in that case it was almost 50 years before it was show to be correct and why it was correct.

The thing about a theory, say relativity was that it enabled people to form a hypothesis because the theory tells you what data to look for. Once you have a hypothesis then you can try to work out how to construct an experiment to test it. In Einstein’s case there was some evidence because it correctly predicted precession but then it was realized that if the theory were true and light bends in gravitational fields then this might be detected during an eclipse in 1919 thought it would not be until 1959 that accurate measurements were made.

6. Now as a Christian I believe certain things but I am also aware that I cannot in scientific terms prove them to be true – in simple terms I don’t argue the Bible is true because it says so. I can of course cite evidence as exemplified in say the changed lives of believers but you or anyone can challenge that. So I have no issue with Beebok or anyone saying he believes the Quran is true but have every issue with one who demands he is right and others wrong.


Edited by bunter - 02 October 2012 at 12:25pm
IP IP Logged
Caringheart
 
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 March 2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2184
Quote Caringheart Replybullet Posted: 03 October 2012 at 5:59pm
"– in simple terms I don’t argue the Bible is true because it says so. "

"So I have no issue with Beebok or anyone saying he believes the Quran is true but have every issue with one who demands he is right and others wrong."
IP IP Logged
<< Prev Page  of 36 Next >>
Post Reply Post New Topic
Printable version Printable version

Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot create polls in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Disclaimer:
The opinions expressed herein contain positions and viewpoints that are not necessarily those of IslamiCity. This forum is offered to stimulate dialogue and discussion in our continuing mission of being an educational organization.
If there is any issue with any of the postings please email to icforum at islamicity.com or if you are a forum's member you can use the report button.

Note: The 99 names of Allah avatars are courtesy of www.arthafez.com

Advertisement:



Sponsored by:
Islamicity Membership Program:
IslamiCity Donation Program  http://www.islamicity.com/Donate
IslamiCity Arabic eLearning http://www.islamiCity.com/ArabAcademy
Complete Domain & Hosting Solutions www.icDomain.com
Home for Muslim Tunes www.icTunes.com
Islamic Video Collections www.islamiTV.com
IslamiCity Marriage Site www.icMarriage.com