It's already ended. You asserted some nonsense about the Quran detailing stuff impossible to know without modern scientific gear, and I pointed out that there's no such stuff in it.


i challenge you.

You would have to establish that the Quran contains a prediction that could only otherwise be known by modern science, that the prediction is precise enough not to be a lucky guess, and that there's no ambiguity in what the "prediction" could possibly mean. For instance, a spherical Earth doesn't require modern science to know- the ancient Greeks had several reasons to believe the Earth is round and even made a good estimate of its diameter by measuring the curvature of its surface. On the other hand, not only is the Quran not the first to predict a round Earth, but it's arguable that the Quran actually predicts a flat Earth- i.e. it was known at the time that the planets were round, but Earth was supposedly flattened by Allah so that it could become habitable for humans.

Also you can't ask "how could Mohammed know such things?", because then you'd have to give proof that an uneducated nomad named Mohammed actually wrote the book, which is highly in doubt amongst scholars even in the Arab world. Frankly I think you're just setting yourself up for a losing argument, because if the Quran really was a guide to modern science, Arab scientists should have discovered everything long before the West, instead of everyone having to do it the hard way through direct experimentation.

In fact I'd say in a way you're actually insulting Muslims, because you're saying they had this guide to modern science right in front of their eyes, and yet it took a bunch of dumbass Western infidels to make most of the discoveries (from Renaissance era onward).

thanks CaptBork, really appreciate your concern, but i'm afraid you've went into details i haven't specified (at least not here), and built upon them..

the op was simple enough, the claim is:
-the quran(whoever wrote it)
-contains certain details(not all details)
-impossible to know without modern scientific gear..
i think it's simple enough, if i provide it, iceaura loses, if i fail to, i lose..all in case he agrees to this challenge to begin with, which is trivial for someone who "claims" arrogantly that he read the whole quran, why, this should be a walk in the park for such a person..

i've let it pass once, but twice in less than a week requires attention.

again, thanks alot for your concern captbork, and uh, hope you're wrong on this one..:o

I will take the challenge if iceaura won't.

there is a difference between recognizing a pattern that exists and understanding why it exists

Don't forget to agree a format for the debate, if it goes ahead.

I will take the challenge if iceaura won't.
well, some people have balls, but have you read the whole quran spidergoat? cuz it would be hard otherwise..

there is a difference between recognizing a pattern that exists and understanding why it exists
the why doesn't offer much alternatives, not to mention it's not what we'll be discussing here, the pattern, well we might need to go into that a bit:shrug:.

Don't forget to agree a format for the debate, if it goes ahead.
i post, he posts i post he posts, um, till we finish?

guess it shouldn't be more than 10 posts each, and i'd like to keep the time allowed to reply in turn be....3 days? in case one of us gets busy..

that's max out to one month, not much i guess, or we might burn it out in less than 24 hours..;)

idk, you have something proposed?

The problem with open-ended debates is that they can drag on forever, without either side ever posting a conclusion. You should specify either a limited number of posts, or an end date for the debate.

well, some people have balls, but have you read the whole quran spidergoat? cuz it would be hard otherwise..

I can just address specific quotes.

Quite. Complete knowledge of the Quran isn't required, unless it expresses some integral, composite knowledge that is being expressed and can be debated.

speaking of dragging on forever, if iceaure doesn't reply to this thread in 2 more days then i consider him forfeiting, losing, without even putting up a fight.

in which case the message would be to all atheists on board; "don't bite more than you can chew, cuz someone might just come along and force you to swallow."

No. You have already received other offers; if none of them are forthcoming, then I will eviscera...I mean, debate you.

Yes, precious. Yessss.

speaking of dragging on forever, if iceaure doesn't reply to this thread in 2 more days then i consider him forfeiting, losing, without even putting up a fight.
If Iceaura hasn't participated then how can you claim he lost/ forfeited?


in which case the message would be to all atheists on board; "don't bite more than you can chew, cuz someone might just come along and force you to swallow."
Yeah right, bearing in mind that the message so far is "Scifes isn't going to risk debating against anyone else, especially those that have offered to take part".

Originally Posted by spidergoat
I will take the challenge if iceaura won't.
Sidestepped by Scifes...

Hardly a message to "all atheists".

Quite.

....Atheist scum.

speaking of dragging on forever, if iceaure doesn't reply to this thread in 2 more days then i consider him forfeiting, losing, without even putting up a fight.

in which case the message would be to all atheists on board; "don't bite more than you can chew, cuz someone might just come along and force you to swallow."

If you are going to regurgitate that stuff about the human chromosome number, then forget it. Otherwise, let's do this!

Whoa - apparently I've been missing out on something important. I got the PM, but didn't understand what it meant, sorry.

Re the challenge - I forfeit. Life is short.

spidergoat, geoffp, D, this is more than proving the thread title is true or not, it's holding members to the claims they make, in a thread dedicated to exploring said miracles in the quran, one comes by and boldly states that there are none in it (quoted in the op), that means nothing from one who haven't read the quran, but a devastating statement if he actually DID read it.. so i asked him..

he said he did, so i'm a liar then, i'm hoodwinking you all in what i say, cuz we both read it, our knowledge base is the same, but our claims are opposite.

so i challenged HIM.

and he forfeited, because life is short, because he didn't read the whole quran as he claimed, because he lied to my face..in front of you all.

as you can all see, from a personal POV, i'v lost interest as well, i've proved my real point, now, the secondary one, is it still worth it?

spidergoat and geoffp, i'll debate one of you.
james, are the outlines in #8 good enough?

If Iceaura hasn't participated then how can you claim he lost/ forfeited?



forfeit:To lose a contest, game, match, or other form of competition by voluntary withdrawal, by failing to attend or participate, or by violation of the rules
...

...
Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
If Iceaura hasn't participated then how can you claim he lost/ forfeited?
Originally Posted by Wikitionary
forfeit:To lose a contest, game, match, or other form of competition by voluntary withdrawal, by failing to attend or participate, or by violation of the rules
Correct: and since Iceaura's participation is not mandatory then he can't be considered to have forfeited.

Or maybe I can challenge you to a game of chess, here at my flat.
If you're not here by 5 PM today I'll consider you to have forfeited and you owe me £5...


and he forfeited, because life is short, because he didn't read the whole quran as he claimed, because he lied to my face..in front of you
all.
The bold part is pure speculation on your part. And unwarranted.

Scifes, spidergoat has first shot. If he's too busy at the moment, then it falls to me.

If I were you, I'd either PM or give him a couple days to respond.

Correct: and since Iceaura's participation is not mandatory then he can't be considered to have forfeited.
what does it not being mandatory changy anything?


Or maybe I can challenge you to a game of chess, here at my flat.
If you're not here by 5 PM today I'll consider you to have forfeited and you owe me £5...
yes i forfeit, and the 10$ is waiting for you on my porch till 5PM tommorow, if you don't take it by then i'll take it back.



The bold part is pure speculation on your part. And unwarranted.

maybe...

what does it not being mandatory changy anything?
It's quite simple: unless someone HAS to take part in something, or has already agreed to do so, then the word "forfeit" can't apply: otherwise, as my example with the chess match shows, you can apply it to anyone and everyone.
Did you forfeit the position of president of the US?
Did I forfeit the Nobel Prize for literature?

I'm pretty sure I forfeited one of those. I expect I can still work it into the CV.

spidergoat, geoffp, D, this is more than proving the thread title is true or not, it's holding members to the claims they make, in a thread dedicated to exploring said miracles in the quran, one comes by and boldly states that there are none in it (quoted in the op), that means nothing from one who haven't read the quran, but a devastating statement if he actually DID read it.. so i asked him..

he said he did, so i'm a liar then, i'm hoodwinking you all in what i say, cuz we both read it, our knowledge base is the same, but our claims are opposite.

so i challenged HIM.

and he forfeited, because life is short, because he didn't read the whole quran as he claimed, because he lied to my face..in front of you all.

as you can all see, from a personal POV, i'v lost interest as well, i've proved my real point, now, the secondary one, is it still worth it?

spidergoat and geoffp, i'll debate one of you.
james, are the outlines in #8 good enough?

If you like, we can wait until I read the damn thing. But, I don't think it makes a difference. I will endeavor to understand the verses in context using the following translations:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/isl/index.htm

because he didn't read the whole quran as he claimed, because he lied to my face..in front of you all. I have read the entire Koran, in English translation - although I admit to skimming the long sections of god-bragging and unbeliever-threatening, which sped things up considerably.

james, are the outlines in #8 good enough?

Yes.

Wow,i have an idea.I will give everyone a bat,first one to kill the horse wins.

I have read the entire Koran, in English translation - although I admit to skimming the long sections of god-bragging and unbeliever-threatening, which sped things up considerably.

Ice - either that was unintentionally hilarious or you are a comedy genuis.

You made me spray coffee out of my nose :D

Ice - either that was unintentionally hilarious or you are a comedy genuis.

You made me spray coffee out of my nose :D

I'm pretty sure that was deliberately hilarious :)

If you like, we can wait until I read the damn thing. But, I don't think it makes a difference. I will endeavor to understand the verses in context using the following translations:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/isl/index.htm

so you want to read it first or should we start immediately? whatever suits you, defending the absence of something in a text you haven't read doesn't seem like a smart choice to me, but it's not totally out of line considering the place we're in.. so as you wish, wanna read it first or not is up to you...
so, what have you decided?

I don't think I really have to read the entire thing, I will be defending science and the nature of evidence, not the Quran, that's your task. Can we wait until next mon-tues? I have some stuff to do this weekend.

I don't think I really have to read the entire thing, I will be defending science and the nature of evidence, not the Quran, that's your task. Can we wait until next mon-tues? I have some stuff to do this weekend.

Spider - I dunno - perhaps you should read the whole thing.

That way you could perform some kind of meta-analysis.

Collaborate with Scifes to collate all of the claims in he Quran that might have something to say about nature or make scientifically testable predictions - work out if they are scientifically accurate or not - perhaps rank them in order of accuracy - then perform a statistical analysis to figure out what the likelihood of those being simply down to random chance (i.e say enough shit and some of it is bound to stick), or if there is a real trend of scientific accuracy throughout the whole book.

The onus is probably on the proposer to perform the analysis, but if you have read the book too, you could keep him honest and avoid accusations of cherry picking sections that only suit his viewpoint.

I don't think I really have to read the entire thing, I will be defending science and the nature of evidence, not the Quran, that's your task. Can we wait until next mon-tues? I have some stuff to do this weekend.

i'm afraid not.."impossible to know whiteout modern scientific gear" relies alot about the time, place, "claimer" of the book...what was impossible to know for native Americans wasn't impossible to know for the Chinese or the Spanish, not..are you sure you wanna go on with this?

If I may semi-arbitrate, JamesR willing:

Spidergoat doesn't need to read the entire book. If there is any reasonable claim of divinely-inspired knowledge therein, then it should be detectable in a given passage, since such scientific aims must be driven by specific examples.

Moreover, no claim that I've ever seen expounds the predictive capacity of any book in toto, whether Nostradamus, the Apostles or Mohammed are the writers (clearly, word count arguments are excepted, but represent in their own right specific instances of evidence), and no claim by any Muslim authority that I'm aware of (Harun Yahya/Adnan Oktar included) uses the 'entire book' as an argument for its predictive ability.

for example, a guy in pre-Columbus north america said he's sent from god, and describes some creatures of god his book, which accurately depict the kangaroo or the panda..

but if i were you, i'd take this challenge right away, cuz i wouldn't be afraid to lose, it would either be proving my previous knowledge is correct, or gaining new knowledge, that way you can turn any debate into a win-win situation.

Scifes, he's already told you he's busy until Tuesday. I recommend that you respect his external demands, if you indeed respect the topic and your own argument.

yeah yeah no problem..i said nothing about that..
actually i might become busy by then, but the total time allowed is 3 days per post..i guess that would be enough even if one is busy..if we're not, as i said we might burn it out in about a day..

I thank you. Sorry if I came down a little hard. Sometimes I feel as though you have to bellow to be heard, which is very cynical in point of fact.

Sigh. It's just not like East Korea. What happened to the dream?

What happened to the dream?
I think it's down the back of the sofa, boss.

Shit. Well, I'm not going after it, unless a quarter falls in also.

I hope this thread is interesting and not a total waste of time. Please no "stages" of embryology or medicinal honey either!

hey keep your mouth shut, you're gonna spoil the fun:D

So maybe we can clarify something. If I show that something in the Quran is wrong, does that negate the examples that appears to show anamolous knowledge?

So maybe we can clarify something. If I show that something in the Quran is wrong, does that negate the examples that appears to show anamolous knowledge?
Yeah, this is a key issue that needs to be clarified before the debate starts. Is anyone going to be impressed if out of a thousand "scientific" claims 1 turns out to be "amazingly" correct and 999 are wrong?

I could write a book right now making all sorts of scientific predictions that no one today could possible know, but that will be verified as correct in the future...so long as no one cares about my success rate. If scifes only needs to pull one scientifically-correct fact from the Quran with no regard for the overall scientific accuracy in order to win the debate, then I don't think it's going to be of much interest to anyone. Even a stopped clock is right twice per day.

Even a stopped clock is right twice per day.I like this.

If scifes only needs to pull one scientifically-correct fact from the Quran with no regard for the overall scientific accuracy in order to win the debate, then I don't think it's going to be of much interest to anyone No worries. There isn't a single thing in that book matching the OP claims.

This proposal is now 10 days old.

Are there any agreed debaters to take on scifes?
Is there an agreed format for the debate?

I'm ready now. I don't know about the format.

So maybe we can clarify something. If I show that something in the Quran is wrong, does that negate the examples that appears to show anamolous knowledge?
that's interesting, yet complex, but;
not within the op, this debate IS easy for me spider, all i need to do is give one scientific fact given in the quran which is impossible to be found under the conditions the quran was written in, i.e without modern scientific gear..:o

No worries. There isn't a single thing in that book matching the OP claims.
hah, says the one who forfeited.:rolleyes:

I'm ready now. I don't know about the format.
check #8 and confirm.

and btw, now i'm the one who's busy, i've got a fat ass assignment on my plate, but i DO have 3 days to reply to any post, if you agree to my format of course.

scifes, iceaura did not forfeit. We've discussed this.

that's interesting, yet complex, but;
not within the op, this debate IS easy for me spider, all i need to do is give one scientific fact given in the quran which is impossible to be found under the conditions the quran was written in, i.e without modern scientific gear..:o

hah, says the one who forfeited.:rolleyes:

check #8 and confirm.

and btw, now i'm the one who's busy, i've got a fat ass assignment on my plate, but i DO have 3 days to reply to any post, if you agree to my format of course.

I agree to the format. My only other concern is that the quote from the Quran be specific. In other words, it cannot simply be a poetic verse that you happen to interpret as referring to an aspect of modern science.

scifes, iceaura did not forfeit. We've discussed this.
Whoa - apparently I've been missing out on something important. I got the PM, but didn't understand what it meant, sorry.

Re the challenge - I forfeit. Life is short.




I agree to the format. My only other concern is that the quote from the Quran be specific. In other words, it cannot simply be a poetic verse that you happen to interpret as referring to an aspect of modern science.
alright, i'm working on my first post, if you want to beat me to it with some introduction or comments or anything, i don't mind.

\feeling REAL nervous:bawl:

So, let me summarise:

Topic: The Qur'an details scientific facts that are impossible to know without modern scientific equipement.
Affirmative side: scifes
Negative side: spidergoat

Format:

10 posts for each debater.
After each post, the other debater has 3 days to post his next post otherwise he forfeits (unless allowed extra time by his opponent).

Anything to add to that?

Since scifes is arguing the affirmative case, he should open a Debate thread and post his first post. Also, please start a Discussion thread for the topic.

Where's the debate thread, scifes? How about we agree if you don't post something by Feb. 20, I win by default?

well i do not agree :)
i'm busier than you can imagine, and am not so hot on starting this crooked from the beginning, but way to go with the pressure, you'd better make me regret this.

The verbal fencing continues.

The debate has now started:

Debate thread
Discussion thread