Links to related threads:

Proposal thread
Debate thread
---

so, whaddya all got?:D

http://classics.mit.edu/Ovid/metam.1.first.html

that's too long, quote what you want us to read.

that's too long, quote what you want us to read.

It's a poem by Ovid, over a thousand years before the Quran was written, that refers to the ocean as a "dark abyss".

The idea that people needed the angel Gabriel to reveal to them, in the tenth century CE, that the sea was covered by waves and dark in its depths, is sort of insane in a pleasantly goofy kind of way.

It's a poem by Ovid, over a thousand years before the Quran was written, that refers to the ocean as a "dark abyss"

Where is the reference to layers of waves? I didn't see it, which is one important point scifes is trying to make in the debate..

By the way did you care to read the Title of the Poem or the words before this?

1. The title is: The Creation of the World

Keep this in mind... And now I will reproduce some of it here for everyone to see:

Quoted from Article posted by Iceaura: (The Poem is about Creation of the World). Emphasis is mine.

"No sun was lighted up, the world to view;
No moon did yet her blunted horns renew:
Nor yet was Earth suspended in the sky,
Nor pois'd, did on her own foundations lye:
Nor seas about the shores their arms had thrown;
But earth, and air, and water, were in one.
Thus air was void of light, and earth unstable,
And water's dark abyss unnavigable. "

So let us summarize what is being stated in the poem:

1. We realize that it is detailing the state before 'creation'
2. There is No Sunlight- (as 'no sun was lighted up')
3. Earth, air, and water were 1.
4. Air was void of light.


First point, if there is no sunlight, then there is darkness.
Second point if Earth, Air, and Water were all ONE, and there is no Sunlight, which explains why the Air was void of light- that only leaves darkness.

Has anyone seen Ocean at night- what is it except 'dark abyss'?

So in conclusion- the 'dark abyss' of the 'water' is being referred to in a condition where light does not even exist- essentially speaking about the condition of water at night- ironically this is the argument spidergoat was making against Quran of a 'moonless night'... Scifes answered that criticism but the argument of spidergoat would be valid in reference to this poem- So this poem is defeated by spidergoats 'moonless night' argument, yet it does not have any relation to what the Quran stated.

As such this does not explain what the Quran stated- and also can not be used to say that what the Quran said was already present 1000 years back as Iceaura asserted as this poem is referring to the 'darkness' in a condition of no-light (no sunglight, 'air void of light', etc), also noting this poem makes no reference to the layers of waves spoken about in the Quran.

Peace be unto you ;)

So in conclusion- the 'dark abyss' of the 'water' is being referred to in a condition where light does not even exist I'll accept that as a reasonable take on Ovid's poem.

Do you agree with scifes that it wasn't until modern scientific gear was invented that the peoples of the world - ocean traders and fishermen and pearl divers and all - noticed that the depths of the ocean were dark, and the surface kind of wavy?

That they didn't, for example, look over the side of the boat and see the anchor being hoisted into the light?

couple more: Orphic Hymn 23 to Nereus (trans. Taylor) (Greek hymns C3rd B.C. to 2nd A.D.) :
"To Nereus, Fumigation from Myrrh. O thou sho dost the roots of sea (pontos) keep in seats cerulian, Daimon of the deep, with fifty maidens [the Nereides] attending in thy train, fair virgin artists, glorying through the main: the dark foundation of the rolling sea, and earth’s wide bounds belong, much-famed, to thee.

Ovid, Metamorphoses 2. 262 ff (trans. Melville) (Roman epic C1st B.C. to C1st A.D.) :
"[When Phaethon set the earth aflame riding the chariot of the sun :] Even Nereus, fathoms down, in his dark caves, with Doris and her daughters [Nereides], felt the fire."

I'm sorry but, I somehow missed the miracle. What EXACTLY is being discussed? That the ocean is dark the deeper in the water one traverses? That the ocean has waves of different directions?!? THIS is what Allah, creator of not only the Universe but reality itself, offers for miraculous? Dark water with some waves???

You have got to be kidding me. Seriously.

I'll accept that as a reasonable take on Ovid's poem.

Do you agree with scifes that it wasn't until modern scientific gear was invented that the peoples of the world - ocean traders and fishermen and pearl divers and all - noticed that the depths of the ocean were dark, and the surface kind of wavy?

That they didn't, for example, look over the side of the boat and see the anchor being hoisted into the light?

I think if you read scifes response- he says in the end that to know the many levels of 'darkness' is a possibility of being known. But he is stressing the real 'miracle' of the internal waves.

I'm not saying that people did not know that ocean floor was dark- I only responded to your previous article because it clearly had nothing to do with the 'dark water' we are talking about.

But I'll still look at these quotes you provided: emphasis mine.

Orphic Hymn 23 to Nereus (trans. Taylor) (Greek hymns C3rd B.C. to 2nd A.D.) :
"To Nereus, Fumigation from Myrrh. O thou sho dost the roots of sea (pontos) keep in seats cerulian, Daimon of the deep, with fifty maidens [the Nereides] attending in thy train, fair virgin artists, glorying through the main: the dark foundation of the rolling sea, and earth’s wide bounds belong, much-famed, to thee.

It may be that this is talking about the the ocean being dark at the 'foundation' (bottom?)... Although there is another way to look at it... That is to understand 'foundation of water'.

For example read here: The specific section "Tartarus, Cosmic Place" and also the next section.

http://www.maicar.com/GML/Underworld.html

Somethings to note in that article:

"Tartarus is the lowest abyss beneath the earth where all waters originate"

"Tartarus and the Underworld are the realm of Erebus, which is pure Darkness."

"Tartarus is also a place of punishment."

"Tartarus is, they say, a gloomy"

Summary:
1. All water originate in Tartarus
2. Tartarus is associated with realm of Erebus which is 'pure darkness'.
3. Tartarus is associated with 'punishment', much like underworld
4. And Tartarus is a 'gloomy place'- and as most people would understand the 'underworld' and place of 'punishment' are pretty 'dark' places- at least when you try to imagine them they are pretty 'dark'.

In conclusion the 'foundation of water' is in a dark place of Tartarus- so for the quote you referred to to say that the the 'dark foundation of the rolling sea' would be in line with their cosmology and 'creation' of things. Seems more like reflecting what they believed about the 'underworld' then about the water itself.

As for the second quote- he is God of 'Sea'- If the foundation of 'all waters' is dark- then I'm sure he can get their.

Anyhow I think you're concentrating on the wrong issue.... I think, as noted by scifes in his response, the real question is about knowing the many layers of waves- both of your quotes do not give this detail.

Peace be unto you ;)

I'm sorry but, I somehow missed the miracle. What EXACTLY is being discussed? That the ocean is dark the deeper in the water one traverses? That the ocean has waves of different directions?!?

I guess you don't appreciate science at all- or at least not oceanography. There are scientists studying the shit and excretion of organisms as well-

Oh and you forgot the internal waves- which is the crux of the discussion.


THIS is what Allah, creator of not only the Universe but reality itself, offers for miraculous?

Well Allah didn't offer it as miracle- he simply created it and used it as a metaphor for faithless people.

It is us saying that the knowledge of this information is a 'miracle'.....

Like this: 'British scientist J.B.S. Haldane, when asked what would constitute evidence against evolution, famously said, “Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian.”'

What if we did find rabbits in precambrian? That would be a miracle- in the loose meaning of the word- as 'science' does not believe in 'miracles'.

Peace be unto you ;)

Anyhow I think you're concentrating on the wrong issue.... I think, as noted by scifes in his response, the real question is about knowing the many layers of waves- both of your quotes do not give this detail. So we drop the issue - emphasized by scifes in his "photic zone" commentary, and featured in the quote - about the darkness. One down.

OK: What about "waves upon waves" (as my translation has it) is supposed to be a revelation of the unknown to people who had been traveling the ocean for a thousand years? They are supposed to be unfamiliar with the complex wave turbulence common to severe storms? Their poets and storytellers didn't use that kind of intensifying language?

(I mean, besides the fact that it didn't actually reveal anything to any of them - the discoveries of modern oceanography awaited modern oceanography, and were not found in the Quran)

So we drop the issue - emphasized by scifes in his "photic zone" commentary, and featured in the quote - about the darkness. One down.

I didn't say to dismiss it, I just said that it was not the crux of the discussion.


OK: What about "waves upon waves" (as my translation has it) is supposed to be a revelation of the unknown to people who had been traveling the ocean for a thousand years? They are supposed to be unfamiliar with the complex wave turbulence common to severe storms? Their poets and storytellers didn't use that kind of intensifying language?

If you read the verse carefully it is not talking about intensive 'waves on waves' as commonly found in storms. But in layers, as otherwise clouds would not make sense at all. Waves on Top of Waves which are further topped by clouds- a hierarchy of layers.

In other words internal waves- this can not be observed through storms.


(I mean, besides the fact that it didn't actually reveal anything to any of them - the discoveries of modern oceanography awaited modern oceanography, and were not found in the Quran)

The discussion is about the information itself- how it was received is another issue- although I would say that the Prophet stated that the Quran has many meanings in it- and the Quran says that God will 'show signs' in a timeless fashion- the Quran being seen from a scientific perspective could be considered that to be a 'show of sign'- something which the Arabs couldn't understand but we can. An 'on going' revelation of what Quran already revealed-

Peace be unto you ;)

If you read the verse carefully it is not talking about intensive 'waves on waves' as commonly found in storms. But in layers, as otherwise clouds would not make sense at all. Waves on Top of Waves which are further topped by clouds- a hierarchy of layers.

In other words internal waves- this can not be observed through storms. I don't see internal waves there at all - they don't act like surface waves, the surface waves aren't "on top" of them, etc.

And dark clouds over all sounds just like a storm to me - waves on top of waves, dark clouds over all, yep- stormy weather, lost at sea, poetic language.

No one else got "internal waves" out of that, either, for almost two thousand years.

I didn't say to dismiss it, I just said that it was not the crux of the discussion. Best leave it out then, rather than make the big deal out of it scifes did.

You aren't going to get too many converts to the notion that infidels didn't know it got dark in deep water until modern science came along, anyway - and if the Muslims didn't know, that's something I wouldn't brag around.

alright! glad this thing got kick started, 786 is more than taking care of things here, so i'll just sit down and enjoy;)

I don't see internal waves there at all - they don't act like surface waves, the surface waves aren't "on top" of them, etc.

Where are internal waves if they are not below surface waves? No one is saying they 'act like surface waves'- but they are still waves.


And dark clouds over all sounds just like a storm to me - waves on top of waves, dark clouds over all, yep- stormy weather, lost at sea, poetic language.

I guess I'll just post the verse here:

"Or (the Unbelievers' state) is like the depths of darkness in a vast deep ocean, overwhelmed with billow topped by billow, topped by (dark) clouds: depths of darkness, one above another: if a man stretches out his hands, he can hardly see it! for any to whom Allah giveth not light, there is no light!"

'darkness in a vast deep sea'
'waves topped by waves, topped by dark clouds'
'darkness upon darkness'

So first darkness is being referred to in reference to the 'deep' sea- alluding to the depth of it... Then it refers to waves- What waves at those depths?

Then these waves are topped by waves, which are then topped by dark clouds- all of this being referred to darkness upon darkness... To me it seems like layers.


No one else got "internal waves" out of that, either, for almost two thousand years.

That doesn't even matter. Quran has multiple meanings, some of which the Arabs at the time could not understand. The Prophet stated that the Quran holds many meanings in it- there is no one 'translation' of the Quran- the Quran speaks about Allah revealing himself in a timeless fashion- how so when the prophethood has ended and the Quran is supposedly the final revelation? Oh yes the Quran has many meanings- only a portion was 'revealed' to the Arabs which they could understand- we can understand something totally different from the same verses.

Peace be unto you ;)

That doesn't even matter. Quran has multiple meanings, some of which the Arabs at the time could not understand. The Prophet stated that the Quran holds many meanings in it- there is no one 'translation' of the Quran- the Quran speaks about Allah revealing himself in a timeless fashion- how so when the prophethood has ended and the Quran is supposedly the final revelation? Oh yes the Quran has many meanings- only a portion was 'revealed' to the Arabs which they could understand- we can understand something totally different from the same verses.

To what extent that is ``understanding'', and to what extent is that ``reading a meaning into''? I've had the same discussions with Christian Apologists.

To what extent that is ``understanding'', and to what extent is that ``reading a meaning into''?

I don't think that is 'reading a meaning into'-

If I say 'I bought a red Ferarri'- you might infer that I'm rich. I'm not making totally something up- you read the verse as it is but the point is that the verse can be understood many ways if the subject of the verse allows.

Peace be unto you ;)

Spidergoat says in the debate:


Exactly, it would be of no benefit whatsoever, which is why Mohammed must have chosen metaphors that were not obscure but rather common.

And then later goes on to say


Note that scifes has the responsibility to show that there can not be any naturalistic interpretation to these texts, that they can only be understood as hints of future scientific discoveries meant to prove the Quran wasn't written by Mohammed himself.

I guess spidergoat is asking for scifes to show that these verse can only have 1 meaning (the scientific one)- which is an incorrect assumption to begin with- the Quranic verses have many meanings-

The verse can be taken to mean 'many' waves like proposed by spidergoat AND 'layers of waves'- even I write poetry that has many meanings in the same verse- it just depends from which perspective you look at it with..

If I can write a sentence that is supposed to hold many meanings, I don't understand why scifes must restrict the Quran to have only 1 meaning- supposedly being written by a much better writer than me, God!

Rather it is Spidergoat who has to show that the Arabs did not believe the Quran to have many meanings- or that the only meaning to the Quran was exactly what they themselves held to be its meaning-

Al Ghazali writes about this: And this notion of 'Quran having many meanings' didn't develop because people found 'science' in it- it was a long held, ancient view- even held by the Prophet himself.

""The truth is that prophetic Traditions (akhbar) and statements of the Prophet's companions and of other pious Muslims in early Islam (athar) prove that 'for men of understanding there is wide scope in the meanings of the Qur'an'. Thus 'Ali (may God be pleased with him!) said, 'except that God bestows understanding of the Qur'an upon a man.' If there is no meaning other than that which is related [from Ibn 'Abbas and other exegetes] what is that understanding of the Qur'an [which is bestowed upon a man]? The Prophet (may God bless him and greet him) said, 'Surely the Qur'an has an outward aspect, an inward aspect, a limit and a prelude.' This is also related. by Ibn Mas'ud on his own authority and he is one of the scholars of Qur'anic interpretation. [If there are no meanings of the Qur'an besides the outward ones], what is the meaning of its outward aspect, inward aspect, limit and prelude? 'Ali (may God show regard to his face!) said, 'If I so will I can certainly load seventy camels with the exegesis of the Opening Sura of the Book.' What then is the meaning of this statement of 'Ali, when the outward exegesis of this sura is extremely short us [and can be set forth in a few pages]? Abu Darda' said, 'One cannot [fully] understand the religion until one sees the Qur'an from different perspectives.' A certain religious scholar said, 'For every Qur'anic verse there are sixty thousand understandings [comprehensible to man]. The understandings of it which remain [incomprehensible to man] are even more than these in number.'"

Peace be unto you ;)

I think it's a version of a strawman argument. He's taking a poetic phrase and interpreting it in a modern scientific way. That doesn't mean that there is any real science in the original.

For instance, I could say in a poem that my heart is weighted down with darkness. Would it be a reference to dark matter? I mention a darkness with mass. That's what scifes is doing.

Furthermore, if God did intend to use science to convince us of the miracle of the Quran, he could have much more easily revealed something useful to Muslims, like the formula for dynamite.

I think it's a version of a strawman argument. He's taking a poetic phrase and interpreting it in a modern scientific way. That doesn't mean that there is any real science in the original.

For instance, I could say in a poem that my heart is weighted down with darkness. Would it be a reference to dark matter? I mention a darkness with mass. That's what scifes is doing.

Furthermore, if God did intend to use science to convince us of the miracle of the Quran, he could have much more easily revealed something useful to Muslims, like the formula for dynamite.

Lol.... Yes but 'heart' is not translated 'mass' in any way- it is heart- but it cannot be translated mass... The words of the Quran can be translated into the very same word that can describe scientific fact. In our case here the meaning is exactly 'wave'-

Secondly God did not 'intend to use science to convince us'- he intended many things in the same verse. I guess you don't appreciate the language of many meanings- it would be deemed a poetic masterpiece. But what you want is the formula for dynamite or maybe perhaps the formula for photosynthesis written in it?

Peace be unto you ;)

Yes, that's what I expected scifes to present, something like the formula for photosynthesis! Something that could not have been known at the time. Not just modern interpretations of the text in light of modern scientific knowledge. In order to demonstrate unambiguous scientific truth, it must be precise.

In my example, I said my heart was "weighted down" with darkness. Weight can be interpreted as mass, and dark mass as dark matter. This isn't precise at all.

Yes, that's what I expected scifes to present, something like the formula for photosynthesis! Something that could not have been known at the time. Not just modern interpretations of the text in light of modern scientific knowledge. In order to demonstrate unambiguous scientific truth, it must be precise.

What would be the point of that to those Arabs? Wasn't that your argument :D


In my example, I said my heart was "weighted down" with darkness. Weight can be interpreted as mass, and dark mass as dark matter. This isn't precise at all.

What about the 'heart'? You see you are still not using your expression fully- While scifes is looking at the same verse but still fully-

Peace be unto you ;)

There wouldn't be a point, except to help convert people thousands of years later when they realized it was there all along. But you can go back and interpret any vague poem in light of modern knowledge. Do you want to know what's even more fascinating? When Mohammed wasn't even a baby yet, the Greeks had deduced the existence of the atom, and although they did write about it in the form of a poem, they were explicit in their meaning:


Moreover, we must suppose that the atoms do not possess any of the qualities belonging to visible things, except shape, weight, and size, and whatever necessarily goes with shape. For every quality changes; but the atoms do not change at all, since there must needs be something which remains solid and indestructible at the dissolution of compounds, which makes change possible. These are not changes into the nonexistent or from the non-existent, but changes effected by changes in the position of some particles, and by the addition or departure of others. For this reason it is essential that the bodies that change their position should be indestructible and should not possess the nature of what changes, but masses and configurations of their own. For thus much must necessarily remain constant.

I'm pretty sure this was originally written in verse.

There wouldn't be a point, except to help convert people thousands of years later when they realized it was there all along.

But Quran does it better, the Arabs can understand it, and modern people can understand it. Multiple meanings- a much better use of words.

You still have to show that the Arabs thought Quran to have only one meaning, which you challenged scifes to do.

As for the Greek Atomic model.



since there must needs be something which remains solid and indestructible at the dissolution of compounds,

False- atoms can be destroyed.


For this reason it is essential that the bodies that change their position should be indestructible and should not possess the nature of what changes, but masses and configurations of their own. For thus much must necessarily remain constant.

Again, atom is not 'indestructible'- and it DOES change- Radioactive decay? The position of electrons is not constant- it gains and loses electrons?

And quite frankly speaking can you please tell me the shape of an atom which is supposedly an inherent quality of an atom that does not change- because I've never seen the 'shape' of a 'unchanging' atom- all I see are electron clouds which just highlights the PROBABILITY of the position of electrons- but we know that is not a shape or at least not an 'unchanging' shape.

This would've been a great piece to put in the Quran, but I guess Muhammad knew that it was wrong so didn't put this in but put everything else which was correct and proof-read them?

Peace be unto you ;)

That's the modern definition of atom, not the a-tom, the essential particle, to which the Greeks were referring. The modern atom was misnamed, and we now know that it can be broken down into smaller constituents.

That's the modern definition of atom, not the a-tom, the essential particle, to which the Greeks were referring. The modern atom was misnamed, and we now know that it can be broken down into smaller constituents.

Let me know which particle is indestructible? And please provide a proof that it is 'indestructible'.

If the only thing Greeks came up to is that- there must be something fundamentally 'small' that makes things up- and that it has a weight and size- this can easily be hypothesized by just common sense. This is just a philosophical conclusion which isn't surprising at all. Greeks were known for their philosophical complexity.

Or are you telling me that people could not say that if you can cut a bar of gold into ten pieces, that you can also cut it into a 100 pieces, and so on and so forth? Essentially there is something fundamentally small that makes up the 'big'- it wouldn't take a genius to hypothesize this- but obviously if you are even more philosophical then you can go even further.

For example did they not see that if you mix sugar with water it dissolves? Then if the most fundamental thing was a grain (in place of atom) of sugar, then where did it go? It means there is something more fundamental, undifferentiated- meaning something that actually makes up the sugar....

So now I've gone from a smallest piece of sugar to some other small piece which itself is not sugar. And a philosopher would continue, but I'm not going to waste my time explaining this as I'm sure even you have the mind to think philosophically.

No one can doubt that Greeks were very intellectual and philosophical.

And secondly Greeks had many thing wrong too.... If Muhammad simply copied the information from others then did he sort the right from wrong?

Also what is the philosophical reasoning behind internal waves? As a layman would think that waves are due to the wind which is only present on the top of the ocean surface? Especially considering this coming from a desert dweller who probably doesn't know too much about water anyways.

Peace be unto you ;)

It doesn't say internal waves. It says waves upon waves, which is simply the literary technique of repetition.

The point I'm making about the Greeks is that they revealed amazing scientific facts using nothing more than reason. Which is more than Mohamed has done, allegedly channeling God itself.

It doesn't say internal waves. It says waves upon waves, which is simply the literary technique of repetition.

Waves topped by waves topped by clouds-- The same language in a succession can not be attributed to clouds if just before it is talking about 'many waves'- Clouds would be missed placed here.

Secondly please read the verse again: I'm providing translations found here:
http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/quran/024.qmt.html

024.040
YUSUFALI: Or (the Unbelievers' state) is like the depths of darkness in a vast deep ocean, overwhelmed with billow topped by billow, topped by (dark) clouds: depths of darkness, one above another: if a man stretches out his hands, he can hardly see it! for any to whom Allah giveth not light, there is no light!

PICKTHAL: Or as darkness on a vast, abysmal sea. There covereth him a wave, above which is a wave, above which is a cloud. Layer upon layer of darkness. When he holdeth out his hand he scarce can see it. And he for whom Allah hath not appointed light, for him there is no light.

SHAKIR: Or like utter darkness in the deep sea: there covers it a wave above which is another wave, above which is a cloud, (layers of) utter darkness one above another; when he holds out his hand, he is almost unable to see it; and to whomsoever Allah does not give light, he has no light.


It refers to darkness at the depth of the sea- then to waves and then waves on top. It is illogical to first draw attention to the depth of something (to which the metaphor is for) but then follow it up with something that isn't found there at all- unless the following was at the depth to begin with to allow for smooth transition from depth to sky (cloud).

If the metaphor is related to darkness in the depth then to assume that the 'waves' referred to first are surface waves is quite illogical as the metaphor breaks apart if one does that. As supposedly the metaphor was that of the darkness in the depth of seas as told in the beginning.

And then you have to also consider the summation of the metaphor with layers of darkness 'one above another'. If the previously mentioned things were in layers- then to single out 'waves' as many (which makes clouds missed placed) would further make it illogical.

As the beginning refers to darkness in the depth. To explain that darkness it uses "waves topped by waves topped by clouds"... Sums it up as 'darkness above darkness'.

If waves is 1 thing (many waves)- that would be 1 layer- surface layer, clouds would be the other layer (sky).

But where is the darkness in the depth? Also to note is that 2 of translations say 'there'- referring to the depth where the 'waves' are or at least the first waves.. Coincidentally the verse gives examples where darkness can be found- waves (surface) and clouds (sky) but where is the example for the 'darkness' in the deep?

The logical conclusion is that that it works from depth to sky in a succession... waves (depth), wave on top (surface), clouds (sky). This answers why the attention to the depth was brought in the beginning of the metaphor and it gives logical succession. And it answers the 'layer of darkness' (summation of metaphor) at the end.

And again you still have to show that Arabs only held that the Quran had only the meaning they themselves held.



The point I'm making about the Greeks is that they revealed amazing scientific facts using nothing more than reason. Which is more than Mohamed has done, allegedly channeling God itself.

Greeks are a big group of people- they wrote many works of their philosophical discussion.. purpose of them being philosophical discussion regarding their surrounding..

The Quran is a single book purpose of which is not to to detail or try to explain how things work or are composed of- but a theological work which occasionally uses metaphors that help it achieve this goal.

That is like saying that a book of anatomy should contain information regarding how to pass Level 2 of Prince of Persia (a video game).

Peace be unto you ;)

Exactly, and you make my points for me, the Quran is a theological work which contains metaphors appropriate to the people of the time, and shows no particular insight into the workings of nature. The layered nature of waves and clouds and atmospheric effects was well known to people that spent more time outside than modern people do. How do I know this? He also mentions layers of darkness, which cannot be literally true. Darkness upon darkness is therefore an example of a literary technique. It's just repetition for effect.

This is also found in the bible when Jesus says to turn the other cheek not 7 times but 7 times 70. Of course he didn't literally mean to be pacifist exactly 490 times and then you can kill the motherfucker. It's a literary phrase that just means, for all practical purposes, forever.

Exactly, and you make my points for me, the Quran is a theological work which contains metaphors appropriate to the people of the time, and shows no particular insight into the workings of nature.

I believe I already answered this? It is a theological work which contains metaphors for real world processes. But it does not mean that it will contain everything.. You are quoting Greek work which is for philosophical purposes. If the Quran refers to real world things as a form of metaphor then one can not hide from the fact that it is still using an actual example- even though it is a theological work in itself. But you are demanding that it be something more- like give the formula for dynamite? You are not content with it containing what it does- but your question is why doesn't it contain even more- it seems that it is you who forgets what the Quran is, not me- I simply take it to be a theological work but when it does mention things of scientific relevance then I take that as well- not demanding that it provide even more science because I already know its not a science book- but why should I turn away from whatever it does provide?

As for 'appropriate to the people of the time'- yet the words are timeless enough that they explain modern understanding as well. I've already shown that Quran was believed to hold meanings that the Arabs acknowledged they themselves did not know- And I've already told you that poetry can be written with the same verse having many meanings- and the fact that the Prophet himself believed the Quran to have many meanings- some of which were NOT UNDERSTOOD by the Arabs!

The author intended many meanings- we know that from what the Arabs believed about the Quran-

But it seems perfectly okay to go in an English class and read something and everyone gives their 'insight' on what something means and the teacher is like 'I can see that, nice job'- so English work is complex enough? Not knowing that the author even intended many meanings? But we are to leave other meanings about the Quran knowing from historical evidence that many meanings were intended in that work?


The layered nature of waves and clouds and atmospheric effects was well known to people that spent more time outside than modern people do.

So you are arguing that they knew about internal waves?


How do I know this? He also mentions layers of darkness, which cannot be literally true.

Actually it can be- assuming that 'darkness' is not uniform which it is not- there are 'levels' of darkness- like how dark can your TV produce 'black levels'

We know that the light of the sun can penetrate to a certain extent but the different wavelengths of light (colors that compose the sunlight) penetrate the ocean to an extent of different depths- coincidentally creating 'levels' of darkness the more deep you go as more and more of the 'light' is unable to penetrate.



Darkness upon darkness is therefore an example of a literary technique. It's just repetition for effect.

True, if you look at it in a vacuum, you chose to ignore all that I said in the previous post trying to point out the structure of the verse. I already tried to show why the literary technique you are referring to does not explain the verse in question. It adds to the 'effect' (which is the purpose of a metaphor) that is for sure but it never fully satisfies the verse and how it is being stated.

Peace be unto you ;)

So first darkness is being referred to in reference to the 'deep' sea- alluding to the depth of it... Then it refers to waves- What waves at those depths?

Then these waves are topped by waves, which are then topped by dark clouds- all of this being referred to darkness upon darkness... To me it seems like layers. I see a poetically described ocean in storm: dark in the depths, waves on top, clouds over them. Confusion and lost mariners - a mundane analogy. No doubt it is better poetry in the original.


So first darkness is being referred to in reference to the 'deep' sea- alluding to the depth of it... Then it refers to waves- What waves at those depths? What depths? It just says waves - not deep ones. Specifically, it refers to the waves being on top - the upper layer. But "internal waves" would be below, as well as above - an error, in the Quran? And the "internal waves" are not waves in ordinary description - that's a scientific analogy, The Quran would have been in error to use the same word.

I think that is poetry, not scientific error, myself.

No one else got "internal waves" out of that, either, for almost two thousand years.
”
That doesn't even matter. Quran has multiple meanings, some of which the Arabs at the time could not understand Once again these deities play their mysterious games - why bury something so simple in such cryptic language? I don't see why a reasonable Arab of the 10th Century CE could not understand a a clear reference to internal waves in the ocean, without disguising it as an apparently ordinary poetic description of a storm-tossed ocean.

I see a poetically described ocean in storm: dark in the depths, waves on top, clouds over them. Confusion and lost mariners - a mundane analogy. No doubt it is better poetry in the original.

Okay, and so?



What depths? It just says waves - not deep ones.

Did you care to read what it was referring to before? Or all of you guys like to look at words in vacuum?


Specifically, it refers to the waves being on top - the upper layer. But "internal waves" would be below, as well as above - an error, in the Quran?

Actually it does refer to waves both below and above- 2 layers of waves you see?


And the "internal waves" are not waves in ordinary description - that's a scientific analogy, The Quran would have been in error to use the same word.

True, but it simply says waves- it has attributes of a wave- namely frequency + amplitude + wavlength- it is what causes them that is different- an interesting thing to note is that the Quran says 3 things- waves, another wave, clouds.

It just happens to be, and interesting, that the internal waves are a result of gravity and that also leads to 'waves' in the atmosphere which create 'wave clouds'- it ends up talking about the waves inside ocean, on top of ocean, and clouds (evaporated from ocean?).

So it ends up giving us ocean internal waves, ocean surface waves, and atmospheric internal waves (at least the ones related to 'wave clouds').


I think that is poetry, not scientific error, myself.

I don't see the error :D


in such cryptic language?

Or perhaps he should've wrote 1 million volumes to get every single detail in there?

Peace be unto you ;)

Actually it does refer to waves both below and above- 2 layers of waves you see? No, I don't see. It refers to waves upon waves, all of them the same kind of waves, all of them in the "layer" (your word) on top, with clouds over them and the deep dark under them.

What depths? It just says waves - not deep ones.
”
Did you care to read what it was referring to before? Or all of you guys like to look at words in vacuum? I read what you described - layers: the deep dark, waves upon waves on top of that, clouds over all. The ocean we all see, when we look over the side of the boat.

in such cryptic language?
”
Or perhaps he should've wrote 1 million volumes to get every single detail in there? I'm still waiting for the first detail of the requested kind.

So far, we have a claim that without modern scientific gear no one would notice that in stormy, threatening weather the depths of the ocean were dark, waves upon waves were over it, and dark clouds over them. The claim is ludicrous.

btw:
True, but it simply says waves- it has attributes of a wave- namely frequency + amplitude + wavlength- it is what causes them that is different- an interesting thing to note is that the Quran says 3 things- waves, another wave, clouds. That was two things - waves and clouds.
So it ends up giving us ocean internal waves, ocean surface waves, and atmospheric internal waves (at least the ones related to 'wave clouds'). ? This whole business of "internal waves" is not visible in the Quran - and if you care, "wave clouds" are not formed over the deep ocean, neither are they dark.

Give it up. It's a lousy example - no modern scientific information at all.

...If the Quran refers to real world things as a form of metaphor then one can not hide from the fact that it is still using an actual example- even though it is a theological work in itself. But you are demanding that it be something more- like give the formula for dynamite? ...

Yes, specifically something that could not have been known at the time. A layered model isn't anything new, it's the exact cosmological model of the ancient and primitive Piraha people of the Amazon.

I'm still missing the "miracle" that the creator of reality itself preformed here in the Qur'an? Ocean waves on top of waves with clouds floating over top of the ocean? THAT is the miracle? Is that what Godhead's are passing off as miracles these days?!?!? Geesh, the economy really is on the skids.

I met an Egyptian once who told me he had discovered the Periodic table in the Quran. I never did get around to finding out where it was.

I met an Egyptian once who told me he had discovered the Periodic table in the Quran. I never did get around to finding out where it was.
what're you cooking?:bugeye:
couldn't resist the smell:D

I'm still missing the "miracle" that the creator of reality itself preformed here in the Qur'an? Ocean waves on top of waves with clouds floating over top of the ocean? THAT is the miracle? Is that what Godhead's are passing off as miracles these days?!?!? Geesh, the economy really is on the skids.

That is not the miracle, the information is (or at least being claimed to be). I don't you ever understand anything do you :shrug:

Peace be unto you ;)

No, I don't see. It refers to waves upon waves, all of them the same kind of waves, all of them in the "layer" (your word) on top, with clouds over them and the deep dark under them.

'Same' is your word- they are waves on top of waves, which is accurate as the waves in depth are still waves.



I read what you described - layers: the deep dark, waves upon waves on top of that, clouds over all. The ocean we all see, when we look over the side of the boat.

It refers to the darkness in the deep- and 'there' it talks about waves, and then waves on top. Secondly you also need to prove that this is the only meaning.


I'm still waiting for the first detail of the requested kind.

Formula for dynamite?


So far, we have a claim that without modern scientific gear no one would notice that in stormy, threatening weather the depths of the ocean were dark, waves upon waves were over it, and dark clouds over them. The claim is ludicrous.

No, the claim is no one would have known internal waves.


btw: That was two things - waves and clouds. ? This whole business of "internal waves" is not visible in the Quran

That is if 'waves' on top of 'waves' are not two separate waves- you're the one who came up with the word 'same' which is not even in the verse. Internal waves by all definitions are waves-.


- and if you care, "wave clouds" are not formed over the deep ocean, neither are they dark.

But generally speaking where is the formation of clouds? And where did you get the idea that 'wave clouds' don't form in Oceans:

Look at Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_cloud
Coincidentally the main picture is of Wave Clouds in the 'far Southern Indian Ocean

And they can't be dark? Stop giving me this bs.
http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/view_rec.php?id=8323

Quoting from the description: "However, clouds sometimes appear gray or even black"

As for in 'deep Ocean'-
http://www.es.flinders.edu.au/~mattom/IntExerc/basic2/quest04.html

Look at number 3 (south of Madagascar)- which is basically around where the Prince Edwards Islands are- from which the pictures from the above articles are shown. Seems 'deep' enough to me? Have you ever even went down 100m with your bare body- even 100m is deep enough for desert dwellers. And I would say its pretty dark even at 100m-200m.


Give it up. It's a lousy example - no modern scientific information at all.

Perhaps you should stop making up crap like 'wave clouds' can't form in Oceans and they can't be dark.

Peace be unto you ;)

Yes, specifically something that could not have been known at the time. A layered model isn't anything new, it's the exact cosmological model of the ancient and primitive Piraha people of the Amazon.

Mind providing links, specifically regarding this 'wave model'?

Peace be unto you ;)

what're you cooking?:bugeye:
couldn't resist the smell:D

Fish Biryani, with some nice rawas [salmon] steaks. Yes, it did turn out exceptionally well. Happy Holi ;)

Mind providing links, specifically regarding this 'wave model'?

Peace be unto you ;)

http://pib.socioambiental.org/en/povo/piraha/808

Give it up. It's a lousy example - no modern scientific information at all.
”
Perhaps you should stop making up crap like 'wave clouds' can't form in Oceans and they can't be dark. Read your own links - they describe the formation of "wave clouds" (in the lee of landforms only) and their common appearance.

You are trying to make a perfectly mundane poetic description of the ocean as visible to anyone who looks out from a boat in stormy weather, into some kind of evocation of modern scientific discovery.

The plain fact is that no one, not even a particularly ignorant and obtuse Arab in the 10th century, not even a resident of a culture apparently imagined to be considerably less observant and less intelligent than average fo the species, needs modern scientific gear or the insights of angels from God to notice that the ocean features darkness in its depths, "waves upon waves" on its storm-tossed surface, or dark clouds overhead in times of danger and confusion to mariners. These are ordinary observations, available to the poets and the sailors and the audiences alike.

These are ordinary observations, available to the poets and the sailors and the audiences alike.

And were there observations as such from these at the time?

Yet mystery and manifestations
arise from the same source.
This source is called darkness.

Darkness within darkness.
The gateway to all understanding.

Tao Te Ching Vs. 1

And were there observations as such from these at the time? Assuming Arabs are of at least ordinary intelligence and alertness.

I'm trying to imagine an entire culture of people living on major trade routes who hadn't noticed or even heard, in their many trading journeys and far-ranging travels, that the ocean was dark in its depths and often very wavy on top, especially when dark clouds covered all;

I'm drawing a blank. I suppose it's possible.

I don't know if there are. I simply wondered if you had read of any such.

Read your own links - they describe the formation of "wave clouds" (in the lee of landforms only) and their common appearance.

'obstacles'- which tend to be land forms... But they do form on top of Oceans now do they? Where the hell is Amsterdam Island, and Prince Edwards Island? They are pretty much in the frick'n middle of an Ocean! Point being they form on Oceans- secondly if someone was going to 'stretch their hand' I would assume they are standing on something? And lastly they can be dark!

http://envisat.esa.int/live/brockmann_archive/2007/lg_MER_RR__1PNPDE20071213_042039_000009442064_0013 3_30247_5170.gif

Are the clouds on top of an ocean... Ohhh crap.......sure they are near a landmass but still on top of an ocean (please note the 'red dot' on the bottom left side of the map- in the middle of an ocean)


You are trying to make a perfectly mundane poetic description of the ocean as visible to anyone who looks out from a boat in stormy weather, into some kind of evocation of modern scientific discovery.

No, I'm taking the 'perfectly mundane poetic description' which is one meaning and was probably understood by Arabs and also stating that it fits perfectly with scientific discovery which is another meaning- you or spidergoat have yet to show that the Quran was believed to have only the meaning the Arabs themselves held- when they did infact believe that Quran had many meanings and hidden knowledge.


The plain fact is that no one, not even a particularly ignorant and obtuse Arab in the 10th century, not even a resident of a culture apparently imagined to be considerably less observant and less intelligent than average fo the species, needs modern scientific gear or the insights of angels from God to notice that the ocean features darkness in its depths, "waves upon waves" on its storm-tossed surface, or dark clouds overhead in times of danger and confusion to mariners. These are ordinary observations, available to the poets and the sailors and the audiences alike.

And even those Arabs knew that their poetry was advanced enough to contain many meanings...

Peace be unto you ;)

http://pib.socioambiental.org/en/povo/piraha/808

I would hardly call this 'wave model'- its more like 'multiple worlds in a layer model'.

Quoting:

"layers of land placed one on top of the other, producing parallel planes which do not physically communicate, except through the beings that inhabit them."

Yeah, nothing like what we are talking about-

Peace be unto you ;)

But someone meaning to show that the Piraha were inspired by God would make a similar argument to the one you and scifes are using. They would say it's a reference to a mutli-dimensional universe, or a reference to the layered aspect of the atmosphere and under the Earth. I know you would say it's a stretch, which is what I say about the Qurab reference in question here.

I don't have to show that the Quran could not have more than one meaning, I only have to show that the description in question represents specific facts that could not have been known at the time, not poetry that vaguely and accidently eludes to something we already know.

I don't have to show that the Quran could not have more than one meaning, I only have to show that the description in question represents specific facts that could not have been known at the time, not poetry that vaguely and accidently eludes to something we already know.

Well you have to this point failed to show 'internal waves' to be known. 'Accidently' is of course is your own opinion.



But someone meaning to show that the Piraha were inspired by God would make a similar argument to the one you and scifes are using. They would say it's a reference to a mutli-dimensional universe, or a reference to the layered aspect of the atmosphere and under the Earth. I know you would say it's a stretch, which is what I say about the Qurab reference in question here.

The only argument it can make is about a 'multi-dimensional' universe- with layers of earth... That is not a stretch- Why is it a stretch?

Also note: "Each level presents its own morphology composed of water, earth, trees and animals, varying only in form, size and number."---- Can't be talking about the 'layers of Earth'- a scientific fact.. It is talking about many Earths which are in layers- varying in 'form, size, and number'- which is not known to be scientific at least right now.

While if we look at the Quran regarding this:

It is God who created the seven heavens and [b]of the earth the same number The commands flow among them that you may know that God has power over everything and everything is held within the knowledge of God. (Quran 65:12)

Which is a scientific fact that the atmosphere is in 7 layers and Earth from crust to the core also has 7 layers-- but I know you wanted the Quran to give properties of each of the layers and perhaps even their names in English.

Peace be unto you :)

It was scifes's assertion to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, and I say he has so far failed.

The atmosphere is typically defined as having 5 layers, not 7. And it doesn't say the atmosphere has 7 layers, it says 7 heavens, and there is no evidence for heaven.

It was scifes's assertion to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, and I say he has so far failed.

What he had to show was that no one could have known internal waves without scientific gear- you have failed to show that people could have- I think its you who failed.


The atmosphere is typically defined as having 5 layers, not 7.

It is 'typically' defined in 5.... but if you add some detail, then 7 is also correct.

1. Troposphere
2. Statosphere
3. Ozonosphere
4. Mesosphere
5. Thermosphere
6. Ionosphere
7. Exosphere

Similarly Earth is usually defined with 3, 4 or even 5 layers, but with detail it can also be 7.


And it doesn't say the atmosphere has 7 layers, it says 7 heavens, and there is no evidence for heaven.

The Arabic word for 'heaven' and 'atmosphere' can be the same. Go use a English-Arabic dictionary and compare it if you wish.

Peace be unto you ;)

What's so revolutionary about waves? All waves are obviously "internal" to the water in question. No special scientific knowledge required.

Furthermore:
And He decreed them seven heavens in two days, and inspired every heaven with its bidding: and we
adorned the lower heaven with lamps and guardian angels; that is the decree of the mighty, the knowing One
41:12

So, the lowest heaven is the one with stars in it, which is obviously wrong, meaning that the seven heavens cannot refer to the layers of the atmosphere.

What's so revolutionary about waves? All waves are obviously "internal" to the water in question. No special scientific knowledge required.

Lol. So its easy to say that there are waves in the deep ocean? I don't see waves even when I'm swimming.


Furthermore:
And He decreed them seven heavens in two days, and inspired every heaven with its bidding: and we
adorned the lower heaven with lamps and guardian angels; that is the decree of the mighty, the knowing One
41:12

So, the lowest heaven is the one with stars in it, which is obviously wrong, meaning that the seven heavens cannot refer to the layers of the atmosphere.

The Arabic word for 'lamp' can mean stars... but if you think about it, the higher we go the darker it gets, essentially the lowest heaven 'troposphere' allows us scattered light thanks to its composition- The usage of a lamp is to light something up to see- that is what the troposphere does. Because it has such a high composition (90% of atmospheric mass) the sunlight is scattered the most here- serves the purpose of a lamp. Note in the verse that it says 'inspired every heaven with its bidding'- that is each 'heaven' has its own role to play- which is true none-the-less.

Anyways, lets not get into everything- I only brought it up due to your link- lets stay focused on the actual topic.

What is the proof that people could have known that 'waves' exist at deep levels?

Peace be unto you ;)

There aren't waves deep under the Ocean, so I don't know what you are talking about.

Also, all the lights that are even refracted by the lower atmosphere come from outer space, so that's wrong too.

There aren't waves deep under the Ocean, so I don't know what you are talking about.

Here you go:
http://www.jhuapl.edu/techdigest/td2101/li.pdf

Please look at Table 1- its below figures 3 and 4. So I guess we have proof of internal waves in at least 100 m deep- I'm sure there are studies that show even deeper- but I don't need to waste time...

So now even if a modern man who has studied science doesn't even know, that makes the argument more compelling.


Also, all the lights that are even refracted by the lower atmosphere come from outer space, so that's wrong too.

I never said that it provides light, I only said it scatters the light which makes things visible- A bulb creates light, but the fuel of that light is electricity which is actually externally provided to the bulb... In our case the sun provides the light from externally- but the light must be scattered- which is accomplished by the troposphere- Space is dark why even with 'Sun' the lamp? Sun is only the source of light, it must be combined with the scattering by the troposphere to actually have visibility- only then do you accomplish the purpose of a 'lamp'- So just like a bulb is a lamp even though the source of electricity is external so can the troposphere be considered a lamp.

Peace be unto you ;)

So there is no light on the moon?

If Mohammed had published that paper, or even the introduction, I would be impressed, but he didn't. Imagine if a college kid had to write a paper on internal waves in the Ocean, and he wrote, "There are waves upon waves". He would get a big "F" because he wasn't really said anything. The assumption that this is what Mohammed was talking about is your invention only. A true scientific statement would be precise, because vague statements can be interpreted in almost any way.

These internal waves to which you refer could not be what Mohammed is referring to, since they are well ordered and not chaotic in the sense that the passage talks about. He can only be talking about waves on the surface, such as that associated with storms, disorder, chaos, and ultimately, disbelief.

So there is no light on the moon?

Moon doesn't have its own light now does it? Its reflected sunlight. yet it is considered a 'lamp' in general terms.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lamp
5. a celestial body that gives off light, as the moon or a star.

(moon doesn't have its own light, just like Troposphere)

But can you live on the moon- I don't think you can even breath there without special gear. We can live on Earth without those gears- we require an atmosphere- without the scattering you would have extremely low light levels. Or would you rather have no atmosphere just so you can have sunlight? Give me a break. Not to mention the UV light is gonna give you cancer if you stay there too long if you do take off your gear (assuming you survive :shrug: )


If Mohammed had published that paper, or even the introduction, I would be impressed, but he didn't.

lol. But at least you now know there are deep internal waves :D


Imagine if a college kid had to write a paper on internal waves in the Ocean, and he wrote, "There are waves upon waves". He would get a big "F" because he wasn't really said anything.

That is assuming if you were in a science class anyways... so again you forget what the Quran actually is... but you demand more from it if it gives you anything of scientific relevance.



The assumption that this is what Mohammed was talking about is your invention only.

My assumption is well founded on the basis that Muhammad believed the Quran to have many hidden meanings some of which were not known to the Arabs. Your assumption is that it does not, and the only meaning it has is the 'stormy ocean'- you haven't provided any proof for this assumption.


A true scientific statement would be precise, because vague statements

Waves on waves- and in layers- is actually the most precise you can go without getting into the nitty gritty of the them.


can be interpreted in almost any way.

Again the language is quite the same to describe them- waves by all definitions are waves. No one is saying 'wave' means 'wheels on the bus go round and round'- we're saying it means waves.

Peace be unto you ;)

I don't you ever understand anything do you :shrug:786, Ummmm this sentence reminds me of the Qur'an :p


Oh, I see now, YOU'RE a Prophet too! You've clearly referenced action potentials and the role of sodium, potassium and calcium in neuronal signaling processes and how this related to consciousness! So that when scientists one day do understand how consciousness arises we can go back and say - SEE 786 was/is a Prophet. WOW!!!! Miraculous! And so now we can also leap to the conclusion and know there is a God-head. Geeee it's all so clear and scientific-like. Oh, and most importantly it's the God-head I worship and I get to go to heaven. :bugeye:

786, Ummmm this sentence reminds me of the Qur'an

I don't pay extensive attention to my writings quite frankly especially when responding to people who themselves don't have brain :D



Oh, I see now, YOU'RE a Prophet too! You've clearly referenced action potentials and the role of sodium, potassium and calcium in neuronal signaling processes and how this related to consciousness!

Wow but all of that can be logically deduce by the scientific knowledge we do have- Spidergoat just has to show that the same can be done of the internal waves- which seemingly he didn't know existed at deep levels so he himself couldn't deduce them :shrug:

Peace be unto you ;)

But it doesn't say internal waves, it just says waves above waves, which anyone can see on the ocean from the shore. Again, no special scientific knowledge required. The Quran doesn't exhibit this knowledge at all, this is just an example of people trying see modern knowledge in an ancient book that simply isn't there.

No, I'm taking the 'perfectly mundane poetic description' which is one meaning and was probably understood by Arabs and also stating that it fits perfectly with scientific discovery which is another meaning So?

Look at the OP: you are supposed to be presenting us with stuff that could not have been known without modern scientific gear. Instead you present us with convenient and implausible reinterpretations of stuff which you yourself agree was understood by contemporaries to mean something else entirely, and something easily within their capabilities of observation.

This is ridiculous, OK? Waves upon waves in the ocean, dark in the depths, clouds above, do not require modern scientific gear to observe - all you have to do is look over the side of your boat. They had boats.

But it doesn't say internal waves, it just says waves above waves, which anyone can see on the ocean from the shore. Again, no special scientific knowledge required. The Quran doesn't exhibit this knowledge at all, this is just an example of people trying see modern knowledge in an ancient book that simply isn't there.

Waves that I usually observe are 'one after another'- never would I describe them as 'one above another'- unless I'm going to say that the first wave crashed and the wave 'behind' (not above) it came and crashed on top (top as in same location). But if that were to happen the first wave would no longer be a 'wave' (in laymen terms) as it has already crashed.

Or maybe we're talking about a Tsunami wave? Huge wave running a big distance which would be somehow on 'top' of 'small waves'- but even then it would be a 'wave on top of waves' not 'waves on top of waves'.

Not to mention all of this has nothing to do with the depth of ocean- which really is what the metaphor tried to describe in the beginning..... It seems more logical to start from the waves (deep), top waves (surface), clouds (sky).

Peace be unto you ;)

Look at the OP: you are supposed to be presenting us with stuff that could not have been known without modern scientific gear.

Internal waves can't


Instead you present us with convenient and implausible reinterpretations

What is implausible about wave above waves in layers not being able to be interpreted as waves that below waves that are on top... Spidergoat has already used the word 'accidental' to describe that it fits the scientific knowledge- so at least he knows that he can see this interpretation to be not 'implausible'.


of stuff which you yourself agree was understood by contemporaries to mean something else entirely, and something easily within their capabilities of observation.

Yet at the same times believing that the Quran has meanings they do not understand- which they accepted to be the case. And scientific knowledge of this would certainly be something they did not know about- and like Spidergoat says fits current knowledge 'accidentally'.


This is ridiculous, OK? Waves upon waves in the ocean, dark in the depths, clouds above, do not require modern scientific gear to observe - all you have to do is look over the side of your boat. They had boats.

And so? We're not talking about the same waves now are we? Why don't you prove that your interpretation is the only 'plausible' one.

Peace be unto you ;)

One things clear - people are very desperate not to have to face up to death and oblivion. The passage says nothing about "internal waves". It's referring to a choppy ocean as an analogy.

The passage says nothing about "internal waves". It's referring to a choppy ocean as an analogy.

Really? :D

Peace be unto you ;)

All mariners understood the currents and used them to traverse the oceans. Anyone who has swam in the ocean knows to look for rip current. Look, this is an utterly absurd waste of time IMO. People are just as asinine about believing in the "miracles" of Ron Hubbard or whomever. Once a person truly believes in smurfs or Xenu/Xemu or Allah there is absolutely no making sense with them - it's a complete waste of time. They will read wave on top of waves to mean "internal waves" and this to mean some other bullshit until they have the atomic orbital theory pulled from this crap. So why bother?

You've shown ancient Greek and South American and Chinese examples and it's been a big waste of time. Once people believe in the miraculous utterances of Ron Hubbard and truly worship Xenu/Xemu then it's a done deal. I mean, it takes professionals months of intensive therapy to break people out of these memes. Yes, sure, some people snap out rather quickly. Or never really bought it. For people who don't snap out in, say a few months of questioning, and if anything seem to be more delusional. These people are a waste of time.

I have a question, when do we know the debate is over? Do we vote on it? Because scifes and company could go on forever.

I have a question, when do we know the debate is over? Do we vote on it? Because scifes and company could go on forever.

10 posts each is the rule no? You still haven't showed that internal waves were possible to know, so i guess it should continue... Neither have you tried to support your claim of 'many waves' when in fact the verse is providing a context of layering- clouds being misplaced if it was many waves because its being said in a continuous fashion and same words- and later the layering of darkness.

Peace be unto you ;)

You've shown ancient Greek and South American and Chinese examples and it's been a big waste of time.

Because none of those examples were even close to the topic of oceans we are discussing and neither did they have anything to do with internal waves.... Spidergoat made up the term 'wave model' when in fact no one in there right minds could see 'waves' in that article- only stratified 'layers' of multiple complete 'earths' of various sizes and numbers.

Peace be unto you ;)

10 posts each is the rule no? You still haven't showed that internal waves were possible to know, so i guess it should continue... Neither have you tried to support your claim of 'many waves' when in fact the verse is providing a context of layering- clouds being misplaced if it was many waves because its being said in a continuous fashion and same words- and later the layering of darkness.

Peace be unto you ;)

scifes hasn't shown that the verses refer to the scientific phenomenon he is ascribing them to. They aren't specific enough. Specificity should be easy for Allah, and yet he was (deliberately, one assumes) vague and poetic.

Because none of those examples were even close to the topic of oceans we are discussing and neither did they have anything to do with internal waves.... And neither does the Qur'an. Which goes back to my point.


I won't be surprised if soon you're posting something like this: Because none of those examples were even close to the topic of the atomic orbital theory we are discussing and neither did they have anything to do with neutrons, protons and electrons....As I said ALL people who live near and work the ocean understand that there are undercurrents, tides and rips. People navigated the oceans using these currents. But, that's besides the point, the waves on top of waves with dark clouds and dark ocean says NOTHING about "internal" waves at all. So we have two things here. The Qur'an saying nothing and people already understanding the concept of internal current and waves.

scifes hasn't shown that the verses refer to the scientific phenomenon he is ascribing them to. They aren't specific enough. Specificity should be easy for Allah, and yet he was (deliberately, one assumes) vague and poetic.

What is vague about waves-waves-clouds in successive layers? I would think if one can read the verse that it is talking about layers (which it is) then there is nothing vague about it.. unless of course you're hell bent on not accepting that it is talking about layers...

Now If I'm someone who is practically unaware of waves in the deep ocean- the only other way I would 'reconcile' it is by thinking of it as a 'stormy ocean'.... but none the less by way of first ignoring the layering context.

We can clearly understand it without any need to reconcile because we know there are layers of waves... I would think this 'scientific' interpretation is actually using the context to its fullest- which I would think is the most accurate interpretation of this verse- while the poetic metaphor of confusion and layers of darkness within a person is still kept.

I can still see metaphorical value in it regarding faithless people- even thinking about it from the scientific perspective.

A deep rooted conflict and confusion as in utter darkness- based on your deeply rooted belief... because its so deeply rooted- it is less chaotic- because you truly believe in those deep rooted ideas- but because you are less prone to changing these ideas it is utter darkness- as the belief itself is wrong (darkness). So low level of 'proof' that comes does not remove you from these ideas- its less chaotic for that reason. (internal waves)

Questions of not so deep confusion/conflict- because now you're in the level of confusion/conflict to which something be told to you is messing around with that belief- it is not so deeply rooted belief that you hold- so any alternative view with proof would seriously cause a havoc- more chaotic stage (like on the surface waves)

Questions of high level of uncertainty- foggy confusion- a little push could help you resolve this confusion and conflict- much like a cloud.

I can still see the varying level of conflict and levels of darkness the verse is talking about even if I accept the scientific approach... It seems to keep the metaphorical use of the poetry while answering the verse completely with the context of layering in various 'depths'.

If I tell you 1 block is on top of another- then you are ready to accept that there are 2 separate blocks, one over the other... but when the Quran says 'waves topped by waves'- it is somehow 'vague'. It is somehow 'implausible' to say that they are layers- even though the context of the verse is making an argument for layering. So be it :shrug:

Peace be unto you ;)

Of course doubt is less stable than faith, doubt and skepticism is the basis of all science.

It doesn't say layers, that was your addition.

I won't be surprised if soon you're posting something like this: Because none of those examples were even close to the topic of the atomic orbital theory we are discussing and neither did they have anything to do with neutrons, protons and electrons...

I for one am not demanding specificity within a topic- it is rather you guys who ask well why isn't there the formula for 'dynamite'....

What he quoted had absolutely nothing to do with the topic- its not about specificity... If you think multiple universes in layers which have COMPLETE Earth's- that is land, water, and so on- is the same thing as oceans having layers then I am amazed... Amazed that you are making such a connection- which is so absolutely apart- no one in their right minds can see waves in it- because its talking about complete earths in layers of basically universes which can not physically interact

Yet the connection of a layering of waves in the Quran is 'vague'. :shrug: It is absolutely somehow 'vague' and 'implausible' to even think that 'waves above waves' could mean layers of waves-

Peace be unto you ;)

Of course doubt is less stable than faith, doubt and skepticism is the basis of all science.

It doesn't say layers, that was your addition.

How do you have "darkness, one above another"? Oh right they are the same 'darkness' its just a poetic tool but 'wave above waves, topped by clouds' - the waves are the same but the clouds are separate? I see the logic completely...

024.040
YUSUFALI: Or (the Unbelievers' state) is like the depths of darkness in a vast deep ocean, overwhelmed with billow topped by billow, topped by (dark) clouds: depths of darkness, one above another: if a man stretches out his hands, he can hardly see it! for any to whom Allah giveth not light, there is no light!

PICKTHAL: Or as darkness on a vast, abysmal sea. There covereth him a wave, above which is a wave, above which is a cloud. Layer upon layer of darkness. When he holdeth out his hand he scarce can see it. And he for whom Allah hath not appointed light, for him there is no light.

SHAKIR: Or like utter darkness in the deep sea: there covers it a wave above which is another wave, above which is a cloud, (layers of) utter darkness one above another; when he holds out his hand, he is almost unable to see it; and to whomsoever Allah does not give light, he has no light.

'depths of darkness, one above another'- yeah darkness at different depths- 'one above another' makes sense- but noooooo!!!
'layer upon layer of darkness'--- well this says it outright-- but still noooo......
'(layers of) utter darkness one above another'----- never mind one above another....

:shrug:

Oh wait... its only talking about 'darkness'- so you see it has nothing to do with 'waves'---- yes it has absolutely nothing to do with waves- the part about waves was just an unrelated part that was added for no reason at all--- yes he only added the wave part when talking about darkness at depths because it has absolutely nothing to do with each other- darkness is absolutely unrelated to waves and waves were a random addition which has nothing to do with darkness.... I completely get it... its just absolutely too vague-

the layers of universes of complete earth make more sense and are less vague about layering of 'waves'...I'll give it a name "Wave Model"- seeeee it has everything to do with waves, nevermind that it never mentions waves and even though it is talking about basically parallel complete earths and universes! I totally get it.

Peace be unto you ;)

I for one am not demanding specificity within a topic- it is rather you guys who ask well why isn't there the formula for 'dynamite'....

What he quoted had absolutely nothing to do with the topic- its not about specificity... If you think multiple universes in layers which have COMPLETE Earth's- that is land, water, and so on- is the same thing as oceans having layers then I am amazed... Amazed that you are making such a connection- which is so absolutely apart- no one in their right minds can see waves in it- because its talking about complete earths in layers of basically universes which can not physically interact

Yet the connection of a layering of waves in the Quran is 'vague'. :shrug: It is absolutely somehow 'vague' and 'implausible' to even think that 'waves above waves' could mean layers of waves-

Peace be unto you ;)They are both posthoc interpretations - that was the point.


Millions of people buy Nostradomous "predictions" for the exact same reasons. They see something that really was just made up post hoc in their heads.

Is there such a thing as "layers of darkness"? I mean, can you layer utter dark on top of utter dark?
When you start going from layers of utter dark to modern tidal theory... well, Nostradamus anyone?


Secondly, people back then understood there were deep currents in the oceans and used these to traverse the seas for trade. People who live near the ocean understand that you can be pulled out by a rip current, which is UNDER and pulling in the opposite directions as the tops of the waves which crash towards the shore. One "layer" coming in, one "layer" going out. It's simply common knowledge for anyone people who have ever been to the ocean.

Is there such a thing as "layers of darkness"? I mean, can you layer dark on top of dark?

Don't you have TV's that try to boast how good their 'black levels' are? Darkness is simply the absence of light- The different wavelengths of sunlight penetrates the ocean to different depths- creating layers of 'darkness' that is more and more of the different wavelengths are unable to penetrate the ocean. So you have layers of 'darkness'- that is if you understand how 'black levels' vary.

Peace be unto you ;)

scifes is challenged with illustrating things from the Quran that would be impossible to know without modern advances in science. But his example is not really in the Quran, it is in his interpretation of the Quran, which is not the same thing at all.

Don't you have TV's that try to boast how good their 'black levels' are? Darkness is simply the absence of light- The different wavelengths of sunlight penetrates the ocean to different depths- creating layers of 'darkness' that is more and more of the different wavelengths are unable to penetrate the ocean. So you have layers of 'darkness'- that is if you understand how 'black levels' vary.

Peace be unto you ;)
"utter darkness" means completely dark or absolutely dark. As in no light. Not shades of black. If you think about what this verse is saying, it's obvious the author intends to mean ZERO light. Completely dark. Probably alluding to being blind until you "find God" etc... pretty typical of religious sayings in languages all over the world - even today.

They are both posthoc interpretations - that was the point.

I want you to take that article about the many earths and go around asking people what they see in it- don't mention this discussion- if they mention the word 'wave' I will be appalled. Spidergoat out of his magic hat created the 'Wave Model'...


Millions of people buy Nostradomous "predictions" for the exact same reasons. They see something that really was just made up post hoc in their heads.

Yes I know... but the discussion is about 'layers of waves' and if that is there or not.... We don't really even have to worry about scientific knowledge as it seems that the discussion has now turned to if 'layers' are indicated or not... Do the verse have indications of layers- I say absolutely yes.

Peace be unto you ;)

"utter darkness" means completely dark or absolutely dark. As in no light. Not shades of black. If you think about what this verse is saying, it's obvious the author intends to mean ZERO light. Completely dark. Probably alluding to being blind until you "find God" etc... pretty typical of religious sayings in languages all over the world - even today.

If you didn't notice two of the translators used 'depths' instead of 'utter'- which in the context actually makes a lot more sense especially when it comes to the part about layers.

Peace be unto you ;)

I want you to take that article about the many earths and go around asking people what they see in it- don't mention this discussion- if they mention the word 'wave' I will be appalled. Spidergoat out of his magic hat created the 'Wave Model'

No, it's a layered model, not a wave model, proving that the Piraha Indians of the Amazon can create the same kind of many-layered cosmology as shown in the debated verses from the Quran. Did they know about all the possible scientific uses of the term layers? Of course they did not, but if I wanted to use the same faulty argument that you and scifes are using, I could say that they were referring to atmospheric and underground layers, which they could not have known about at the time. I'm using an example from another culture to show that such ideas are not rare, they are commonplace.

No, it's a layered model, not a wave model, proving that the Piraha Indians of the Amazon can create the same kind of many-layered cosmology as shown in the debated verses from the Quran. Did they know about all the possible scientific uses of the term layers? Of course they did not, but if I wanted to use the same faulty argument that you and scifes are using, I could say that they were referring to atmospheric and underground layers, which they could not have known about at the time. I'm using an example from another culture to show that such ideas are not rare, they are commonplace.

What that 'layer model' describes is specifically the many earths and universes... What the 'layer model' of the Quran describes is specially about about the Ocean and clouds. We're not taking 'one model' and screwing around and applying to something totally different....

Peace be unto you ;)

Yes I know... but the discussion is about 'layers of waves' and if that is there or not.... We don't really even have to worry about scientific knowledge as it seems that the discussion has now turned to if 'layers' are indicated or not... Do the verse have indications of layers- I say absolutely yes. You're going from layers of utter darkness, to shades of black, to layers of waves, to internal waves, to modern scientific miracle and wave theory.

And by extension proof Mohammad was a real Prophet.

And by extension proof there is a real God.

And by extension proof you do indeed never need to worry you're going to die and will live forever in paradise.



Can't you see that you're doing the same thing? Seeing what you WANT to see. Like I said, it wouldn't surprise me if next you come up with atomic orbital theory or atomic fusion or the big bang. Spidergoat is making a comparison but it's to get you to see what you're doing. However, as I said, it's not possible for you to see what you are doing.

Don't you find even a tiny bit of a funny stir when you see Scientologists or Nostradamus followers doing the exact same thing you are doing???? THAT'S what I find interesting. This capability for self delusion. One could say: Utter darkness, waves over waves of black covered in clouds of delusion.

He is talking about the nature of unbelievers, not the nature of the ocean. So the passage can easily refer to many kinds of chaos, instability and darkness. As in science, the simplest, most parsimonious explanation is usually the best.

Okay...... So now the theory that it is a metaphor describing a 'stormy ocean' has gone out the window?

So it is a metaphor- about darkness.... it mentions -deep, ocean, waves, clouds- but even though it is a METAPHOR it has nothing to do with oceans- but instead it has only to do with the 'darkness' and 'instability' 'and chaos'- which by the way are 'results' of a metaphor- but has absolutely nothing to do with the things it is describing within a METAPHOR..

Nevermind, I realize that now you're just too desperate to see the glaring answer right in front of you... Knowing that metaphors describe something of a reality yet you ignore it... You say it is a metaphor of a stormy ocean- then you say it has nothing to do with layers- then you end up with 'it has nothing to do with oceans'- it simply is a absolutely creative metaphor which has absolutely no real world examples to which it can be compared to- yes no, not the ocean at all..... I guess Muhammad didn't need to hear a tale about oceans now, since it wasn't about oceans to begin with?

It is a metaphor that uses the very same thing it is trying to describe- It is trying to describe the 'darkness of a nonbeliever' and it does so by using the 'darkness of a nonbeliever'- yep never ever does it use the 'vast deep' ocean with darkness... no not the waves, no not even clouds- yep its not even about a stormy ocean.

I think intelligent readers will see what just happened... Ironically you fit this metaphor.

I thank you for the discussion but with this I say good bye, as I do not have an obligation to shove it down your throat the thing you are trying to escape. :wave:

Peace be unto you ;)

PS- it seems you have deleted that message which I'm quoting, but I'm done here.

What that 'layer model' describes is specifically the many earths and universes... What the 'layer model' of the Quran describes is specially about about the Ocean and clouds. We're not taking 'one model' and screwing around and applying to something totally different....

Peace be unto you ;)
Anyone can see the layers, you must think Mohammad was some kind of idiot.

You're going from layers of utter darkness, to shades of black, to layers of waves, to internal waves, to modern scientific miracle and wave theory.

I guess I must repeat myself, as I often have to for you.... 'depths of darkness' not utter darkness- but yes at the really really deep end you expect that to be the darkest part- it doesn't take a genius to imagine that.

And as for 'waves' and 'darkness' if you don't understand what a metaphor is, then I don't care.

Anyways I'm done here :wave:

Peace be unto you ;)

Anyone can see the layers, you must think Mohammad was some kind of idiot.

:wave:

I hope intelligent readers will read this complete thread and come to their own conclusions of who had the most evidence backing their arguments.

Peace be unto you ;)

Why not go all the way and say Mohammed was talking about the wave/particle duality of matter?

Why not go all the way and say Mohammed was talking about the wave/particle duality of matter?

lol.

Like I said, I'm not trying to take one thing and apply to another... I'm willing to accept what is given, you are not-

Anyways good luck with your discussion, I'm leaving now.

Peace be unto you ;)

You are inventing things that are not present in the text. Good day sir.

You are inventing things that are not present in the text. Good day sir.

Interesting accusation....

I said the Quran mentions waves- I provided proof quoting the verse
I said these waves are related to the Ocean- I provided proof quoting the verse

I said these were in layers- I provided proof quoting the verse

You said they are 'many waves'- you don't provide proof but use a poetic tool as an answer. So you don't use the verse really.

I said that it was talking about internal waves because its talking about waves in layers from deep in the ocean to the sky. I provided proof quoting the verse and why this is logical.

Then you said you don't even see the layering of waves but only as 'many waves'- you don't provide any proof simply state your interpretation based on 'waves upon waves' without ever even quoting the context.

You said it doesn't mention layers- without providing any proof- You first of all never provided proof if Muhammad could have known about internal waves- so I'm assuming that is why it is hard to swallow so this is the argument you provide that 'its not in the verse'- but you never quote anything or the context to why it make sense- just your own opinion that it says 'many waves' and the clouds are separate- and that 'depths of darkness' one above and another and clouds is consistent with your 'many waves'- yet I quoted the whole passage and tried to support why all of this made sense in layers and why my method of analysis is consistent- you say 'many waves' but you leave out clouds- you see 'darkness' in layers of depth and all the rest I quoted- but YOU simply say 'poetic tool' without showing why its consistent? why 'clouds' is mentioned in that 'poetic tool'? why everything is logical that way? Why 'layers of darkness' aren't really layers? Why 'depth' is even used?- so you simply state your opinion- while I use the verse as extensively as I could to support my claim.

I provide proof regarding the layers but you didn't respond to it, instead you ended up posting a message that stated that the whole verse had nothing to do with oceans even though you started with a 'stormy ocean' theory- and then you deleted the message, I guess realizing the ridiculousness of that claim. But I quoted the verse to support why it says layers and why everything is consistent- why 'depth' is mentioned, why 'waves' are mentioned, why 'clouds' are mentioned and why 'layers are mentioned- all using the text- I show the logical progression from depth to sky using the verse, I show its consistency of my analysis using the text, I show the layering of darkness using the text- but you never responded, and the only thing you said is 'poetic tool'- who chose to ignore the text? And yet I am being accused?

Finally you end with Muhammad was no idiot so he could've figured it out. (seems like a concession?)

While before you realized that internals waves, which even YOU DID NOT KNOW about, were not known. And neither did you give any proof how could he have known this, which scifes is demanding as an answer.

It would seem to me that you are the one who continuously made statements without ever backing them up. While I tried to analyze the verse in question and supported my claims every time using it. Yet I am being accused of creating things that are not in the text, when you hardly even used the text?

Not to mention that you challenged scifes to show that the only meaning the Quran can have is the 'scientific one'- I stated the Quran has many meanings and provided proof, yet you provided no proof for why the Quran must be limited to one meaning.

And it seems now you've used my example of a tsunami in your debate- which I already showed couldn't be the case- not to mention that a tsunami wave still would not be able to account for the verses discussion of the depth of ocean as tsunami waves are on the surface, neither would it explain why the attributes of a tsunami- if taken from legend- are not mentioned especially the destruction it causes or the heights that it can reach, neither does it account for why clouds would be mentioned after it- it would seem that this would be a great time to detail the 'epic' proportions of a tsunami if it were truly the case to make the absolute chaotic nature of 'faithless person' evident through the epic nature of a tsunami which you would expect if the use is of a legend that is supposedly commonly known to these people- any literary critic would point out the lack of these details which would undoubtedly point the utter hopelessness of a 'faithless person' in front of a massive, destructive wave (tsunami) which would be further given epic attributes to totally drill this notion down amongst a people who supposedly know about this 'legendary wave'- but we see utter silence to this 'legend'- almost as if the legend was left behind? Or the 'epic' attributes were taken away, which you would not expect from a book that warns of apocalyptic ends and details such horrors of hell itself- to not share such 'juicy' information about these 'faithless people' is daunting- of course one does not expect such information about internal waves about which the Arabs know nothing, neither does it carry any 'epic' attributes as associated with tsunami's-evidently nothing is present in the verse to give a literary critic to say tsunami is being referred to here as practically nothing about this 'legendary wave' is shared- a lack of using the verse, and creating things not there?

Neither does this explain the 'wave upon wave' if you think about it since as the tsunami continues it actually incorporates the water in itself which makes the tsunami last that in effect makes it part of the tsunami wave and thus not 'on top' of waves since if a tsunami wave is on top it would have already incorporated it into itself- Again a failure to utilize the context of the verse-

I guess you are so stuck up on the 'waves upon waves' now that you can't even seem to consider the full verse and context to make a coherent and logical argument. Another example of failing to use the text. Yet I am being accused? And I would have hoped that you would have discussed the tsunami with me before using it in your debate- I guess instead of discussing anything you have now resorted to trying to find anything that can remotely help you- straw-men arguments? Which is supposedly what I was accused of in the beginning of this discussion. Pathetic, just pathetic.

I guess the scientific method can now go down the drain- instead of looking at the complete verse (data/observation) you are now basing your arguments on only 1 observation ('waves upon waves') not giving any consideration to the context, neither using any literary critical analysis of your own proposition- tsunami. While I tried my best to utilize the complete verse and explain the consistency of the method- the logical progression from depth of ocean to the sky, and evidently incorporating all the information that the text provided... So again I am surprised by the accusation.

This is my last response to you. I only posted this because you're making an accusation towards me. I'll let the readers decide the argumentation and evidence each of us provided and who really used the text to support their claims rather than opinions and 'poetic tools'.

Good day indeed, sir.

Peace be unto you ;)

and here we go ... waves upon waves and suddenly we get atomic orbital theory. I mean, it all makes sense now *smoke pot/prays to the God-head/Xemu(nu)* Waves upon Waves in layer is referring to Atomic Orbital Theory and how electrons are also "Waves" and these are in Orbitals... aka: Layers (or Shells). We can clearly see from this poem that God/Xemu(nu) *inhales deeply/kneels fervently* was speaking to a angel, who told a human Prophet, who told some other humans, who wrote down this stuff about Atomic Orbital Theory on some bark, who then copied the bark onto some other bark, who then told some other people who then made a book with this miracle in it.


The idea that someone who otherwise is probably somewhat logical, could think come up with this sort of "reasoning" is what I find interesting. It must be related to fear of death. No religious meme survives without incorporating a really good life after your dead and gone.

and here we go ... waves upon waves and suddenly we get atomic orbital theory.

No one is claiming that except you.. I have consistently stuck to what the verse is saying and I have not deviated from the ocean as the subject matter.



The idea that someone who otherwise is probably somewhat logical, could think come up with this sort of "reasoning" is what I find interesting.

What I find interesting is that you making up crap, stating 'relationships' that no one made in this complete discussion and then attribute this nonsense ('wave upon wave' to atomic orbital theory)- a link you are making- and slamming it on me. You are the most illogical person I've talked to in this forum. What is illogical is taking a model of parallel universes and then saying that it is speaking about a 'wave model' about the ocean-

It is perfectly logical to use the attributes given about the ocean to construct a model of the ocean- I've never taken it to model anything other than this- for example I've not taken this to apply to 'wave-particle' relationship which was suggested by spidergoat. I've taken the information and applied it to the system being talked about, not to anything else. If you can't follow this logic then I can't do anything about you... you've never ceased to amaze me on how much bs you can spew without any evidence and how you can just make crap up and attribute it to someone.

At least keep the lies to yourself please. And I'm sure you're going to continue the non-sense so I now shall take my leave :wave:

Peace be unto you ;)

There isn't enough detail to show that the "waves upon waves" refers to anything the scientific meaning of internal waves. You are making a mountain out of a molehill, and subverting the original intent and meaning of the verse. A vague reference to something that is so obviously intended to evoke disorder and darkness doesn't count as a scientific reference any more than this:


"All our yesterday have lighted fools the way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle! Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more,"

...refers to the metabolic cycle.

I'm perfectly willing to consider evidence in the Quran for things that could not otherwise have been known, but you have not demonstrated that the concept of deep internal ocean waves is even known or guessed at. Waves upon waves is a perfectly reasonable and appropriate reference to waves that come as on the shore, one after the other.

I never expected scifes's argument to be so weak. It's rather shocking, given all the effort Muslims usually expend on the recent attempt to link science and the Quran. (This effort dates from the 1970's). It's a risky strategy, given that if and when they are proven wrong, it calls into doubt the legitimacy of the entire book as a message from God.

There isn't enough detail to show that the "waves upon waves" refers to anything the scientific meaning of internal waves.

If the waves are in layers and it is in depth, then it is exactly that waves in the depth... And we know that there are waves in the depth which we call internal waves-


You are making a mountain out of a molehill, and subverting the original intent and meaning of the verse.

How can I be 'subverting' the meaning of the verse when I utilized the complete verse to support my claim... On the other hand I stated that the Arabs probably would have understood it as a 'stormy ocean' only because it would not make sense to them otherwise.

And please Master, can you enlighten us with the 'original intent and meaning'? How many times must I repeat the Quran to have many meanings- some which the Arabs understood some which they did NOT clearly- which they admit! Not to mention you can't enlighten me by not using the complete verse.


A vague reference to something that is so obviously intended to evoke disorder and darkness doesn't count as a scientific reference any more than this:

'Disorder' and 'darkness' are obvious because that is the idea the METAPHOR is trying to get through! That is my point! The verse can still be understood with its metaphor if you understand it from a scientific aspect- I provided that in a post dedicated to this....

Again you are making statements, not even making an effort to refute my claims which I backed up...

You have failed to show that the discussion is not about layers.. you have failed to show that it doesn't deal with depths... you have failed to show that the only meaning is the 'obvious' meaning (which by the way is what a metaphor is trying to get through the idea of darkness and disorder- NOT what it is describing as an example- the description is of a ocean)... you have failed to show that Arabs believed to have the 'only' meaning of the Quran...you have failed to show that this could be known (given that you failed to show any of the above)....



"All our yesterday have lighted fools the way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle! Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more,"

...refers to the metabolic cycle.

quite frankly I don't see it... See you are bringing up examples which don't even use the terminology that is even close... Quran says WAVES- I'm not taking 'waves' and turn it into 'wheels on the bus go round and round' I'm KEEPING the word and meaning wave! It says wave, it says 'deep', it says 'ocean', it says 'layers'- IT IS ALL THERE! All the words are there.... Why is this vague when the same terminology is being used? While your example give no such word usage and we have to imagine our way to get to those describing a 'metabolic cycle'.

Why can't the words 'The Sun shown bright' NOT mean Sun was very bright? It is the most apparent thing in it. Maybe it is a metaphor for a exothermic reaction that produces a lot of light? But you fricking see- this is really really stretching it out.... But even then it IS A METAPHOR- so it is using the ACTUAL example of a BRIGHT SUN to portray a point! The BRIGHT SUN is a reality it USES... That is is METAPHOR.

The Quran says 'deep', it says 'ocean', it says 'waves', it says 'layers'-- but hell noooo... there is no way in heck is it ACTUALLY be talking about the ocean- it MUST be talking about 'disorder' and 'darkness'- IDEAS which are being explained using a METAPHOR! If it is a metaphor for those IDEAS 'disorder' and 'darkness' then WHAT IN REAILITY IS IT DESCRIBING? I know- OCEAN! It says it right in the verse! I don't need to imagine things up to come to this conclusion! So if it is talking about the Ocean, and it is talking about waves, and layers- I could easily draw a picture from this description... If I say 1 block is above another- I know what I need to draw to model it... I'm not making things out of the blue to model it- it is all right there in the verse!


I'm perfectly willing to consider evidence in the Quran for things that could not otherwise have been known, but you have not demonstrated that the concept of deep internal ocean waves is even known or guessed at.

Isn't that your job? To show that it was 'even known or guessed at'? We are saying it was NOT known! Because it can't be known without scientific gear- not to mention EVEN YOU DID NOT KNOW ABOUT THEM!

You're not even willing to conceed and say 'Yep, Muhammad got it right.. He guessed it and it happend to be correct'- but noo, your response is that its not even talking about an ocean?


Waves upon waves is a perfectly reasonable and appropriate reference to waves that come as on the shore, one after the other.

Again you're stuck up with 'waves upon waves'- why is it hard for you to read the whole verse? I explained the verse using the complete context, using all the information that is provided- 'deep', 'ocean', 'waves', 'depth', 'layers'.... But you just can't get the courage to use the complete verse?


I never expected scifes's argument to be so weak.

I never expected that an intellectual person like you would basically disregard the complete verse, focus on 'waves upon waves'- fail to rationalize the complete verse- never ever provide proof even once using the complete verse- and then throw away all your previous arguments by saying 'its not talking about an ocean' (even though it mentions it by word)- basically I would not have expected you to be in denial! I've had many discussions with you, and you even helped answer some of my questions- I thought you were very reasonable in those discussions- but here, you quite frankly are maybe a bit better than pathetic- 'tsunami' eh? I can't imagine the amount of analysis and criticism you did to come to this conclusion. :eek:

And I will provide your quote in proof of your pathetic and actually intellectually dishonest statements that you posted in you recent debate post:


Where is there a wave on top of a wave in the Ocean? They are not on different levels, but rather superimposed. A submarine need only dive a hundred feet or so and they feel no waves.

I believe I provided you with a scientific paper detailing WAVES at DIFFERENT LEVELS- even as deep as 100M! Why then did you ask this question? Apparently you admitted this to be true in this discussion thread- YET you ask this question of scifes in the debate thread- knowing full well the answer to the question and the OBVIOUS LIE you stated about waves not being at 'different levels'-

Then you talk about 'submarines' not seeing waves- which actually supports MY point! You can't see internal waves! Not to mention Arabs didn't have submarines at the time. They couldn't have been known!

I've come to the conclusion that you are in denial now- there is no reason to lie or continue making statements without ever providing evidence for them- and then accusing your opponent of not using the 'text'- And I see no reason to not utilize the complete verse and keep being stuck on 'waves upon waves'..


It's a risky strategy, given that if and when they are proven wrong, it calls into doubt the legitimacy of the entire book as a message from God.

So perhaps Muhammad didn't make guesses, as that would be too risky :D

Peace be unto you ;)

The length of your reply belies it's actual lack of content. I have provided various possible and reasonable explanations for this passage. That's all I have to do. You (or scifes) has to prove that these reasonable explanations are not the case, and that the verse actually refers to some obscure scientific principle in contradiction to it's intended purpose as metaphor.

If this verse is indeed a description of internal ocean waves, then it means that the state of the unbeliever is one of knowledge, not ignorance. Internal ocean waves are not dark, or indeed disturbing. They are practically invisible. So to evoke these invisible waves would not add to the metaphor. Therefore, this passage can not refer to the modern scientific use of the term.

The length of your reply belies it's actual lack of content. I have provided various possible and reasonable explanations for this passage.

The length is long because I have to make things ultra-clear so that they aren't so vague? As I've already stated my proofs many times over now, and I'm still waiting on you to use the complete passage..

You've never ever looked at the complete passage... I think all you have concentrated on is 'waves upon waves'- you never even responded to my analysis of the verse regarding layers... which was my response to your assertion that 'layers aren't mentioned'- I'm still waiting on a response full of textual proof.


That's all I have to do.

No... what you have to do is support the claim with the complete passage... I'm still waiting for your coherent explanation for the complete passage- actually cite it please.


You (or scifes) has to prove that these reasonable explanations are not the case,

Which I did by using the complete passage, but I don't ever remember an actual response or refutation of it... You just continued with statements is all I remember.


and that the verse actually refers to some obscure scientific principle in contradiction to it's intended purpose as metaphor.

While a 'metaphor' is intended.. a metaphor by definition is based upon something... and more than often they are based on something real- anything 'real' is subject to science.


If this verse is indeed a description of internal ocean waves, then it means that the state of the unbeliever is one of knowledge, not ignorance.

A strong belief (upon whatever 'knowledge') of something which is absolutely wrong is the same thing as ignorance of the thing which is true. Essentially having knowlege of the wrong does not mean that you are not ignorant of the Truth.


Internal ocean waves are not dark, or indeed disturbing.They are practically invisible.

Glad you have come to realize that... But you know the wave is created by the water itself- in dark waters (deep waters) they are then by definition dark as the water that creates/represents a wave is dark... The reason they are 'invisible' is because you can not distinguish them from the surrounding.


So to evoke these invisible waves would not add to the metaphor.

I suggest you go back to the post in which I tried to lay out the metaphor even with the scientific understanding- also I've answered your 'scientific' concern laid above... and to add further I would say that the fact that it is so 'deeply rooted' means that it is in fact a belief of yours to which you never give a second thought... Basically, a darkness so deep and rooted that you don't even visualize them as such... Deep, stable, dark waves, and if you want to add 'invisible' waves- you don't visualize your deep beliefs to have anything wrong with them... but I guess if you concentrate hard enough (which you don't on deep beliefs) you will see them- much like we do with satelite images :D

And as I said before, even without the understanding of science the metaphor still holds it's values...but since it is a metaphor it must be describing something real also.


Therefore, this passage can not refer to the modern scientific use of the term.

Let's leave the 'therefore' until you can support your claims with the full passage. I tried to make this post concise.

Peace be unto you ;)

The metaphor doesn't work if the waves are barely detectible. It only works if the standard notions of waves are used.

Think about it, the unbeliever is like one beneath barely detectible waves? Come on dude.

The metaphor doesn't work if the waves are barely detectible. It only works if the standard notions of waves are used.

Please go on and expand on this- because this is a statement as far as I can see.


Think about it, the unbeliever is like one beneath barely detectible waves? Come on dude.

If the metaphor is about the layers of 'darkness' and 'confusion'/'conflict'/'disorder' within a unbeliever then it is a perfect metaphor.. No one is in absolute perfect 'disorder'/'confusion'/'conflict'-

All of us have various levels of doubt- Many of us have some very core beliefs which we don't even question- while most of us have some beliefs that are shaky, and we are in confusion about them- things we want to be true but aren't sure about- and most of us also have things that are just fuzzy, things we don't care about being true or not but we're unclear about...

'Wave' represents disorder right... An internal (deep belief) is not as chaotic as surface wave.. Also since its a deep belief you don't question it- That is like in darkness you don't question your deep beliefs- how would you tell them apart from the darkness when you never question them? They are 'invisible' essentially until you really think about and question your deep beliefs. And since they are deep beliefs they aren't chaotic like the surface waves.

Then surface waves- represents your beliefs that you want to be true but are not sure about- more uncertainity about them- more chaotic- more visible.

Clouds- fuzzy beliefs, stuff you practically don't care about too much but still there unresolved conflicts...

Unfortunately for the unbeliever all of these levels are dark... 'darkness above darkness'. It perfectly simulates the notion of "faithlessness" based upon knowledge of the wrong and ignorance of the truth- yet some belief of the wrong is not as strong as others- the various levels (depths) of them... It would seem to me that the 'invisible' internal waves are actually a very accurate description of people who simply take their deep beliefs for granted never going questioning them- never actually seeing them and facing them- The wave is there, all it takes is for you to really look at it. But most people would rather never look at their deep beliefs, just take them for granted.

BTW its not talking about unbelievers being literally under waves...... so I don't see why the deep waves must be visible... unless you're assuming that we're supposed to imagine that some dude is deep under water- but I think its about the depth in the person himself- full of layers of darkness. What is wrong with this metaphor?

Peace be unto you ;)

I admit, you are being very creative, but if the scientific phenomenon were really implied in this text, it would be clear.

I admit, you are being very creative,

Metaphors are creative. But at least you agree that this metaphor works... Now leaving the metaphor aside...


but if the scientific phenomenon were really implied in this text, it would be clear.

Again a statement.... I tried to show why it makes perfect sense and is clear, now its simply your turn to show that it is not.

Just show us why its not 'ocean', not 'deep', not in 'layers'... and do so by using the complete passage and please make a coherent argument.

Peace be unto you ;)

This is ridiculous, OK? Waves upon waves in the ocean, dark in the depths, clouds above, do not require modern scientific gear to observe - all you have to do is look over the side of your boat. They had boats.
”
And so? We're not talking about the same waves now are we? Why don't you prove that your interpretation is the only 'plausible' one. You miss the point.

I don't need to show that there is no way to somehow work a match with some modern scientific interpretation out of some poetic analogy in the Quran. I certainly don't need to accept any such interpretation as "plausible" - that's assuming the consequent, for starters: invalid logic.

You need to show that the Quran details stuff impossible to know without modern scientific gear. The Quran has to do that - not your "interpretation".

And an ocean featuring darkness in its depths, "waves upon waves", and clouds also dark over all, is not impossible to know without modern scientific gear. It is readily apparent to anyone looking over the side of a boat in stormy weather.

Well said, iceaura. Was knowledge of the modern scientific principle absolutely required in order to write this verse? No. It is prefectly consistent with the text that Mohammed need only have known of the common attributes of the Ocean. Indeed, it would not make literal sense to his readers or as a metaphor if that were not the case.

You need to show that the Quran details stuff impossible to know without modern scientific gear. The Quran has to do that - not your "interpretation".

Can I ask you a question... Can anything related to science be written in poetry? yes or no
Can poetry ever be not subject to interpretation? yes or no


Secondly- if we 'leave interpreation' if we just look at the verse at FACE VALUE... I still see depths of darkness, one above another in layers- used to describe the waves above which are waves above which are clouds... And still see progression from depth to the sky in layers.... I think it is YOU who have 'interpretated' it by saying its a poetic tool- I used face value of it- I guess that is also interpretation...

Peace be unto you ;)

Well said, iceaura. Was knowledge of the modern scientific principle absolutely required in order to write this verse? No. It is prefectly consistent with the text that Mohammed need only have known of the common attributes of the Ocean.

So you're not 'interpreting' the verse as 'many waves'- I see, very 'well said, Iceaura'. While if it is said 'one thing is above another' the face value is one thing is above another thing- but you say its the same thing- that is your interpretation, the face value simply says one is on top of another... That would seem something that anyone can at least get... One block is on top of another block- but no its the same block- I think you are the one 'interpreting' not me... I can see my argument play out even with face value reading.


Indeed, it would not make literal sense to his readers or as a metaphor if that were not the case.

It would still make perfect sense as a metaphor... May I remind you that a metaphor is something that you simply take out... I challenge you to take a metaphor into an English class- I will give you $100 dollars if all the students give you the same response.

Its not hard to see meaning in 'metaphors' even if you don't know what is behind it... If you take a metaphor of high end science to a 5th or 6th grader who has any interest in poetry or is capable of critical thinking, they will STILL be able to find MEANING in it- which is the purpose of a metaphor...

It seems that you like to ignore this fact which I would think is common knowledge to folks who probably took English classes in college in which they probably heard many 'insights' of various students regarding the 'same' passage.

Peace be unto you ;)

You have to show he must have known it, not that he might. The sentence is too vague to make that claim.

You have to show he must have known it, not that he might. The sentence is too vague to make that claim.

But isn't the point that he couldn't have known it? That this was unknowable? Or are you asking to prove that God knows his stuff?

And now:


The sentence is too vague to make that claim.

Please provide evidence of this... I've even said the face value says all of the mentioned things are in layers- surely it cant be vague if it is there.... Is it only 'vague' because YOU are interpreting it perhaps 'many waves'?

Can you find a single translation that says 'many waves'? If not, it is pretty clear what is saying without any need for maneuvering or gymnastics with the words. I'm getting tired of hearing 'vague' when you don't provide any evidence backing this up... Read it like an English sentence, I'm sure you know english... and right down what is vague about it using the text of course- I'm not interested in more statements.

Peace be unto you ;)

Secondly- if we 'leave interpreation' if we just look at the verse at FACE VALUE... I still see depths of darkness, one above another in layers- used to describe the waves above which are waves above which are clouds... And still see progression from depth to the sky in layers. You are going to have to choose between your creative interpretation there - where "many waves" or "waves upon waves" or whatever becomes invisible internal oceanic and atmospheric density layers behaving in a fashion we moderns - those few who specialize in such matters - have discovered and labeled (in English) "waves",

by analogy with the common and long-known water surface variety, referred to often in song and story throughout the world's literature.

Because the face value of that verse has no reference to "internal" anything, or layers of anything, or waves anywhere but on the ocean where anyone can see them from a boat.

Are we to find evidence of modern scientific description of the behavior of density layers in the ocean, or in the atmosphere, or both at once, in such literature as this: http://www.orot.com/lights.html

Waves upon waves roar, the sound of harps and lyres providing harmony for their secret conversation. From the depth of the nation’s soul, from the height of the soul of man concentrated in its midst, from the breadth of all existence that is within the inner point of Zion, source of delight, lacking any definable content or description, from there, from all, roars and storms the noise of life’s loud wheels, speaking in holy secret.

or this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabindranath_Tagore ?


O Urvasie swaying soft and sweet,
When thou dancest before the assembly of the gods,
Thrills of delight course through thy limbs,
Waves upon waves swirl rhythmically in the
bosom of the ocean,
The undulating tips of the shivering corn
Appear like the fluttering skirt of mother earth.
From the necklace hung upon thy breast
Drop down the stars on the floor of the sky.
And all at once man loses his masculine heart
in sheer rapture.

Notice that Tagore's reference is far more detailed, scientifically, as a reference to internal waves - the waves are specifically located "in the bosom of the ocean" and held to be "swirling", unlike the Quran's waves which are vaguely located somewhere between the dark depths and the clouds and held to be "upon" each other, at first impression a reference to the surface where waves are commonly observed behaving thusly.

I will use scifes' translation:

Or [the state of a disbeliever] is like the darkness in a vast deep sea, overwhelmed with waves topped by waves, topped by dark clouds, (layers of) darkness upon darkness: if a man stretches out his hand, he can hardly see it! And he for whom Allâh has not appointed light, for him there is no light.

------------------

The fact that Mohammed uses the work "like" means that there is nothing abou this metaphor that needs to be literally true. One can say the believer is like a two-headed dragon, and it doesn't imply any special knowledge of dragons.

It says the sea is vast, deep, and dark. It says that the sea is overwhelmed with waves. How could barely noticeable internal waves be said to "overwhelm" anything? And these waves are topped by waves, again meaning on top of, not beneath anything.

You are suggesting that Mohammed could not have known that someone in a vast deep dark ocean would be overwhelmed by waves on top of waves? Someone in such an ocean would not even sink under it. Even a dead person floats in the ocean.

You are going to have to choose between your creative interpretation there - where "many waves" or "waves upon waves" or whatever becomes invisible internal oceanic and atmospheric density layers behaving in a fashion we moderns - those few who specialize in such matters - have discovered and labeled (in English) "waves",

First of all I've not interpreted anything to mean 'invisible'- its actually none of my concern- it was simply what spidergoat was wondering about how that fits into a metaphor.

All I'm concerned about is the layering of waves. And looking at face value, I don't see how that is 'creative interpretation'- Anyhow, lets just deal with the poetry provided below


Because the face value of that verse has no reference to "internal" anything, or layers of anything, or waves anywhere but on the ocean where anyone can see them from a boat.

If you can support the claim that there is no layering mentioned, you are more than welcome to quote the verse right here- I hope you don't do gynamstics to get rid of it :D


Are we to find evidence of modern scientific description of the behavior of density layers in the ocean, or in the atmosphere, or both at once, in such literature as this: http://www.orot.com/lights.html

or this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabindranath_Tagore ?

Notice that Tagore's reference is far more detailed, scientifically, as a reference to internal waves - the waves are specifically located "in the bosom of the ocean" and held to be "swirling", unlike the Quran's waves which are vaguely located somewhere between the dark depths and the clouds and held to be "upon" each other, at first impression a reference to the surface where waves are commonly observed behaving thusly.


Here I reproduce the poetry: (beautiful by the way)

"O Urvasie swaying soft and sweet,
When thou dancest before the assembly of the gods,
Thrills of delight course through thy limbs,
Waves upon waves swirl rhythmically in the
bosom of the ocean,
The undulating tips of the shivering corn
Appear like the fluttering skirt of mother earth.
From the necklace hung upon thy breast
Drop down the stars on the floor of the sky.
And all at once man loses his masculine heart
in sheer rapture."

So by saying 'swirl' that provides much more detail about waves? Isn't that an inherent property of ocean waves- it doesn't make it any more accurate- anyone who hears the word 'waves' especially regarding 'ocean' will automatically know this 'detail'- so the Quran simply doesn't use a word that by all means is second hand knowledge-

Ask a kid to draw a wave- I will bet that it is 'swirl' not flat.

Anyhow the important part of the discussion is 'waves upon waves'

Lets see... 'waves upon waves'- where are these waves? In the 'bosom of the ocean'.... So are they in layers?

Lets see: By way of background the poetry is about a goddess I believe? Secondly 'bosom' is either a noun or an adjective, I guess depends on how you read it (its poetry :D)

Definition of bosom: (M-W Dictionary)
1 a : the human chest and especially the front part of the chest <hugged the child to his bosom> b : a woman's breasts regarded especially as a single feature <a woman with an ample bosom>; also : breast
2 a : the chest conceived of as the seat of the emotions and intimate feelings <a story you will take to your bosom> b : the security and intimacy of or like that of being hugged to someone's bosom <the bosom of her family>
3 : the part of a garment that covers the chest or the breasts

From Dictionary.com:

–noun
1.the breast of a human being.
2.the breasts of a woman.
3.the part of a garment that covers the breast.
4.the breast, conceived of as the center of feelings or emotions.
5.something likened to the human breast: the bosom of the earth.
6.a state of enclosing intimacy; warm closeness: the bosom of the family.
–adjective
7.of, pertaining to, or worn on or over the bosom.
8.intimate or confidential: a bosom friend.

Not so clear I guess.. But bosom can also mean 'core/inside' as well.. So for the sake for argument leaving both the M-W dictionary and the Dictionary.com definitions... I go with bosom means core (inside?)...

Okay.... Lets get back to the poetry... what is it describing?

A dance?
For whom? gods
Where is this dance taking place? Bottom of the Ocean.... doesn't seem to be correct.... To have a show of beautiful dancing hidden in the ocean? Wait I'm just interpreting, so forget this... lets continue..

'From the necklace hung upon thy breast
Drop down the stars on the floor of the sky.'

Breast is bosom- if you can find the original text in the original language please let me know.. Its persian/urdu supposedly and coincidentally I'm from pakistan a Urdu speaking country!

'necklace' on the 'breast'? (by the way necklace is on top, not on the bottom)
'drop down the stars on the floor of the sky'?

Wait? What do stars have anything to do with oceans? (starfish?) well we know its talking about the sky... and somehow these 'stars' are related to necklace...

Yes the 'stars' are reflected on the surface of the ocean- they can be considered 'beads' (pearls?) part of a necklace? But this would require the 'breast' (bosom) to be on top?

Not to mention its just 'bosom'- seems to be in one plane... Quran said 'depths'- layers of darkness 'one above another'--- so Quran seems more 'detailed' when it comes to 'depth' and 'layering'...

Let's suppose 'bosom' is NOT is one plane... Its inside the ocean- the dance is taking place deep inside the ocean for gods- the stars are inside the ocean, the 'waves' are supposedly in layers (iceaura's suggestion)- so is she dancing in many layers at the same time?

'The undulating tips of the shivering corn
Appear like the fluttering skirt of mother earth.'

Corns? 'mother earth'? Maybe the scene is a beachside with corn plantation? I don't know- I'm practically just interpreting to make sense of it all- because all of this doesn't have anything to do with oceans.

Also I would like to read from here:
http://www.poetseers.org/nobel_prize_for_literature/tagore/poetry_tagore/

When talking about this passage it states:
"To be sure, Urvasie (The Celestial Nymph) is the wonder of wonders produced in the field of Tagore's poetry. It is here that he reaches the acme of beauty filled with delight. Verily, according to Tagore, Urvasie is at once an eternally self-revealing and self-fulfilling goddess."

Self-revealing? In the deep ocean?

Secondly does 'wave upon wave' mean 'one after another' or 'one above another'? I would have to see the original words to make that distinction because the Urdu phrase:

'eik kay bad eik'- means 'one after another' but it can also be translated as 'one upon another'- reason being 'upon' is a word that signifies 'speed'- that is that the 'second wave' catches up to the first- as its one after another..

Supposing that it is 'eik kay uppar eik' (one above another)- we can assume that it is in many layers- but then is the bosom is many layers? If it is, then is the goddess dancing on many layers at the same time? Is she dancing in the middle (deep/core) of the ocean? Where there are stars? And corn?

Okay I give up- with so many assumptions I give up... because I can't make sense of it in the deep ocean for all these things...

What do I think it is saying:

She is dancing for the Gods on the 'bosom' (chest/top/surface) of the ocean, and here dancing causes waves, one after another (like you tip-toe on water, waves go out, beautiful imagery, absolutely glorious)... The stars are reflected on the surface of the ocean and seem like a necklace... The corn is planted on the crust of 'mother earth'- and the corn covering is down which looks like the 'skirt'. Beautiful poetry. Keep in mind that this poetry is actually describing the scene itself, so all these pieces must somehow come together to give you a real scene. Which my way of looking at it does do, while 'deep oceans' make it pretty illogical- I'll give the benefit of doubt to the author that he has poetic talent and thus not illogical in his poetry.

Quran mentions depths (notice plurality)-
This poetry mentions 'bosom'- we are supposed to assume this means in the bottom of the ocean- and it is on 'many layers' (even though its singular)...

This poetry mentions a dance- we're supposed to assume all of this is happening in the deep Ocean, where the 'assembly of gods' is seeing it.

This poetry mentions stars in the sky- we're supposed to assume this is somewhere in the middle of the ocean

This poetry mentions corns (which by the way floats on water!)- we are supposed to assume the scene being described is in the middle of the ocean

Not to mention that the Quran is talking about the 'state of unbelievers' and their 'depths of darkness'- while this poetry is describing a very colorful scene which is supposedly taking place in many layers in the bottom of the ocean.

Or one final assumption..... All the things that are being described in this scene are absolutely random, have no relationship to one another- thus leaving 'wave upon wave' as separate... Which by the way would yield this poetry to be pretty stupid, and this person would not be considered a great poet (which it seems he is)- and by the way that would disassociate anything other than 'wave upon wave'- so we won't have anything to work with as there wouldn't be a context.. which defeats the person.

If you are willing to make all the above assumptions to portray to me that 'waves upon waves' is actually layers, then I submit that this poetry has any relevance to the Quranic 'waves upon waves'- which by the way are 'waves above which are waves' (in other translations)-

I will also submit that the 'depths' of Oceans is the same as 'bosom' meaning bottom/inside/core and not the top surface.

I will also submit the scenery of darkness in depths described in the poetic language of the Quran is no different that that of this poetry...

If you are willing to make all those assumptions- then I guess I only have to regret that you are not willing to take the words of the Quran as they are without any assumptions what so ever...

Peace be unto you :)

I will use scifes' translation:

Or [the state of a disbeliever] is like the darkness in a vast deep sea, overwhelmed with waves topped by waves, topped by dark clouds, (layers of) darkness upon darkness: if a man stretches out his hand, he can hardly see it! And he for whom Allâh has not appointed light, for him there is no light.

Okay no problem, I understand why this would be a better choice :D


The fact that Mohammed uses the work "like" means that there is nothing abou this metaphor that needs to be literally true. One can say the believer is like a two-headed dragon, and it doesn't imply any special knowledge of dragons.

By taking that interpretation (right?) that would mean Muhammad is not even saying the ocean is dark.. Because it say 'like the darkness in the vast deep sea'- but weren't you arguing that it is actually easy to know that the ocean is dark in the deep... Why would then anyone want to say that 'like' is not literally describing the darkness of the ocean? Coincidentally the only way you do that is by saying 'like' doesn't really mean 'like'- (interpretation?)

Secondly the closing saying 'darkness one above another'- it seems to be stressing the darkness (and layers of it)- it seems rather 'interpretative' to leave it out and not see that it is not actually saying that the ocean is dark.... I think your 'interpretation' seems more vague then simply accepting that the ocean is dark in the deep.


It says the sea is vast, deep, and dark.

Does it now? Didn't you just say above that it was not really 'like'- describing any real 'darkness'.


It says that the sea is overwhelmed with waves. How could barely noticeable internal waves be said to "overwhelm" anything?

Good question... First of all they are NOT 'barely noticeable'- the reason you don't notice them is because you can't see them- that doesn't mean that they aren't always there with 'overwhelming' abilities.

Lets see here:
http://www.utexas.edu/news/2008/06/30/internal_waves/

"A class of powerful, invisible waves hidden beneath the surface of the ocean can shape the underwater edges of continents"

Well I guess they are powerful enough to mess around with continents?

Lets see even more: (scroll down to section of Internal Waves)
http://whatonearth.olehnielsen.dk/oceanwaves.asp

"Surface waves can be up to 20 m high, while internal waves can reach a height of 300 m or more, dependent of the thickness of the upper water layer."

First of all- Internal waves have higher density! That means for the same amount of water taken from the surface of the ocean or from the bottom of the ocean, the one from the bottom of the ocean would be HEAVIER--

Second point... Internal Waves can reach 'heights of 300M or more' which by the way is more than 10X that of surface waves- if you calculate the volume- that outstrips surface waves by a huge factor- not only is the wave 10X height it is more DENSE... Definitely these waves are more 'overwhelming' at least in this respect... (another accidental confirmation? I don't know)

And if I look at my metaphor of 'deep' rooted beliefs... You look and question those- you're going to be having real issues- because it is the challenging of the deep beliefs that are the most 'overwhemling' on a person.


And these waves are topped by waves, again meaning on top of, not beneath anything.

Hmm... If one is on top of the other, then by the defintion one has to be below the other.


You are suggesting that Mohammed could not have known that someone in a vast deep dark ocean would be overwhelmed by waves on top of waves?

Interestingly you stopped AGAIN at 'waves upon waves'- the verse continues to talk about layers of darkness one above another... You also forgot to mention the clouds then come on top of those waves... All of this 'darkness one above another'- quite clearly clouds are LITERALLY above ocean waves-

So if 'waves on top of waves'- was to be taken at face value- Knowing quite clearly that they are in layers from the rest of the passage... You get waves which have waves on top which further have clouds on top... As clear at it can be...

While it has been you 'interpreting' those words the way you want to- 'like' doesn't mean 'like' (in the real sense)- 'waves on top of waves'- doesn't mean they are actually on top... layers of darkness one above another doesn't mean they are in layers... I think it is your interpreation that is vague- and you clearly are changing things while I'm reading the face value- which is quite clear indeed.

Peace be unto you ;)

The sea is full of all kinds of waves, sound waves especially, low frequency vibrations from earthquakes, icebergs, tsunamis, normal surface waves from all directions and, apparently, internal waves at certain layers. Your hypothesis is that in a metaphor about unbelievers, Mohammed was talking ONLY about the kind of waves that would prove your assertion that the Quran contains scientific facts that could not have been known at the time, rather than the waves that everyone at the time would have been familiar with. I find that there is no evidence of this precise meaning being the case. If anything, it is only one of many possible meanings (the most obvious being the most likely). Do you have any evidence that you haven't yet presented?

First I would like to point out you are not offering a refutation to what I said about your interpretation... Your interpretation is vague, mine is not...


The sea is full of all kinds of waves, sound waves especially, low frequency vibrations from earthquakes, icebergs, tsunamis, normal surface waves from all directions and, apparently, internal waves at certain layers.

Now you want to know the details about the 'many waves'- again demanding more from it than it gives- maybe a dynamite formula?

Anyways- first note that the words of the Quran states 'waves topped by waves'-

'waves'- is plural. And thus in a context of layers of waves, it can encompass all kinds of waves- as the description is of waves- not wave.

But I recognize that the description being given is of waves of water- because it is related to ocean- also noting that if you move to the clouds in a succession the waves of ocean at least are mentioned... So from the text and the description it gives I would think that the waves being talked about are water waves.....


Your hypothesis is that in a metaphor about unbelievers, Mohammed was talking ONLY about the kind of waves that would prove your assertion that the Quran contains scientific facts that could not have been known at the time, rather than the waves that everyone at the time would have been familiar with.

No... I realize that the waves being talked about are water waves- the waves that everyone is familiar with! The internal waves are yet water waves- the water moves like a surface wave- point is that people could image 'water waves' and that will still help them understand the metaphor yet not take away from this scientific fact that there are water waves below the ocean.

What I am contending is not 'only meaning'- I am not saying that the ONLY waves being mentioned are 'internal waves'- I'm using 'internal waves' to mean waves below the ocean surface. Because I can see that at a bare minimum.

At minimum- you can see the depth of the ocean in the verse- you can see from the depth you move upwards to the sky- while doing so you can see waves on top of which are waves on top of which are clouds.... So at a bare minimum you can model 3 layers- clouds, waves, and wave below waves on top. And this with respect to the ocean- and note that it mentions the depth of it.

I can at a bare minimum draw from this description, a layer of waves below the ocean surface, one is the ocean surface, and one the clouds.

What these waves are is not the question- the question is could anyone have known waves below the ocean surface? regardless of what type of waves they are for example 'sound waves' or not....



I find that there is no evidence of this precise meaning being the case.

It is precise to the point that there are waves under the ocean... Your job is to show that this level of precision could be reached...

Note there is no reason for Quran to list all the types of waves that can be in the ocean- as first of all it is not here to teach you about them- also note that the words are 'waves on top of waves'- which are plural- it would be stupid to use the word waves for each type of wave and then keep on saying 'waves on top of waves on top of waves on top of waves, etc'- but what it does say is that there are waves (plural) in layers (and in relationship to depth of ocean).

Can anyone at that time even come to this level of precision- waves below the ocean surface.


If anything, it is only one of many possible meanings (the most obvious being the most likely).

And the most obvious meaning is a layering of waves over waves which are furthered topped by clouds in layers. Which I showed previously, and why your interpreation is actually vague not mine.


Do you have any evidence that you haven't yet presented?

What use is it if you are never going to refute anything. You only have to show that waves which are below the ocean surface could have been known. That is all you have to show-

Peace be unto you ;)

It doesn't say explicitly say waves below the surface. Waves on top of waves can mean waves that are superimposed.

It doesn't say explicitly say waves below the surface. Waves on top of waves can mean waves that are superimposed.

What is the reason to discuss the depths of darkness which are in layers? I would think the 'depths' are pretty useless then?

And can you please even provide evidence for 'superimposed' waves? I've never seen a superimposed wave when I look at the ocean.

Peace be unto you ;)

Ever heard of a freak wave? That's what happens when two separate waves combine and the peaks are added. Sometimes waves can cancel each other out, which is the principle behind noise cancelling headphones and interference patterns.

Yup.

Ever heard of a freak wave? That's what happens when two separate waves combine and the peaks are added.

That just means they become one wave- hardly would anyone call that one wave is on top of another- Show a combined water wave to someone and ask him how many waves are there- and I will bet the answer is one- and supposedly this 'freak wave' detail is known to Muhammad not just that oceans have waves? Not to mention no one would see 'layers' of this since the peaks would have combined. I mean they're not working with mathematical graphs of waves in front of them from which they can detect the different 'waves' there- Water waves that combine would look like 1 wave and wouldn't be called on top of another wave not to mention in layers (and depth would still be a useless here)-

Do you have evidence that they recognized the phenomenon of 'freak waves' and that they held them to be more than 1 wave- but in layers.. I would be interested to know personally- because if someone asked me I would still call it one wave- by the way 'freak waves' are even more 'detailed' information then I would expect someone from a desert to know-

Here is a pic I got from yahoo of a freak wave which is clear: http://inlinethumb24.webshots.com/41815/2266391600103830173S600x600Q85.jpg

I only see one wave- frankly- even if it is a mix of 'many waves'-

Now I'm reading 'wiki'- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freak_wave#History

Causes of them- still under research it seems- But if those waves combine- what you see is only 1 wave- not layers- even I know how to combine waves on paper- they may be 2 waves in paper- but when you see it- it is only 1 wave- not a layer of waves on top each other.

Somewhere encounter of this wave and his statement: http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2002/freakwave.shtml

"Out of nowhere... a wave twice as high as average. The ship went down like freefall" - you see it in one of the boxes where they give 'highlights'

This is exactly how I would describe it- 'a wave'- one huge wave. I wonder if they noted that there were layers of waves? I certainly wouldn't. I'm more than happy to accept this if you want because this is even more detail then waves under waves.... Because now you're saying he knew that a single wave was made up of a collection of waves which were all in layer- not to mention this still wouldn't explain depths- I still see my own simple face value approach to be more appealing/consistent/fully utilizes the passage/logical even though this 'freak wave' thing gives much more level of scientific information then anyone would know certainly even I wouldn't give such a description to something which appears to be one wave. But if this is what you see being mentioned then kudos to you; now just show how this would be known.

Peace be unto you ;)

iceaura,

Those were really, truly, good references and made the point AGAIN explicitly. Thanks for taking the time and looking them up. I would have looked around but I'm just really busy presently.

But it doesn't matter. There is NOTHING, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, you can say that will change a "believer's" mind. Think about it, once a person truly and utterly believes in AND worships, venerates, prays to and seeks comfort from Xenu(mu) or Allah or Smurfs or whatever other magical creature they think is "real:, it's a done deal. They are not interested in "making sense". They gave up on making sense a LONG time ago. With the rarest of exceptions, SouthStar and MW being two I can remember in the last 5 years, these people are not able to think logically about their superstition.

Look at the way 786 dissected the poems. Peace by peace. But the same person who will look at you straight in the face and honestly say that a belief in Allah is asinine and silly will turn right around and pray and worship Xenu(mu). Do you honestly expect to make headway with this person? You think you're going to pull logic and reason from someone who prays to Xenu(mu) [or Allah or Santa or Elvis]??? It's an utterly absurd waste of time.




The burden was on scifes to prove that the information in poem couldn't known without modern scientific technology and that hasn't been done. If it were done, then you would be able to take that argument to Nature or Science and publish it. I promise you, that will not be the case.


Lastly, again, the two poems really should have been able to make the case - anyone thinking logically can instantly see the parallels.

O Urvasie swaying soft and sweet,
When thou dancest before the assembly of the gods,
Thrills of delight course through thy limbs,
Waves upon waves swirl rhythmically in the
bosom of the ocean,
The undulating tips of the shivering corn
Appear like the fluttering skirt of mother earth.
From the necklace hung upon thy breast
Drop down the stars on the floor of the sky.
And all at once man loses his masculine heart
in sheer rapture.

Look at the way 786 dissected the poems. Peace by peace.

Thank you for the complement... 'Piece by piece' indeed did I respond to that very elegent poem.


Lastly, again, the two poems really should have been able to make the case - anyone thinking logically can instantly see the parallels.

Well if they were thinking logically they would logically understand the rather huge difference between the descriptions- and if they were thinking logically they would realize how illogical it is to assume that the description was about the depth of the ocean. Not that you would understand.

Peace be unto you ;)

Logical thinking will always be scarified on the alter of fear. That's why our species survived. Any human that stops to contemplate a big lion chasing him/her is more than likely going to be eaten by said big lion. Because I don't fear Gods (or Aliens), 786, I can clearly see that the three poems are equal in regards to any scientific "miracles" of prediction they make. However, we can't expect someone who seriously worries a God will send him/her to burn in a lake of eternal fire for eternity, to think as clearly. Not anymore than a person being run down by a lion can think of anything other than survival.


If you think you have made a truly valid scientific argument, then write it up here, send it to Nature, publish the results and show the whole world your "scientific miracle". But, we know that's not going to happen don't we. And not because of some "scientist conspiracy" but because there is no miracle. Nothing. Just a poem and a person who desperately wants to believe in God so they don't have to fear death. You're capable of logically thinking about the poem from Zeus (pbuh) and His Prophet (pbuh) because you're not afraid of Zeus. Something you're not capable of doing when it comes to the Qur'an.

It really is that simple.

Which is why it's a waste of time to try to get you to. No more than you could get a person being chased by a lion to think coherently about a poem. It's simply not going to happen. Not that it couldn't happen, but that it's not going to happen.

It really is that simple.

That you like to troll? If my reasoning is so illogical and 'incoherent' perhaps you can refute what I stated about the poem rather than waste time making statements? It should be a very easy task for someone who can read poems 'coherently' (you?). If not, don't waste my time and neither waste this forum space which is not for trolling.

Peace be unto you ;)

The concept of the freak wave is only an illustration of something every sailor would know, that waves can come from more than one direction at once. When they combine, the amplitude can add or subtract, and they continue on their way as if nothing happened. So, this is a plausible explanation for waves on top of waves. When the waves only come from one direction, sailing is easy, the waves are predictable. When the waves come from more than one direction, as when they bounce off a rocky coast and are reflected, the seas become chaotic. Waves on top of waves refers to a chaotic, disordered sea. Don't tell me they couldn't know this, Arabs were some of the best sailors in the world at that time.

All I'm concerned about is the layering of waves. There is no layering of waves - not in the English Quran, not in Tagore's poem, not in the paen to the Torah I quoted - probably no one has ever used "waves upon waves" in English to refer to physical layering of the kind you invoke. "Trees upon trees", "miles upon miles", "days upon days", etc (probably the most common use of the idiom), do not refer to layers of these things.

If you can support the claim that there is no layering mentioned, you are more than welcome to quote the verse right here- In your quote of the verse, the word "layer" does not appear, nor are such layers as you introduce described in any way that I see. You added a very creative interpretation, that no one ever thought of until they had a scientific discovery to match up with somehow.

So by saying 'swirl' that provides much more detail about waves? Isn't that an inherent property of ocean waves- It provides a detail more readily evocative of the kinds of behavior common to "internal waves" in the ocean - likewise "bosom". Tagore is really much closer to describing those waves than the Quran is - would you accept his description as foreshadowing the scientific discovery?

the verse continues to talk about layers of darkness one above another. No it doesn't. Not as quoted here anyway.


And can you please even provide evidence for 'superimposed' waves? I've never seen a superimposed wave when I look at the ocean. I've seen "waves upon waves" in lakes and oceans quite often, in strong winds. They fall on each other, break into each other, turn into each other, etc.They come one after another in an endlless and constantly interacting series. Large bodies of water can be very rough - waves upon waves is a perfectly reasonable and accurately evocative description of what I and millions of others have seen many times while looking out from a boat.

Another very good explanation spirdergoat.

So, are we all in agreement that the poem in question does not contain any information that could have been deduced and understood by people at that point in history?

The concept of the freak wave is only an illustration of something every sailor would know, that waves can come from more than one direction at once. When they combine, the amplitude can add or subtract, and they continue on their way as if nothing happened. So, this is a plausible explanation for waves on top of waves. When the waves only come from one direction, sailing is easy, the waves are predictable. When the waves come from more than one direction, as when they bounce off a rocky coast and are reflected, the seas become chaotic. Waves on top of waves refers to a chaotic, disordered sea. Don't tell me they couldn't know this, Arabs were some of the best sailors in the world at that time.

You haven't showed that 1 combined wave would be described as 'many waves'- or layers of darkness one above another. You're saying that these sailor would see these waves 'combining' which formed higher amplitudes... I'm unaware ancient people knowing that waves can combine, perhaps you can provide evidence?

Do you believe they understood those waves to be 'combining'? If they did consider them combined- did they consider them layered waves or just a single wave? Again instead of throwing out statements please provide evidence of all this. Because I'm not interested in knowing how well you understand waves but how well the ancient people understood them.

Peace be unto you ;)

I can provide you a wikipedia quote, how about that?


Apart from the Nile, Tigris and Euphrates, navigable rivers in the Islamic regions were uncommon, so transport by sea was very important. Islamic geography and navigational sciences were highly developed, making use of a magnetic compass and a rudimentary instrument known as a kamal, used for celestial navigation and for measuring the altitudes and latitudes of the stars. When combined with detailed maps of the period, sailors were able to sail across oceans rather than skirt along the coast. According to the political scientist Hobson, the origins of the caravel ship, used for long-distance travel by the Spanish and Portuguese since the 15th century, date back to the qarib used by Andalusian explorers by the 13th century.[3]

I believe this illustrates that the Arab mariners were quite sophisticated. I have a basic knowledge of sailing, and the pattern of currents and waves I describe is elementary to the craft. Waves alone aren't difficult to deal with, you point the boat in the correct direction, and it can deal with it. But it becomes a problem with waves start coming from another direction in addition. Then you can't predict which way is the best direction to travel. Waves can unpredictably combine to form sneaker waves with twice the amplitude, or deep troughs.

"Trees upon trees", "miles upon miles", "days upon days", etc (probably the most common use of the idiom), do not refer to layers of these things.

What if it was 'trees above trees', 'miles above miles'- this doesn't even make sense as the expression breaks down...

Here you go, I'm quoting the same verses I quoted in the beginning of my discussion:

024.040
YUSUFALI: Or (the Unbelievers' state) is like the depths of darkness in a vast deep ocean, overwhelmed with billow topped by billow, topped by (dark) clouds: depths of darkness, one above another: if a man stretches out his hands, he can hardly see it! for any to whom Allah giveth not light, there is no light!

PICKTHAL: Or as darkness on a vast, abysmal sea. There covereth him a wave, above which is a wave, above which is a cloud. Layer upon layer of darkness. When he holdeth out his hand he scarce can see it. And he for whom Allah hath not appointed light, for him there is no light.

SHAKIR: Or like utter darkness in the deep sea: there covers it a wave above which is another wave, above which is a cloud, (layers of) utter darkness one above another; when he holds out his hand, he is almost unable to see it; and to whomsoever Allah does not give light, he has no light.


In your quote of the verse, the word "layer" does not appear, nor are such layers as you introduce described in any way that I see.

Well the word 'layer' is there... its talking about darkness- but you are going to tell me that this summation has nothing to do with the things it was mentioning before? (I know it makes it much more coherent that way?)

Happens to be none of them say 'waves upon waves' (which is what spidergoat chose to use, I was simply asking him question regarding that and how that interpretation would fit in with the rest of the passage, especially how clouds would be seemingly on top of them without breaking up the continuous method of the verse-)

So you see waves crashing on top of each other- do you see clouds crashing on top of them every time? Right we just have to separate the clouds as something separate- why? Because you can ??? right? Or should I cite the parsimony rule so that it is indeed waves on top of waves which are further topped by clouds- so that there is no reason to separate them- parsimony is better right?


It provides a detail more readily evocative of the kinds of behavior common to "internal waves" in the ocean - likewise "bosom". Tagore is really much closer to describing those waves than the Quran is - would you accept his description as foreshadowing the scientific discovery?

Quite interesting that you fail to refute any of the criticism I posed... or did that not show up on your screen?


No it doesn't. Not as quoted here anyway.

Look again ?

Peace be unto you ;)

I can provide you a wikipedia quote, how about that?

Right. but no evidence? Anyways lets look at the quote you provide


Apart from the Nile, Tigris and Euphrates, navigable rivers in the Islamic regions were uncommon, so transport by sea was very important. Islamic geography and navigational sciences were highly developed, making use of a magnetic compass and a rudimentary instrument known as a kamal, used for celestial navigation and for measuring the altitudes and latitudes of the stars. When combined with detailed maps of the period, sailors were able to sail across oceans rather than skirt along the coast. According to the political scientist Hobson, the origins of the caravel ship, used for long-distance travel by the Spanish and Portuguese since the 15th century, date back to the qarib used by Andalusian explorers by the 13th century.[3]

So they were good with navigation because of their compass an stuff.... nothing really about oceanography I would think. Anyways lets continue with your further 'supportive claims'.


I believe this illustrates that the Arab mariners were quite sophisticated.I have a basic knowledge of sailing, and the pattern of currents and waves I describe is elementary to the craft. Waves alone aren't difficult to deal with, you point the boat in the correct direction, and it can deal with it. But it becomes a problem with waves start coming from another direction in addition. Then you can't predict which way is the best direction to travel. Waves can unpredictably combine to form sneaker waves with twice the amplitude, or deep troughs.

You are correct, waves aren't difficult to deal with- also you are correct they probably had basic 'sailing' knowledge- which I would think is probably more related to wind... Since waves aren't difficult to deal with who the hell would spend hours keeping track of 2 waves to see if they combine or not to determine their way of navigation?

And you are also correct that it becomes a problem when 'waves start coming from another direction'--- but then do you sit down with your binoculars to see where the 'waves are combining'? I think you get your planks and start using your arms to get going in the direction you want... I would like to know if even a basic fisherman sits down on the deck, and starts looking at if the waves are combining in to one- I think he would see the directions- not to mention when you're in a ocean there are so many waves that it would be hard to take a note and see them actually combining- but you can simply look at the ocean waves without really concentrating on their combination and still note the various currents- And not to mention that an explanation is required that this weird practice of 'sit down and watch wave combining' would be the thing that reaches Muhammad and not the general and most obvious stuff about sailing.

I will ask a sailor if they sit down and start looking at if waves are combining even now. And I can almost bet they don't. They are more worried about currents and wind directions- The simplest way of noting the current is to look at the general flow of the waves- not sit down and concentrate on two waves and see if they are combining or not...

Anyways no one would consider this evidence for what I was asking. How many sailors look at waves combining to figure out their navigation paths even today- or dad's going fishing- I mean come on. The wikipedia quote shows navigational skills based on geography, maps, and compass type tools- not sitting down to see wave combination.

Peace be unto you ;)

Another very good explanation spirdergoat.

Are you a cheerleader?

Peace be unto you ;)

Quite interesting that you fail to refute any of the criticism I posed. ? No point. They don't bear on the matter at hand.

Apparently, you can find translations and viewpoints from which you can infer an agreement of that verse with an unrelated scientific discovery made centuries later.

To which I respond: look at the OP. Nothing in that verse (any of those translations) is beyond what anyone looking out over a storm-tossed ocean sees, or what any of dozens of poets and writers and storytellers have depicted.

Finding other meanings on the basis that the Quran hides such meanings assumes the consequent - and there seems to be no other basis: as is shown by the failure to find them already, without the hints and assumptions.

So what's the argument?

When you write up your "Scientific Miracle" and publish it in Nature - let me know. Until then all I see is you interpreting a poem in an convoluted almost 4th don yoga contortion to pull some meaningless dribble out of your arse and claiming it's "miraculous" scientific foresight and evidence of God.

Which is so silly as to be preposterous.

? No point. They don't bear on the matter at hand.

That it doesn't make sense talking about deep ocean? So what does bear on the matter is if out-of-your-*** you say bosom is actually 'deep' inside- regardless of what the context is saying..... In other words you don't care and that is the only thing that bears on the matter. My friend the context ALWAYS bears on the matter of literature.


Apparently, you can find translations and viewpoints from which you can infer an agreement of that verse with an unrelated scientific discovery made centuries later.

First of all the 3 translations I quoted are the most widely used translations.. especially Yusuf Ali... I wasn't poking around and 'choosing one' - I provided all 3. They would be the ones that anyone would quote you regarding any passage of the Quran, not simply this one.

Hell, why don't you provide us with the translation that you were using? Because now that I go back, the translation scifes quoted and SPIDERGOAT also did not have 'waves upon waves'- that was his own made up thing... I will quote all the translation so far quoted:

Or [the state of a disbeliever] is like the darkness in a vast deep sea, overwhelmed with waves topped by waves, topped by dark clouds, (layers of) darkness upon darkness: if a man stretches out his hand, he can hardly see it! And he for whom Allâh has not appointed light, for him there is no light.

Or (the Unbelievers' state) is like the depths of darkness in a vast deep ocean, overwhelmed with billow topped by billow, topped by (dark) clouds: depths of darkness, one above another: if a man stretches out his hands, he can hardly see it! for any to whom Allah giveth not light, there is no light!

Now what Spidergoat Quoted:

Or as darkness on a vast, abysmal sea. There covereth him a wave, above which is a wave, above which is a cloud. Layer upon layer of darkness. When he holdeth out his hand he scarce can see it. And he for whom Allah hath not appointed light, for him there is no light.

Or like darkness on a deep sea, there covers it a wave above which is a wave, above which is a cloud,--darknesses one above the other,--when one puts out his hand he can scarcely see it; for he to whom God has given no light, he has no light.

Or like the darkness on the deep sea when covered by billows riding upon billows, above which are clouds: darkness upon darkness. When a man reacheth forth his hand, he cannot nearly see it! He to whom God shall not give light, no light at all hath he!

Now you go ahead and provide me the translation that said 'waves upon waves' which supposedly was posted here- because you had constantly been saying that what I was saying about 'layers' 'one above another' are not quoted here.... Go ahead please.



To which I respond: look at the OP. Nothing in that verse (any of those translations) is beyond what anyone looking out over a storm-tossed ocean sees, or what any of dozens of poets and writers and storytellers have depicted.

Th continuation to clouds wouldn't make sense, neither would the talk about depths.... But I know you don't care about any of the rest as you demonstrate by your so called response about the poem as 'doesn't bear....

None of you have presented an alternative that actually uses the verse and all information in it... You just say 'stormy ocean'- I broke us the verse piece by piece to show why this doesn't make sense

You say 'crashing waves'- but then you split up the clouds, and neither do you see that 'darkness above darkness' referring to the previously mentioned 'waves, waves, clouds' would put them in layers as clouds are definitely above waves- but NO, you want interpret it so that clouds are separate, the waves are the same, and they are only in layers with clouds one but only one wave-- It is you guys who are doing gymnastics with the words, making up your own interpretation that YOU would like to see.

If you think 'you can' and 'garbage can' - the word 'can' has the same meaning in it- I am appalled... I am amazed that you guys have gone so down low that you even not wish to look at the context.... You create s**t out-of-nowhere to understand a poem just so that you can have it compared to the Quran- I recommend you take a class on literary analysis. While I just took the most obvious meaning that is there- waves above which are waves, above which are clouds- darkness one above another...


Finding other meanings on the basis that the Quran hides such meanings assumes the consequent - and there seems to be no other basis: as is shown by the failure to find them already, without the hints and assumptions.

Assumptions? Interesting to note that I tried to read the Quran so that it just made sense while keeping to the face value- while you created your own interpretation of that poem without even considering if it even had made sense just so you could say 'bosom' is in the bottom somewhere.

Now I have quoted 6 translations- both from spidergoat, scifes, and what I originally quoted (the most widely used translations) and then I'm being accused for finding one which fits my theory?


So what's the argument?

That you have no argument, because you've failed to refute anything... On the other hand you accuse me of interpreting (squeezing?) out of it a meaning that isn't there, yet you haven't shown how so... I've given extensive number of posts with detail why this is the most obvious reading of it... You are unwilling to accept it.. BUT you are willing to say that a poem is talking about deep in the ocean when it says 'bosom'- who the heck is creating meaning from 1 word? It seems to be you, I'm using the context completely and take from that the most obvious meaning..

Peace be unto you ;)

...--- but then do you sit down with your binoculars to see where the 'waves are combining'? I think you get your planks and start using your arms to get going in the direction you want... I would like to know if even a basic fisherman sits down on the deck, and starts looking at if the waves are combining in to one- ...

You don't have to look at anything, you feel it in the movements of your boat, especially when you approach a coast that reflects existing waves, causing a confused pattern.

You don't have to look at anything, you feel it in the movements of your boat, especially when you approach a coast that reflects existing waves, causing a confused pattern.

Okay, so even though they didn't have to look at anything they sat down to see 'waves combining'? Not to mention we don't even have evidence of that they knew waves combined and if it layered... just provide the evidence for this 'superimposed' stuff that you're asserting was even noted/known, and this weird sailing technique of sit and watch waves combine was what Muhammad had heard from somewhere...... I think we're getting a little too far-fetched with this...especially since I don't see sailors do this even today.

Peace be unto you ;)

More to the point, was this something they could not have known at the time? No, absolutely not. I heard about knowledge of currents and waves from (programs about) traditional polynesian sailors who's knowledge has been passed down for thousands of years.

This is common knowledge with sailors today, and they didn't require anything more sophisticated then their senses to be aware of it.

More to the point, was this something they could not have known at the time? No, absolutely not. I heard about knowledge of currents and waves from (programs about) traditional polynesian sailors who's knowledge has been passed down for thousands of years.

This is common knowledge with sailors today, and they didn't require anything more sophisticated then their senses to be aware of it.

So you are not going to provide any evidence if they knew about any waves combining what-so-ever.... Anyone who sees a wave sees only 1 wave- not a layer of them, neither is the combination of waves something that can be seen directly, as the water from the 'second wave' flows into the 'first wave' in a 'fluid' manner from bottom up, this is how the amplitude grows- not to mention again that you have not yet provided any evidence about their knowledge of waves in terms of their combination... neither is there evidence provided that such a detailed event would be described as layers of waves- not to mention that the mention of 'depths' would still not fit this description... Also Muhammad never having seen a sea would say this? Well if he heard it from someone then it must be common knowledge- then you must surely be able to find evidence of people believing that waves combined? From Greeks perhaps? They had much more knowledge of sailing then Arabs anyways- do they have this concept? If this knowledge isn't out there, then the other assumption is that Muhammad made it up- a man who never seen a sea and ocean ends up with such a detailed level of 'wave combination'- which by the way isn't really visible to be 'waves combining' especially not in layers as the 'smaller' wave would be hidden within the big visible wave and thus is NOT VISIBLE... So not only did Muhammad know that they combined but that they remained in layers? Still something that can't be visualized. I wouldn't even dream of there being a wave inside the wave which still has its own property of a distinct wave that I would call it a wave above a wave in a layered fashion- I would still by all means call it one wave, never a layer of them- because layers are not visible- if Muhammad mentioned this- then that would still be information absolutely unknown and invisible to people.... You're running into the same trouble everywhere you go my friend.

So if your arguments are baseless- in terms of evidence then I don't think I need to go on. I have NEVER in my life seen a combination of waves that I could distinguish with my visible eye- if I did see a 'growing wave' it would only be due to the wave having more volume and NOT because I think it combined with another wave- not to mention that the addition happens bottom up in a fluid manner which would can not be distinguished by the visible eye- all you see is fluctuating level of waves- neither would I describe it as one over another in a layered fashion- even a modern man like me, who at least knows the additive properties of waves would not describe what I was seeing as is described in the Quran. And this supposed thing was 'commonly known' to everyone and the story reached to Muhammad as well..... Provide evidence, or stop writing because this Formal Debate forum requires that you provide supporting evidence.

Peace be unto you ;)

This isn't the formal debate. And I don't have to provide evidence that Muslims knew about waves from one direction coming on top of waves from another direction. I only have to show that this is something that could have been known at the time, and was known by any maritime culture, especially one as advanced in the art as the Arabs.

This isn't the formal debate. And I don't have to provide evidence that Muslims knew about waves from one direction coming on top of waves from another direction. I only have to show that this is something that could have been known at the time, and was known by any maritime culture, especially one as advanced in the art as the Arabs.

You again fail to move forward from 'wave upon wave'- you ignore the rest of the passage as if it never existed.

'known by any maritime culture'- just name one who believed waves combined- tell which one actually thought them to be layered- and please do speak about how each wave kept its distinct property as a wave and not merge into a single big wave- All things invisible to the naked eye... Instead of making statements just provide evidence..

Well I guess its a 'discussion section'- but If I was the one debating you then you wouldn't provide me with anything- at least you acknowledge your lack of supporting evidence.

Peace be unto you ;)

I haven't seen any evidence of special knowledge here. Sailors have been on the oceans of the Middle East and the Mediterranean for thousands of years prior to Mohammed. I suggest the discussion move on.

Moreover, the text as written isn't being related to the concept of superimposed waves, but as an allegory of faith and a reminder of dutifulness of that very faith. Now, if this is meant to be a sermon, how exactly is it that Mohammed expects everyone to grasp his allegory, if what he's talking about isn't common knowledge at the time?

"Waves on waves, Mo? - what's all that about? Surely you can go look in the ocean and see right to the bottom, can't you?"

Come on, let's be reasonable and serious here. Do you actually believe that no one knew you couldn't see all the way to the bottom of the bloody ocean?

By comparison: had no one heard of bushel baskets and candles in Jesus' time? "Candle under a basket? Why, I'd never thought of that before!" Does that make Jesus a physicist? It's meant to be a commonplace parable. Enough already.

It's not a belief, it's an elementary observation, one that can be seen and felt by anyone with any experience on the Ocean.

Interference.

As swell wave trains fan out across the Earth's oceans, waves from different storm systems will eventually meet and collide, causing interference and interesting wave behavior. When swell wave trains collide they can produce several types of interference.

Constructive interference occurs when two swell wave trains have the same wavelength and they combine in-phase. There is no affect on wavelength, but wave height increases

Destructive interference occurs when the wave crest of one swell combines with the wave trough of another. The energy from these swells cancels each other out and the surface becomes calmer.

Commonly, however, swell wave trains combine in mixed interference, producing unpredictable and complex wave patterns and heights. This type of interference may produce rogue waves, extremely large unpredictable waves that can be very dangerous to ships.

On rare occurrences in the open ocean, an unusually large wave may develop. These rogue waves are massive, single waves that can reach extreme heights of 15 to 30 meters (50 to 100 feet) or more. It is believed that one cause for rogue waves is overlap of multiple waves that produce an extremely large wave; they tend to occur most frequently downwind of islands and shoals. If storm winds push waves against a strong ocean current, rogue waves can develop. In the Agulhas Current off the southeastern coast of Africa, Antarctic storms push waves northeast into the oncoming current. Rogue waves have destroyed many ships in this region, capsizing them, smashing bow or stern, or lifting them amidships to snap the keel.

The last example is particularly interesting, as it would have been an effect that Arab sailors would have encountered. Although the interference effect best explains the "waves upon waves" phrase, I learned something interesting. The internal waves that you mention can also be seen from the surface.


Internal waves are disturbances that occur at the boundary between two water masses of different density. The wave heights can be quite large, sometimes exceeding 100 meters (330 feet) and may be formed by tidal movement, turbidity currents, wind stress, or passing ships. The surface expression of the waves is minimal, but if the crests approach the surface they affect the reflection of light from the water.

So, your and scifes' assertion that internal waves could not have been known about at the time is also wrong.

Source: http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/Tw-Z/Waves.html

I think people give very little credit to the knowledge of the "ancients". Just saw a documentary on History about early uses of engineering for inspiring theological awe. Fascinating show; ingenious machines, really. Well, some were basic but some were great.

Now, if this is meant to be a sermon, how exactly is it that Mohammed expects everyone to grasp his allegory, if what he's talking about isn't common knowledge at the time?

Clearly it is a metaphor- a metaphor can be understood by people without any knowledge or background of it... I've been into at least 5-6 English classes and students bring up their own view which they see- it doesn't require them to know what is being referred to to take out a meaning... Even without knowledge of waves under water- one can still understand the metaphor as many layers of darkness which is the idea that is declared at the end of the passage- they don't have to 'think hard' about the 'waves' to get the idea because the idea is spelled out for them in the end.


Come on, let's be reasonable and serious here. Do you actually believe that no one knew you couldn't see all the way to the bottom of the bloody ocean?

But did they know God could? Secondly the message of the metaphor is clearly stated so they would understand the 'meaning' of it without any reason to consider what it meant by layers of wave- because they know what waves are and all they have to do is put them in 'layers of darkness' which anyone can do- the Arabs were smart enough to know what a metaphor is and that it is the message that counts not the reality of it- so they would STILL understand!

Peace be unto you ;)

It's not a belief, it's an elementary observation, one that can be seen and felt by anyone with any experience on the Ocean.

I didn't ask for a scientific understanding of these things common to us- secondly we know they 'combine' which is what is being stated that your 'Interference' reference. But my question is after they 'combine' how many waves do you see?

On rare occurrences in the open ocean, an unusually large wave may develop. These rogue waves are massive, single waves that can reach extreme heights of 15 to 30 meters (50 to 100 feet) or more. It is believed that one cause for rogue waves is overlap of multiple waves that produce an extremely large wave

Even they say that it produces ONE WAVE- And even they don't know that it is actually due to combination of waves- which I said can actually not be observed visibly, as an observer will simply see one wave gradually disappear at the bottom of another wave- which would mean that one wave 'crashed'- this is what is visible- not combination! If it was, this would've already been proven which scientists are STILL working on!


The internal waves that you mention can also be seen from the surface.

they affect the reflection of light from the water.

Note disturbance in reflection from the ocean would have no meaning to 'internal waves'- this is how WE understand it because we have satellite imagery.... You think they said- 'doesn't the reflection of the water look weird' and then one of them responds suddenly 'Well I don't know what is causing it but maybe there are waves underneath!"--- Most logical and simple thing to conclude would be there is something down there that is making the reflection to be awkward--maybe some 'sea monster'? or maybe some 'rock' or something. You wouldn't say 'waves' which are first of all associated with wind- you actually DON'T see the wave!


So, your and scifes' assertion that internal waves could not have been known about at the time is also wrong.

Try again... Although I'm happy that you are starting to look for supportive evidence :D

Peace be unto you ;)

The question isn't what happens to the waves after you see them combine, it's sufficient to know that when the sea is chaotic, it is the result of waves coming from more than one source.

The waves that happen at boundry layers under the Ocean are visible from the surface. They would know they were waves since they would be repeating. We know about them from satellites, but that doesn't mean they couldn't have been known to ancient sailors.

I have shown that surface waves can be "on top" of each other in a layered effect, causing interference. I have shown that other kinds of waves exist which can be visible from the surface or from the shore (tsunamis, internal waves), all of which are successful refutations of the topic being debated, that such things could not have been known without modern scientific gear.

Clearly it is a metaphor- a metaphor can be understood by people without any knowledge or background of it...

Not so. Also, the point is to make a sermon to the people. If they can't follow the metaphor, there's no point in making it.


But did they know God could?

That makes no sense. Clearly, the metaphor was one which was well understood by the even lightly educated.

Now I have quoted 6 translations- both from spidergoat, scifes, and what I originally quoted (the most widely used translations) and then I'm being accused for finding one which fits my theory? I'm not "accusing" you of anything - I'm conceding that "layers" are specifically mentioned in some translations, and pointing out that it doesn't matter - your task was to find something in the Quran that detailed stuff impossible to know without modern scientific gear. You have instead presented us with a poetic description of the ocean as commonly visible to anyone in a boat, used as an analogy in a manner similar to its use by poets and storytellers for thousands of years.

And somewhat overdramatic, as poetry, IMHO. You don't need huge crashing waves. One prefers Marianne Moore's use of foam over ripples upon ripples, as she invokes the "layers" we all can see, even from the beach:

From "A Grave" (the line breaks are probably inaccurate)

"- - - -
The ripples move among themselves in a phalanx, beautiful under networks of foam, and fade breathlessly as the sea rustles in and out of the seaweed

the birds swim through the air at top speed, emitting catcalls as heretofor

the tortoiseshell scourges about the feet of the cliffs, in motion beneath them

and the ocean, under the pulsations of lighthouses and the noise of bell buoys, advances as usual, as if it were not that ocean

in which dropped things are bound to sink, in which
if they turn and twist, it is with neither volition nor consciousness"

Is it physically possible to have layers of utter (absolute) darkness ? or is this a scientific mistake in the Qur'an? OR, is this simply a relatively common allegory?

You have instead presented us with a poetic description of the ocean as commonly visible to anyone in a boat, used as an analogy in a manner similar to its use by poets and storytellers for thousands of years.

Yes it is poetry- but the complete Quran is poetry- the Quran is 'delivered' in poetry but that does not mean that it has no over-reach to reality- in fact people lived their lives based upon this book- For you to bar it as 'just poetry' is an insult to the billions of Muslims, and for millions before who understood it to be detailing the 'reality' of life and things- not poetry...

You are working under the assumption that it is 'unrelated' as you see it as simply poetry, Muslims of the past certainly did not hold this view- while I'm simply reading it as it is.


One prefers Marianne Moore's use of foam over ripples upon ripples, as she invokes the "layers" we all can see, even from the beach:

Once again you purposefully use phrases such as 'ripple upon ripples' to directly associate it with the Quran- I wonder why you can't let the poetry speak with its words as they are, just like I am letting the face value of the Quran speak for itself.

'Ripples upon ripples' doesn't exist in this poetry- not to mention none of the quoted Quran say 'waves upon waves'-can I ask you what is your intention of creating this phrases if it is not to draw direct parallels (false ones at that) to the Quran- I must question your bias when you bring up things like this and then alter their words as a paraphrase specifically so you draw it closer to the Quran so that you can show that it is just like the Quran. This is intellectual dishonesty at best.

Since there is no 'ripples upon ripples' maybe I shouldn't even bother- but I am still interested in why change the phrasing so that you can use it as evidence- yet I was accused of interpreting the Quran? You are even falsely interpreting supposed 'evidence' that you are providing.

Definition of Phalanx:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/phalanx


–noun

1.
(in ancient Greece) a group of heavily armed infantry formed in ranks and files close and deep, with shields joined and long spears overlapping.
2.
any body of troops in close array.
3.
a number of individuals, esp. persons united for a common purpose.
4.
a compact or closely massed body of persons, animals, or things.
5.
Military. (initial capital letter) a radar-controlled U.S. Navy 20mm Gatling-type gun deployed on ships as a last line of defense against antiship cruise missiles.
6.
(in Fourierism) a group of about 1800 persons, living together and holding their property in common.
7.
Anatomy, Zoology. any of the bones of the fingers or toes.
–verb (used without object)
8.
Printing. to arrange the distribution of work in a shop as evenly as possible.

Do armies have one person stand on top of another? Is that how 'ranks' and 'files' are made?

Phalanx is a perfect word for how ripples move one following the other ('common purpose) and a close and distributed..... Obviously foam is always on top, and they are 'networks'..... No mention of depth, no layers, no real depth to anything...

Regardless why did you use the terms 'ripples upon ripples'- I'm not going to respond to you from now on, because I'm not fond of dishonesty-

-----------------

From "A Grave" (the line breaks are probably inaccurate)

"- - - -
The ripples move among themselves in a phalanx, beautiful under networks of foam, and fade breathlessly as the sea rustles in and out of the seaweed

the birds swim through the air at top speed, emitting catcalls as heretofor

the tortoiseshell scourges about the feet of the cliffs, in motion beneath them

and the ocean, under the pulsations of lighthouses and the noise of bell buoys, advances as usual, as if it were not that ocean

in which dropped things are bound to sink, in which
if they turn and twist, it is with neither volition nor consciousness"

Peace be unto you ;)

The question isn't what happens to the waves after you see them combine, it's sufficient to know that when the sea is chaotic, it is the result of waves coming from more than one source.

Yes but waves on the same plane, not of different depths.


The waves that happen at boundry layers under the Ocean are visible from the surface.

What you quoted stated that it disturbs the reflection of light on the ocean- Rocks also disturb reflection, large fish would also, disturbance of reflection doesn't mean that you see waves- you just see a 'disturbed' awkward reflection off of the ocean surface-


They would know they were waves since they would be repeating. We know about them from satellites, but that doesn't mean they couldn't have been known to ancient sailors.

Repeating? First of all provide evidence that the reflection you see is a wave! And this is visible on a boat..... I will be waiting for an answer....


I have shown that surface waves can be "on top" of each other in a layered effect, causing interference.

Have you? And AGAIN you are still stuck with 'waves upon waves' but the rest of the passage has apparently skipped you, especially the 'depths of darkness one above another'..... Not to mention the passage started with the property of depth.


I have shown that other kinds of waves exist which can be visible from the surface or from the shore (tsunamis, internal waves),

I've already given a detail response to 'tsunamis', and you have yet to show that what you actually see is 'waves' regarding the 'inernal waves'.

Peace be unto you ;)

Is it physically possible to have layers of utter (absolute) darkness ? or is this a scientific mistake in the Qur'an? OR, is this simply a relatively common allegory?

I've explained this to you before... I'm sure you never understood anything...

Peace be unto you ;)

Not so.

Wow... that is so informative. I don't know how to refute this :confused:


Also, the point is to make a sermon to the people. If they can't follow the metaphor, there's no point in making it.

But they can because the idea is clearly stated at the end of the metaphor...


That makes no sense. Clearly, the metaphor was one which was well understood by the even lightly educated.

Yes.... Layers of 'darkness one above another'- that is the meaning of the metaphor- They knew about 'waves' and they knew about 'clouds'- they can make perfect sense out of it....

Everyone has their own insight- that is why many students can find many things in a metaphor- there is no 1 way to see meaning in it.

Even if you take a metaphor which is telling of scientific information to students- regardless of their knowledge of the material- they will still be able to take meaning out of it- only thing required is that they at least know what the words means.... 'waves' 'clouds' Arabs knew this.

If you can prove to me that everyone interprets metaphors exactly the same way, I will yield to you on this point.

Peace be unto you ;)

Yes but waves on the same plane, not of different depths.
Since the same verse talks about darkness upon darkness, one cannot assume that waves upon waves actually refers to waves of different depths.




What you quoted stated that it disturbs the reflection of light on the ocean- Rocks also disturb reflection, large fish would also, disturbance of reflection doesn't mean that you see waves- you just see a 'disturbed' awkward reflection off of the ocean surface-
The operative word is "see". If you can see it, you don't need any special scientific equipment or training. If it repeats like waves generally do, then even the uneducated could think it's a kind of waves beneath the surface.




Repeating? First of all provide evidence that the reflection you see is a wave! And this is visible on a boat..... I will be waiting for an answer....
I quoted a website that said these internal waves could be visible from the surface.



Have you? And AGAIN you are still stuck with 'waves upon waves' but the rest of the passage has apparently skipped you, especially the 'depths of darkness one above another'..... Not to mention the passage started with the property of depth.
Again, darkness above darkness doesn't seem literally true, so we don't have to assume that waves upon waves is literally true.



I've already given a detail response to 'tsunamis', and you have yet to show that what you actually see is 'waves' regarding the 'inernal waves'.
Maybe Arab sailors weren't sure what they saw, and made a hypothesis that the visual effects were underwater waves.

I happen to think this is making everything overly complicated.

Since the same verse talks about darkness upon darkness, one cannot assume that waves upon waves actually refers to waves of different depths.

The verse STARTED with darkness! Then it explained it with examples like CLOUDS... Then it SUMMED IT UP by saying 'darkness above darkness'...

Opening... Body.... Closing/Summary/Conclusion- do you not even now know how to read? If you don't have experience reading literature then its okay, we can do this some other time.


The operative word is "see". If you can see it, you don't need any special scientific equipment or training. If it repeats like waves generally do, then even the uneducated could think it's a kind of waves beneath the surface.

What do you see? I guess I'll quote your source:

'they affect the reflection of light from the water.'--- So what do you see?

Perhaps the 'operative word' is AFFECT!--- What do they 'affect'? The reflection? What reflection? Of light...
From where? Water (ocean)

But if they 'affect' 'reflection' then is there 'reflection' without them? Yes! Otherwise they can't 'affect' something that isn't there..... You don't need internal waves to see reflection on the ocean, that's for sure.

Internal waves AFFECT the REFLECTION of light FROM WATER----

WHERE DOES IT SAY YOU SEE WAVES? Even a ROCK AFFECT the REFLECTION of light FROM WATER because they disturb the the otherwise 'smooth' water... Reflection is affected by surfaces that are present.

So if you see a reflection affected by a rock, you see an internal wave? I want you to provide evidence that the 'affected reflection' actually shows a 'wave' to a person sitting in a boat. Its quite simple!


I quoted a website that said these internal waves could be visible from the surface.

The website does NOT say 'internal waves could be visible from the surface'- it said that they 'affect reflection'- There is a BIG BIG difference... Are you a student of science? I'm appalled at the level of information you are actually offering as 'evidence'.




Again, darkness above darkness doesn't seem literally true, so we don't have to assume that waves upon waves is literally true.

I explained this to you before, and yes it is literally true.


Maybe Arab sailors weren't sure what they saw, and made a hypothesis that the visual effects were underwater waves.

Lol.... so are you superimposing YOUR knowledge on to them? Why would they not take the most simple approach and say they are rocks or some other thing, when waves are associated with wind- that is why wind direction was so important.... And 'disturbed' reflection could be a cause of anything- rock, fish, garbage! Did they believe there was wind in the depths of the ocean?


I happen to think this is making everything overly complicated.

You are making it overly complicated... the model I stated that is easily visible in the Quran is there- you just can't lose this debate so it sure as heck gets complicated when you're running around with unsupported baseless claims.

Peace be unto you ;)

Let me ask you this, what do you see when you see a normal wave? Is it not light that is reflected from the wave and hits your eye? So to see a change in the reflective qualities of the surface of the water would be the same as seeing something happen down there. The point is there is a visual effect, one that I assume is repetitive as waves are.

Wow... that is so informative. I don't know how to refute this :confused:

Don't be discouraged.


But they can because the idea is clearly stated at the end of the metaphor...

Interesting. Let's examine this statement in context from your next one:


Yes.... Layers of 'darkness one above another'- that is the meaning of the metaphor- They knew about 'waves' and they knew about 'clouds'- they can make perfect sense out of it....

:eek:

And that's game. They already knew about waves.

Yes it is poetry- but the complete Quran is poetry- the Quran is 'delivered' in poetry but that does not mean that it has no over-reach to reality- in fact people lived their lives based upon this book- For you to bar it as 'just poetry' is an insult to the billions of Muslims, and for millions before who understood it to be detailing the 'reality' of life and things- not poetry...These logical fallacies come to mind.

Appeal to Belief
Appeal to Emotion
Appeal to Popularity
Appeal to Tradition

Not to mention you insult Christians when you suggest the Bible has been corrupted. You insult Shinto and Hindu when you suggest their Gods are not true. You insult Scientologists when you suggest their Holy Book is not true.




That aside, iceaura has already posted THREE other poems that say the same thing (and I'm sure there are more and many more that were never written down, lost or forgotten).


Lastly, you changed utter (absolute) darkness to mean "shade of black" - which wasn't what that verse said. You're convoluted and contorting your argument any which way to fit your preconceived notion that the Qur'an is special. THAT should tell you something about the way you're approaching the problem.

SHAKIR: Or like utter darkness in the deep sea: there covers it a wave above which is another wave, above which is a cloud, (layers of) utter darkness one above another; when he holds out his hand, he is almost unable to see it; and to whomsoever Allah does not give light, he has no light. YOU posted of layers of utter darkness one above another.


I'm asking how you can have layers of absolute darkness (as in utter dark - no light). As this poem is supposedly a "scientific miracle" - then, I wonder how your God somehow made the scientific mistake of thinking zero photons (utter darkness) could be layered. OR let me guess, after some more contortion *poof* this is miraculous as well! It's obvious to me anyway, that the poem contains no scientific miraculous hidden information about internal waves. It's a poem and that's all.


As I said, Mormons, Baha'i, Scientologists - followers of all of these faiths do the exact same thing you do. Only instead of the Qur'an being miraculous it's their holy books. THAT should ring alarm bells and you should be able to step back and see what you're doing. But, that's just physically not possible.

just something to ponder and, if it's at all possible, reflect upon:


The Writings of Bahá’u’lláh are many. The precepts and teachings they contain are universal, covering every subject. He has revealed scientific explanations ranging throughout all the realms of human inquiry and investigation—astronomy, biology, medical science, etc. He has given expositions of the meanings of the Gospel and other heavenly Books in the Kitáb-i-Iqan (literally, the Book of Certitude). He wrote lengthy Tablets upon civilization, sociology and government. Every subject is considered. His Tablets are matchless in beauty and profundity.

Even His enemies acknowledge the greatness of Bahá’u’lláh, saying He was the miracle of humanity. This was their confession although they did not believe in Him. He was eulogized by Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians and Muslims who denied His claim. They frequently said, "He is matchless, unique." A Christian poet in the Orient wrote, "Do not believe him a manifestation of God, yet his miracles are as great as the sun." Mirza Abu’l-Fadl has mentioned many poems of this kind, and there are numerous others. The testimony of His enemies witnessed that He was the "miracle of mankind," that He "walked in a special pathway of knowledge" and was "peerless in personality." His teachings are universal and the standard for human action. They are not merely theoretical and intended to remain in books.

http://www.smileyhut.com/angry/suck_kr.gif
...

http://www.smileyhut.com/angry/suck_kr.gif
...

Give up yet?

Let me ask you this, what do you see when you see a normal wave? Is it not light that is reflected from the wave and hits your eye? So to see a change in the reflective qualities of the surface of the water would be the same as seeing something happen down there. The point is there is a visual effect, one that I assume is repetitive as waves are.

You again fail to provide evidence..... But your answer is 'I assume'.... I don't feel like there is any place to go if you won't back up your claims... Why aren't their examples of 'internal wave' ASSUMPTIONS even in modern literature- why are we using high end expensive, and complicated devices to detect them..

Anyways if you aren't going to provide evidence, then I'm not going to respond any further... Secondly these are last 2 weeks of Winter Quarter and I better start studying for finals- so I won't be responding any time soon even if you do provide evidence. Consider this my last post until finals are over- but now you have 2 weeks to find evidence- :D

Peace be unto you ;)

Don't be discouraged.

Its rather encouraging that 'Not so.' is considered an argument by my opposition, although at the same time sad. :D




Interesting. Let's examine this statement in context from your next one:

Let's indeed


And that's game. They already knew about waves.

May I'll repeat what you said 'Let's examine this statement in context'... Quite frankly you didn't provide the context.. The context to this response was that your argument was that the metaphor wouldn't make sense- my response was it would as long as they knew the meaning of the words- they knew the meaning of the words 'waves' and of 'darkness'- irrespective of their knowledge, they can take from it a meaning and they probably did.... That is the context. :eek:

My question/challenge still remains and I quote: "If you can prove to me that everyone interprets metaphors exactly the same way, I will yield to you on this point."

Your argument was that the metaphor would not be understood which I refuted- now if you can provide evidence that everyone interprets metaphors the same way then I will yield.

By the way- I'll be studying for finals so take your time.

Peace be unto you ;)

YOU posted of layers of utter darkness one above another.

I think we have had 6 translations in this thread, only 1 of them uses the word 'utter'- and quite frankly if you read the arabic its not even there :D I've since then read 20 translations and none of them use this word, for good reason.....


Peace be unto you ;)

So you want another source that says these boundry layer waves can be visible from the surface? How about a photo?

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4033/4407409718_855cda4b15_b.jpg

Internal Waves in Rosario Strait North Puget Sound Washington (http://www.raincoastgeo.org/)

These logical fallacies come to mind.

Appeal to Belief
Appeal to Emotion
Appeal to Popularity
Appeal to Tradition

I appealed to 'History'- historically Quran has not been considered simply poetry- reason being it has relevance to real events. That are IN the Quran- which is enough a reason to take it to be more than 'just poetry'.


Not to mention you insult Christians when you suggest the Bible has been corrupted. You insult Shinto and Hindu when you suggest their Gods are not true. You insult Scientologists when you suggest their Holy Book is not true.

I don't say their beliefs are based on 'just poetry'- I have always acknowledged the importance and significance of religious texts of all religions to their respective religions- I have never said that the Bible is irrelevant as just 'folk lore' or 'bunch of stories'.... because I know what value real people see in it about reality.





That aside, iceaura has already posted THREE other poems that say the same thing (and I'm sure there are more and many more that were never written down, lost or forgotten).

All three have been refuted, and Iceaura made up terms like 'ripples upon ripples' and created his own meaning for the Tagore poem which leaves the whole poem illogical and inconsistent.... And he somehow believes that context 'doesn't bear' on the argument when all literature is dependent on context... Anyhow no reason to explain to you.



Lastly, you changed utter (absolute) darkness to mean "shade of black" - which wasn't what that verse said.

Read the previous post....

Peace be unto you ;)

I think we have had 6 translations in this thread, only 1 of them uses the word 'utter'- and quite frankly if you read the arabic its not even there :D I've since then read 20 translations and none of them use this word, for good reason.....


Peace be unto you ;)IMO in the post you acknowledge two things. Firstly, that layers of utter darkness is scientifically invalid and secondly, that it was translated in this manner because this is what it is meant to suggest as an analogy.


spidergoat,

Great picture. Clear as day. We'll see if even visual proof can make any headway at all.

I appealed to 'History'- historically Quran has not been considered simply poetry- reason being it has relevance to real events. I see no more "relevance to real events" in the Quran than in the average epic poem or other serious work of literature from the general era.

All three have been refuted, and Iceaura made up terms like 'ripples upon ripples' and created his own meaning for the Tagore poem which leaves the whole poem illogical and inconsistent.. There is no such thing as "refuting" a poem.

I think we have had 6 translations in this thread, only 1 of them uses the word 'utter' And only one of them uses the word "layers" directly, and one in parentheses (that's the one with "utter").

Poetry is difficult to translate. It is not rigorous in the way scientific description would be. The Quran is not describing scientific fact, with the petty and nitpicking attention to exactitude that would require, and I really think you do it a disservice to base deeply silly assertions on your interpretations of its analogies and metaphors.

Phalanx is a perfect word for how ripples move one following the other ('common purpose) and a close and distributed..... Obviously foam is always on top, and they are 'networks'..... No mention of depth, no layers, no real depth to anything... The quote is "the ripples move among themselves in a phalanx" - which evokes overlapping spears and shields (reflecting light) in ranks of soldiers moving among themselves, etc. Which is how ripples move among the seaweed beds off the shores of New England, diffracting and overlapping and crossing and so forth. Take a look, sometime. Waves in stormy weather behave similarly, more dramatically, as the more heated and dramatic poetry of Tagore uses.

Moore's entire poem builds a cascade description of levels, from the birds down the cliffs to the shore cat out over the foam down through the lighthouse beams and bell buoys and ripples to the grave (a dark place) into which "dropped things are bound to sink". This is common in poetic literature. The Quran is not unique in this feature.

But none of this matters. We shouldn't have to cover a week or so of "Appreciation of Poetry for the Science Major" to simply point to the obvious: nothing in the quoted verse of the Quran is "detailing stuff impossible to know without modern scientific gear". It describes the ocean as seen by anyone looking out over the ocean from a boat, any time in the past ten thousand years.

That is how any unbeliever will read the passage. That is how I read the passage. What is the argument?

spidergoat,

Great picture. Clear as day. We'll see if even visual proof can make any headway at all.

But... Mohammed didn't have a camera!

The next thing they are going to talk about is the phenomenon of surface tension causing a boundary between fresh and salt bodies of water.


Which is it, of the favours of your Lord, that ye deny ?
He hath loosed the two seas. They meet.
There is a barrier between them. They encroach not (one upon the other).



----------------

He has let loose the two seas that meet together;
between them is a barrier they cannot pass!

55. The Merciful, 18-20

But... Mohammed didn't have a camera!

Funny... but no... anyways like I said before I will post after my finals are over- because this is taking too long and I need to concentrate.

I do have an answer though- although I will probably research more to make sure I'm correct... so I'll keep you in suspense :D

Peace be unto you ;)

Its rather encouraging that 'Not so.' is considered an argument by my opposition, although at the same time sad. :D

You forget the assertion that it contradicts.


May I'll repeat what you said 'Let's examine this statement in context'... Quite frankly you didn't provide the context.. The context to this response was that your argument was that the metaphor wouldn't make sense- my response was it would as long as they knew the meaning of the words- they knew the meaning of the words 'waves' and of 'darkness'- irrespective of their knowledge, they can take from it a meaning and they probably did.... That is the context. :eek:

But this argument is meaningless. For this metaphor it to be meaningful, it would have to parallel a reality that the audience understood. Thus, it's irrelevant that different audiences interpret metaphor in different ways: for his religious point to be understood by his audience, Mohammed would have to have been sure they understood the parallel concept he was relating - that of superimposed waves, seemingly, or of waves generally. The other underlying problem in all of this, of course, is that the idea of increasing darkness with depth was clearly well-known at the time; it was clearly in the common.

My challenge to you is to illustrate how your "different audiences interpret metaphors differently" argument makes any relevatory sense to the audience as the subjects of a sermon.


Your argument was that the metaphor would not be understood which I refuted

Wrong. For a metaphor to be meaningful, it must be understood by the audience, or else suffer the prophet to sound like a fool. Again: you have lost your point. Period. What else is there to be said? And is this parable really the best evidence of your claim?

It's been 6 days without a response from scifes, I declare myself the winner of the debate.

It's been 6 days without a response from scifes, I declare myself the winner of the debate.

congratulations congratulations:bravo:

now come over here you!!:spank:


----
so, you still believe that there's no miracle in the internal waves verse, if not a general one than not even a special one[to mohammad's case]?
and the barrier? any proof it was found out before advance imaging was discovered?

But this argument is meaningless. For this metaphor it to be meaningful, it would have to parallel a reality that the audience understood. Thus, it's irrelevant that different audiences interpret metaphor in different ways: for his religious point to be understood by his audience, Mohammed would have to have been sure they understood the parallel concept he was relating - that of superimposed waves, seemingly, or of waves generally. The other underlying problem in all of this, of course, is that the idea of increasing darkness with depth was clearly well-known at the time; it was clearly in the common.




Wrong. For a metaphor to be meaningful, it must be understood by the audience, or else suffer the prophet to sound like a fool. Again: you have lost your point. Period. What else is there to be said? And is this parable really the best evidence of your claim?
you are rpeating a point we've answered already, read the debate thread first before you come throwing your weight around here..

congratulations congratulations:bravo:

now come over here you!!:spank:


----
so, you still believe that there's no miracle in the internal waves verse, if not a general one than not even a special one[to mohammad's case]?
and the barrier? any proof it was found out before advance imaging was discovered?

I did show a photograph of these internal waves taken from the shore, so people must have known about the phenomenon in ancient times.

so, you still believe that there's no miracle in the internal waves verse There is no internal waves verse. Not even you guys have managed to create a translation with any reference to "internal". The internal part is supplied by modern science, and applied to the Quran by the fertile imaginations of its modern readers.

Do we agree at least that your original contention, that 10th Century Arabs couldn't see that the depths of the ocean were dark, is no longer operative?

so, you still believe that there's no miracle in the internal waves verse There is no internal waves verse. Not even you guys have managed to cobble up a translation with any reference to "internal". The internal part is supplied by modern science, and applied to the Quran by the fertile imaginations of its modern readers.

Do we agree at least that your original slander, that 10th Century Arabs couldn't see that the depths of the ocean were dark, is no longer operative?

you are rpeating a point we've answered already, read the debate thread first before you come throwing your weight around here..

I've read it. You still haven't answered how a parable is useful as a demonstration of parallel fact without specific knowledge in the audience.

My challenge to you is to illustrate how your "different audiences interpret metaphors differently" argument makes any relevatory sense to the audience as the subjects of a sermon.

Well why don't you first share your knowledge that this was a 'sermon'.... I think you don't know that the Quran is not like the Bible, or at least is not a 'sermon' like of Jesus.



Wrong. For a metaphor to be meaningful, it must be understood by the audience, or else suffer the prophet to sound like a fool.

Here is the relevance you were asking for. The people can still understand it :D As for the prophet 'to sound like a fool'- there are many things in the Quran that people acknowledged that they did not understand.... Alif-Laam-Meem- find me the meaning of this :D

Also I've already provided evidence at the very beginning of the thread that people/and the prophet believed the Quran to have many meanings- thus one can not limit it to their 'understanding' in the first place.. So I don't know how your argument is relevant that they couldn't understand it otherwise-

Peace be unto you ;)

Sure, it can be a sermon, a discourse on oceanography, a prophecy for the end times, and a great recipe for kabobs all in the same verse!

I did show a photograph of these internal waves taken from the shore, so people must have known about the phenomenon in ancient times.

Now to respond to your photograph ....... suspense...... :D


I would like to point out two things

1. All those 'waves' are besides the slicks that are formed ON THE SURFACE, after the 'slicks' you see the 'waves'.

2. What you see are PLANKTON that are near the ocean surface...

The reason the website states 'internal waves' is because THEY KNOW that this is due to internal waves because of the slicks that formed and the wave pattern... What you are witnessing is not internal waves but something that formed due to it- and the only reason we can relate it to internal waves is because we now know why this happens.

But what a layman is witnessing is simply plankton which are followed by the 'slicks' that form ON SURFACE.... Again this whole thing is on the surface, but because there are so many plankton you see waves....

If it was so obviously 'internal waves'- Internal waves would have been discovered much earlier- if all they had to see was see these plankton in waves, but it was not.. why? Because all of this is on the surface and that we can see that it is followed by 'slicks' which are also on the surface- the slicks would be the reason for the 'waves' that follow- there is no reason to think these are internal waves without having advanced knowledge of internal waves and how they work to relate this phenomenon to internal waves.

You are more than welcome to confirm with the website owners, that these are plankton which you are seeing. Not some 'disturbed reflection' of waves.

Peace be unto you ;)

Sure, it can be a sermon, a discourse on oceanography, a prophecy for the end times, and a great recipe for kabobs all in the same verse!

Are statements now turned into arguments? If you think that laughing at the opposing argument without providing any evidence is great argumentation skills then keep on :bravo:

Peace be unto you ;)

The point is they look like waves, and they obviously are not surface waves. One must conclude that they are underwater waves, which are visible for whatever reason.

Are statements now turned into arguments? If you think that laughing at the opposing argument without providing any evidence is great argumentation skills then keep on :bravo:

Peace be unto you ;)

FYI,
My side of the debate already won.

FYI,
My side of the debate already won.

I'm glad that you debate because you want to win.... shows why you were throwing rediculous arguments-

I hoped you would have discussed to exchange ideas to learn more about something or to look at something from a perspective you may have not known. But anyways, I don't think there is a reason to continue anymore....

Congratulations on your win :bravo:

Peace be unto you ;)

The point is they look like waves, and they obviously are not surface waves. One must conclude that they are underwater waves, which are visible for whatever reason.

Surface waves? They are plankton.. And yes they are on the surface as well. Its a lot of plankton that is moving- so you have a basically thick stack of plankton moving in a wave formation- but they are on the surface too.. The slicks prior to them can explain why they are in the wave formation because the slick themselves are a wave-

Peace be unto you ;)

Do you have any proof, or are you just speculating? Even an uneducated observer could conclude that these waves are internal. It doesn't matter if they were correct or not, they COULD lead to the notion of layers of waves internal and external, leading to the passage in the Quran.

I also agree with iceaura in that there is no proof that this verse is anything other than a metaphor.

I do debate in order to learn things, and I did learn about the Quran. You should be happy that this exercise made an atheist read the Quran, at least in part.

I'm glad that you debate because you want to win.... shows why you were throwing rediculous arguments-

I hoped you would have discussed to exchange ideas to learn more about something or to look at something from a perspective you may have not known.


Yes, I was trying various arguments, there's nothing bad about that, they were not incorrect, I just found better ones assuming that:

1. The verse was talking about internal waves.
2. These waves existed. Could they have been known?

I did learn about different perspectives and found them lacking in logic.

Do you have any proof, or are you just speculating? Even an uneducated observer could conclude that these waves are internal. It doesn't matter if they were correct or not, they COULD lead to the notion of layers of waves internal and external, leading to the passage in the Quran.

Not if the plankton are on the surface.. and assuming yes.. Then I guess Muhammad was the first one to do it, the Greeks never imagined it? And this precise detail got to Muhammad which made it into his book?..... Anyhow, I think the debate has been exhausted to this point- neither you nor I can prove anything further- so I'll say lets end it here.

Peace be unto you ;)

Well why don't you first share your knowledge that this was a 'sermon'.... I think you don't know that the Quran is not like the Bible, or at least is not a 'sermon' like of Jesus.

Islam is suddenly not a religion of prosetylization? Curious.


Here is the relevance you were asking for. The people can still understand it

Clearly, they cannot. Your very point was that the Quran is 'revealing' knowledge that did not exist prior, yet your cited verse is clearly meant as an allegory to conversion via reason. So it seems extraordinarily unlikely that it was not something comprehensible to them.


there are many things in the Quran that people acknowledged that they did not understand.... Alif-Laam-Meem- find me the meaning of this :D

Proof, please. Which things?


Also I've already provided evidence at the very beginning of the thread that people/and the prophet believed the Quran to have many meanings

'Many meanings' does not encompass "meaningless". This particular argument has run its course: there was nothing magical or inaccessible about this 'revelation'. The thread is done.

Islam is suddenly not a religion of prosetylization? Curious.

Islam is a religion.. Quran is a revelation.... get those two things straight.. I've already given evidence for multiple meanings and some things of which there is no known meaning.


Clearly, they cannot. Your very point was that the Quran is 'revealing' knowledge that did not exist prior, yet your cited verse is clearly meant as an allegory to conversion via reason. So it seems extraordinarily unlikely that it was not something comprehensible to them

I don't need to repeat myself about the many meanings of the quran.



Proof, please. Which things?

I gave you an example. Did you skip that?


'Many meanings' does not encompass "meaningless". This particular argument has run its course: there was nothing magical or inaccessible about this 'revelation'. The thread is done.

And I never said 'meaningless'- you need to read the discussion from the start because quite clearly you don't know what I'm talking about.

Peace be unto you ;)

Not if the plankton are on the surface.. and assuming yes.. Then I guess Muhammad was the first one to do it, the Greeks never imagined it? And this precise detail got to Muhammad which made it into his book?..... Anyhow, I think the debate has been exhausted to this point- neither you nor I can prove anything further- so I'll say lets end it here.Except that the precise detail is all made up in your head. There's absolutely nothing novel in that verse. Nothing. If anything this debate is a classic example of how a person who wants to believe in something badly enough - will.

The reason the website states 'internal waves' is because THEY KNOW that this is due to internal waves because of the slicks that formed and the wave pattern... What you are witnessing is not internal waves but something that formed due to it- and the only reason we can relate it to internal waves is because we now know why this happens. That is the only way we could possibly twist the Quran's words into anything referring to these "internal waves", as well.

As far as the plain wording, it describes a scene familiar to anyone familiar with the ocean, famous in poem and song and story, for thousands of years.

I've already given evidence for multiple meanings and some things of which there is no known meaning. Even taking your "evidence" at your assigned value, that is no argument - you finding ways to interpret Quranic verses as somehow also referring to this or that scientific discovery is not at all the same thing as those verses "detailing stuff impossible to know without modern scientific gear". You, for example, didn't know what they meant until supplied with the info by modern science.

Rather than the Quran supplying you with "detailed stuff" you could know no other way, we have science supplying you with new possibilities for interpretation of the Quran.

we have science supplying you with new possibilities for interpretation of the Quran.

This is true. It all depends on what one believes about the Quran, which provides perspective. For example I believe that it was intended to include all the meanings (you don't)- that is why I actually don't use it as proof for anything, but I still like it as a topic of discussion.... simply because I like to hear other perspectives. Although this 're-interpretation' of the Quran through the lens of science utilizes the words of the Quran itself- I don't see them drastically changing anything- it is simply a new 'perspective' which doesn't deviate from the apparent reading of the Quran- although that is how I see it, while you don't....

Anyhow good day everyone

Peace be unto you ;)

I've read it. You still haven't answered how a parable is useful as a demonstration of parallel fact without specific knowledge in the audience.
it is not.
yet it is in mohammad's book.
was mohammad stupid enough to leave it there if it didn't make sense?
why is it there then?
doesn't it make perfect sense to us here of the 20th century?

The reason the website states 'internal waves' is because THEY KNOW that this is due to internal waves because of the slicks that formed and the wave pattern... What you are witnessing is not internal waves but something that formed due to it- and the only reason we can relate it to internal waves is because we now know why this happens.

But what a layman is witnessing is simply plankton which are followed by the 'slicks' that form ON SURFACE.... Again this whole thing is on the surface, but because there are so many plankton you see waves....

If it was so obviously 'internal waves'- Internal waves would have been discovered much earlier- if all they had to see was see these plankton in waves, but it was not.. why? Because all of this is on the surface and that we can see that it is followed by 'slicks' which are also on the surface- the slicks would be the reason for the 'waves' that follow- there is no reason to think these are internal waves without having advanced knowledge of internal waves and how they work to relate this phenomenon to internal waves.


way to go:bravo:

stating simple logic...simply.

it's a bit similar to my psychology breather in the debate

A-i think, that the link between seas gradually being darker when leaving shore and darkness in the depths of the seas, is only obvious because we already know of the latter.
meaning, i believe(and that's all what this is for now), that if we DID get hold of a person from that time, say a fisher man, who's always seen the sea get darker the further away we get from the shore since he was a kid, and asked him if he'd imagine that deep inside the sea, it's pitch black like a dark room, i think he'd either ponder it and agree, or straight out say you're wrong...
BECAUSE HE'S DIVED IN THE SEA, AND IT'S NOT PITCH BLACK.
but hey, it gets darker the further you go from the shore, so it's logical that at one point it'll be pitch black..
but having both black and white cats, black and white dogs, black and white pigeons, black and white goats, and so on...
...did not prevent the people of Europe from not believing in the existence of black swans, till they "eye balled" them in Australia
not only was the sea getting darker an everlasting aspect of how it(the sea) has always been to them, nothing to spark thought or skepticism... just like falling apples and newton, it's logical, but only after it's been figured out
BUT ALSO they are living a reality contrary to the fact that some places in the sea are pitch black.
i hope this is clear, although not solid proof, i think it's an explanation of why my objective mind didn't quite swallow that gradual darkening of the sea when observed from the surface by fishermen directly dictates that it was known that it's extremely dark in the unreachable depths.

So, is the argument now that internal waves are an illusion that happen to be real?

:huh:?
IF internal waves were seen before, then most likely nobody knew they were internal waves.
[?]

Islam is a religion.. Quran is a revelation.... get those two things straight.. I've already given evidence for multiple meanings and some things of which there is no known meaning.

And no readings from the Quran are used in the cause of prosetylization? That would be news to many people.


I don't need to repeat myself about the many meanings of the quran.

I agree that there are many meanings of the Quran - indeed, I've given some myself - but, again, that doesn't equate to the acceptance of meaninglessness.


And I never said 'meaningless' -

But I did. If you offer out an allegory that is meaningless, people will fail to understand it. Hence, Mohammed offered the idea of waves and increasing darkness with depth, as we've discussed. Clearly the idea was well understood at the time. I don't think you've been following the discussion.


it is not.
yet it is in mohammad's book.
was mohammad stupid enough to leave it there if it didn't make sense?

I cannot speak on the issue of Mohammed's intelligence one way or the other. I do know that increasing darkness with depth would have been quite well known at the time, unless you think that people of that era believed you could see all the way to the bottom of the seabed while standing in a boat.

And just imagine the ease of treasure-hunting, were that the case. I should write a short story related to that.


Except that the precise detail is all made up in your head. There's absolutely nothing novel in that verse. Nothing. If anything this debate is a classic example of how a person who wants to believe in something badly enough - will.

Precisely.

:huh:?
IF internal waves were seen before, then most likely nobody knew they were internal waves.
[?]

If they saw waves and interpreted them as internal because that's what they look like, and they were correct, then how do you know Mohammad wasn't just another one of those people?

I cannot speak on the issue of Mohammed's intelligence one way or the other. I do know that increasing darkness with depth would have been quite well known at the time,
lets talk business.
prove it.
support it.
offer more than "i do know"


unless you think that people of that era believed you could see all the way to the bottom of the seabed while standing in a boat.
they sat on the boat and couldn't see all the way to the bottom.
that doesn't mean they knew that at some places in the sea, it's too dark you can't see your hand.
as a matter of fact, their experience with lighting inside the sea is the direct opposite of that, they could see inside the water when they dived.
hence, places so dark inside the sea was unfathomable.
the connection between the two is only logical because we already know about it.
as i said, the existence of white and black kittens, white and black dogs, white and black pigeons, white and black goats..etc. did not stop people of europe from disbelieving in the exitance of black swans.
i have mentioned this in the debate thread, and searched for it and reposted it here, you have either:
a-not read it.
b-acting if you haven't read it.
and are repeating yourself and others.
i find that tiring, frustrating, and a waste of time.
please don't do it again, same plead to spider and iceaura and michael.


And just imagine the ease of treasure-hunting, were that the case.

:facepalm:
i don't believe you just said that.
go re-read the op in the debate thread.
darkness couldn't be the reason they couldn't treasure hunt, because the human body or any known apparatuses couldn't even barely reach the depth where it's so dark.
you, apparantly, know nothing about the matter you are discussing.
yet you are discussing it.
and are(along with michael) actually believing that we are the ones who are trying to support our belief in any way.
very frustrating indeed....treasure hunting.

If they saw waves
perhaps nobody did.
are you saying those waves happen anywhere?
what is the possibility of them being seen anywhere near the arabian penunsula?

and interpreted them as internal because that's what they look like,
most likely they didn't intepret them as internal waves, because they can't look like internal waves, because nobody knew what internal waves were.
and if you were right, they would have documented it. it would have been widely known, and that would be easy for you to show.




and they were correct, then how do you know Mohammad wasn't just another one of those people?
most likely mohammad never saw a sea.
most likely if mohammad or any other person saw the sea, he wouldn't see that picture.
have they seen it, they most likely wouldn't understand it. especially not a bedwin.
may they understand it, they would document it.


what i see;
-near zero facts.
-super wild personal interpretations.
-one shared rabid goal, clouding reason and honesty, denying the undeniable.
in a lousy, unthought, unorganized, unflashy way, it's as if "we're not gonna believe it no matter what, and we're not gonna even hide the fact that we couldn't care less"

Clearly the idea was well understood at the time. I don't think you've been following the discussion.

'Clearly'- were you there? I've given evidence that many thought of hidden meanings within the quran- you can read the quote I've given in the beginning few posts.

And I acknowledge that you've gotten your proof for things in the Quran that no one knows as you didn't respond to that :D

Peace be unto you ;)

what i see;
-near zero facts.
-super wild personal interpretations.
-one shared rabid goal, clouding reason and honesty, denying the undeniable.
in a lousy, unthought, unorganized, unflashy way, it's as if "we're not gonna believe it no matter what, and we're not gonna even hide the fact that we couldn't care less"

Telling the truth is easy, that's why I don't have to cloak my words under a veil of phony scholarship. It's not flashy, but I can see now how you are easily seduced by eloquent words that may sound logical and scientific, but actually are not. If you weren't, you would not be a believer.

1. Fact: the ocean often has layers at various depths which have their own waves.
2. Fact: These waves are visible from the surface or the shore, and they look like waves, but not surface waves.
3. Fact: The Arabs were expert mariners, and it's perfectly reasonable to assume that colloquial knowledge of the sea was transmitted orally throughout the Arab Empire where Mohammed could have heard it.
4. Fact: Series of ocean waves coming from different directions combine to form interference patterns, and chaotic waves. This makes it the more likely phenomenon that Mohammed was referencing, rather than the farfetched notion that he was revealing previously unknown scientific knowledge about the depths of the ocean.
5. Fact: I do not have to prove that Mohammed wasn't talking about deep underwater waves, I only have to show that there is at least one more likely explanation.

You two share the "rabid" goal of proving that the Quran was really the revealed words of God rather than the work of an Arab mystic who was not in communication with any omniscient supernatural entity.

The burden of proof is not on me, since your premise is extraordinary, and must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt by extraordinary evidence, not by a few casual words that have other, more obvious meanings.

This is true. It all depends on what one believes about the Quran, which provides perspective. For example I believe that it was intended to include all the meanings But as you illustrate, it didn't. It didn't include anything about "internal waves" until after modern science supplied you with them, for example. That's one reason you have to twist the meanings a little bit, "interpret" the language in new ways - it's not there otherwise.

was mohammad stupid enough to leave it there if it didn't make sense? It made perfect sense. It makes perfect sense right now, to anyone, regardless of their knowledge of oceanography.

btw: My contention that these institutionalized theisms are intellectually crippling has been strongly reinforced by the arguments on this thread.

I'm seeing people tell me that 10th century Arabs - international traders and travelers - never looked over the sides of their boats. that they could not possibly have noticed something that every little kid who went swimming with me in the lakes of my childhood noticed right away, that was the main thing about deep water that made my sister afraid to go out in a boat, that anyone who looks over the side of a boat heading out can see without difficulty: that it's dark way down there in deep water.

I'm seeing people claim that by interpreting Arabic that is variously translated as "waves on top of waves" and so forth, Arabic interpreted for hundreds of years as referring to the visible waves of the ocean dscribed as poets and writers have described them all that time, as referring to undulations of salinity layers
and thermal boundaries in the midocean waters, they have discovered in the Quran a "detailing of stuff impossible to know without modern scientific gear".

The idea of that kind of reasoning dominating the intellectual discourse of a country with Western scientific capability is disturbing.

But as you illustrate, it didn't. It didn't include anything about "internal waves" until after modern science supplied you with them, for example. That's one reason you have to twist the meanings a little bit, "interpret" the language in new ways - it's not there otherwise.
It made perfect sense. It makes perfect sense right now, to anyone, regardless of their knowledge of oceanography.

what I said is that 'includes' all those meanings- the fact of when they are revealed is something totally different- Isn't a meaning always provided with some understanding? So the fact that a meaning was intended previously but is now revealed is not a contradiction in anything.

And I don't believe I'm 'twisting' anything- If I read it at face value I can still draw a model that represents many layers of waves. But I acknowledge that if you hold the ancient meaning of it as the only meaning, then my understood meaning would be considered 'twisting' the verse- but I strongly believe, as did the Arabs and the prophet that the Quran has many meanings, some which were not known to them at the time...

"All those who listen to me shall pass on my words to others and those to others again; and may the last ones understand my words better than those who listen to me directly. Be my witness O God, that I have conveyed your message to your people. "

"The truth is that prophetic Traditions (akhbar) and statements of the Prophet's companions and of other pious Muslims in early Islam (athar) prove that 'for men of understanding there is wide scope in the meanings of the Qur'an'. Thus 'Ali (may God be pleased with him!) said, 'except that God bestows understanding of the Qur'an upon a man.' If there is no meaning other than that which is related [from Ibn 'Abbas and other exegetes] what is that understanding of the Qur'an [which is bestowed upon a man]? The Prophet (may God bless him and greet him) said, 'Surely the Qur'an has an outward aspect, an inward aspect, a limit and a prelude.' This is also related. by Ibn Mas'ud on his own authority and he is one of the scholars of Qur'anic interpretation. [If there are no meanings of the Qur'an besides the outward ones], what is the meaning of its outward aspect, inward aspect, limit and prelude? 'Ali (may God show regard to his face!) said, 'If I so will I can certainly load seventy camels with the exegesis of the Opening Sura of the Book.' What then is the meaning of this statement of 'Ali, when the outward exegesis of this sura is extremely short us [and can be set forth in a few pages]? Abu Darda' said, 'One cannot [fully] understand the religion until one sees the Qur'an from different perspectives.' A certain religious scholar said, 'For every Qur'anic verse there are sixty thousand understandings [comprehensible to man]. The understandings of it which remain [incomprehensible to man] are even more than these in number.'

Perspective is depedent upon understanding.

"(This is) a Scripture that We have revealed unto thee, full of blessing, that they may ponder its revelations, and that men of understanding may reflect."

"Lo! In the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the difference of night and day, and the ships which run upon the sea with that which is of use to men, and the water which Allah sendeth down from the sky, thereby reviving the earth after its death, and dispersing all kinds of beasts therein, and (in) the ordinance of the winds, and the clouds obedient between heaven and earth: are signs (of Allah's Sovereignty) for men of understanding."

'Understanding' is not objective- but is subjective- thus everyone will find 'signs' in ways unknown.. As the understanding increases more and more signs can be seen and thus 'revealed'. And thus it is no surprise why many people from the beginning realized and believed the Quran has many meanings.

The Quran itself says there are hidden meanings in it... One expects this from a revelation that is supposed to be everlasting.

Anyhow for someone who doesn't accept this- or the idea that the meaning was intended (but not revealed)- none of this suffices as proof. That is why rather can continue its best to just stop.

Peace be unto you ;)

2. Fact: These waves are visible from the surface or the shore, and they look like waves, but not surface waves.

When did this become a fact?

Peace be unto you ;)

I posted a picture, don't you believe your own eyes?

I posted a picture, don't you believe your own eyes?

I know what I saw.

Peace be unto you ;)

Telling the truth is easy, that's why I don't have to cloak my words under a veil of phony scholarship. It's not flashy, but I can see now how you are easily seduced by eloquent words that may sound logical and scientific, but actually are not. If you weren't, you would not be a believer.

1. Fact: the ocean often has layers at various depths which have their own waves.
2. Fact: These waves are visible from the surface or the shore, and they look like waves, but not surface waves.
3. Fact: The Arabs were expert mariners, and it's perfectly reasonable to assume that colloquial knowledge of the sea was transmitted orally throughout the Arab Empire where Mohammed could have heard it.
4. Fact: Series of ocean waves coming from different directions combine to form interference patterns, and chaotic waves. This makes it the more likely phenomenon that Mohammed was referencing, rather than the farfetched notion that he was revealing previously unknown scientific knowledge about the depths of the ocean.
5. Fact: I do not have to prove that Mohammed wasn't talking about deep underwater waves, I only have to show that there is at least one more likely explanation.

You two share the "rabid" goal of proving that the Quran was really the revealed words of God rather than the work of an Arab mystic who was not in communication with any omniscient supernatural entity.

The burden of proof is not on me, since your premise is extraordinary, and must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt by extraordinary evidence, not by a few casual words that have other, more obvious meanings.

Spidergoat pardon the expression but you have the patience of a saint.

It is scifes making the claim, the burden of proof is on him, not you. Why let him turn the burden around? Or am I missing something here?
Carry on.

I don't intend to carry on any longer. I feel we have made an overwhelming case, and I didn't even resort to examples where Mohammed got the science wrong, which would be another legitimate approach.

Anyhow for someone who doesn't accept this- or the idea that the meaning was intended (but not revealed)- none of this suffices as proof. The fact that this kind of belief-dependent and interpretation-dependent "revelation" is accepted by so many Muslims as proof of anything whatsoever, let alone "detailing stuff impossible to to know without modern scientific gear", is really kind of striking.

In plain language: people who accept that kind of logic in matters involving reality are being silly. They aren't debating, they aren't reasoning. The only real response is that you've got to be kidding - reasonable argument has no foothold.

Or do you accept similar readings of the poetry I quoted earlier - are these revelations present in general, in your world?

In plain language: people who accept that kind of logic in matters involving reality are being silly. They aren't debating, they aren't reasoning. The only real response is that you've got to be kidding - reasonable argument has no foothold.

I said in plain language I can see the same model- its not changing anything. It doesn't even require believe in any 'multiple meanings' for that- but if all of you guys are going to keep arguing about what 'those people' understood then why don't you accept that 'they' also 'understood' the Quran to have many hidden meanings... I think its you who are choosing what the words should mean- if one separates it from what 'they viewed' and just looked at the words simply it is easily seen, at least by me. As for those poems, I've responded to them with context- if you're going to ignore context to prove your 'interpretation' then you are more then welcome to, but I don't look at literature without context.

Anyhow I think we're just going back and forth now- don't feel any need to continue.. You guys have made your argument and I have mine, there is nothing more to add. So peace out.

Peace be unto you ;)

'Clearly'- were you there? I've given evidence that many thought of hidden meanings within the quran- you can read the quote I've given in the beginning few posts.

This isn't actually under debate.


And I acknowledge that you've gotten your proof for things in the Quran that no one knows as you didn't respond to that :D

This is false, and foolish. The above has been the entire subject of the debate. I will take your resort to nonsense as surrender, which I accept.

This is false, and foolish. The above has been the entire subject of the debate. I will take your resort to nonsense as surrender, which I accept.

Didn't you ask for proof of things not understood in the Quran? And I gave you an example. I was talking about meanings of the Quran not understood (not miracles) here, you may have confused what I said with the discussion topic. I was referring to your comments about the 'sermon' and why it must have made sense to the people.... and so on.

Peace be unto you ;)

Didn't you ask for proof of things not understood in the Quran? And I gave you an example. But your example was of something in the Quran that was and has been well understood.

As for those poems, I've responded to them with context- if you're going to ignore context to prove your 'interpretation' then you are more then welcome to, but I don't look at literature without context. You are specifically and overtly denying context in your interpretation of the Quran.

but if all of you guys are going to keep arguing about what 'those people' understood then why don't you accept that 'they' also 'understood' the Quran to have many hidden meanings.. The problem there is that "detailed stuff impossible to know without scientific gear" and "hidden meanings" are not the same thing - they are almost opposites.

There is no reason to believe the "hidden meanings" of the Quran have anything to do with scientific discoveries of the future, and no evidence that anyone thought they did until after science was invented and became respectable.

But your example was of something in the Quran that was and has been well understood.

Really, iceaura don't try to respond to everything I say even if you don't know what I'm talking about. Please... perhaps you can reproduce my example to GeoffP... because frankly I'm getting tired of this 3-way non-sense.


You are specifically and overtly denying context in your interpretation of the Quran.

Statement? i believe I used the complete verse when spidergoat was stuck with one part.


The problem there is that "detailed stuff impossible to know without scientific gear" and "hidden meanings" are not the same thing - they are almost opposites.

lol... I believe I stated that 'hidden meaning' was simply a perspective. I don't have to change things to find 'meaning'- As I said I can quite clearly without any gymnastics see the model of of waves.. its not 'hidden'-... its quite apparent... but even very simplistic things escape people when they don't 'see' it.... not because they are blind or its 'hidden' but because it is 'hidden' from the eye of your brain because you over complicate things sometimes or you simply can't see it in one way because of your pre-conceived understanding of something... The verse to me is clear- I can understand in many ways- 'clearly'.


There is no reason to believe the "hidden meanings" of the Quran have anything to do with scientific discoveries of the future, and no evidence that anyone thought they did until after science was invented and became respectable.

There is no reason to assume the opposite either? That is why leave it to the words.

As for science- science simply talks about 'reality'

You think the idea is post-Scientific revolution? People understood it a long time ago- they understood concepts like 'batin' which are about 'reality' not simply poetry.

Anyhow I'm getting tired of this. Because this is now getting repetitive. So we'll settle with this: You don't see it clearly in the verse, I do.. difference of opinion.

Peace be unto you ;)

There is no reason to assume the opposite either? Nope.

As I said I can quite clearly without any gymnastics see the model of of waves.. its not 'hidden'-... its quite apparent.. If it were apparent, people would have seen it hundreds of years ago.

I don't have to change things to find 'meaning'- You have to read it as talking about "layers" of different wave systems, instead of the waves on top of waves that poets and writers have been talking about for thousands of years.

You don't see it clearly in the verse, I do.. difference of opinion. A difference of opinion which disproves the OP conjecture - the science is from the reader, not "detailed" in the Quran.

Is the debate over? The agreement was 10 posts each. So far, each debater has 6 posts.

If you're both done, I'll close the Debate thread.

the agreement was that each has 3 days to post his reply, i was more than late. spider declared himself the winner, can't disagree, rules are rules.

but I can see now how you are easily seduced by eloquent words that may sound logical and scientific, but actually are not.
you've seriously got no idea what you're talking about.:)


1. Fact: the ocean often has layers at various depths which have their own waves.
true, i've searched to see whether all seas have them, including the red sea (http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/view_rec.php?id=5805) and the arabian gulf, and found out they do exist there. not only in certain seas around the world.


2. Fact: These waves are visible from the surface or the shore, and they look like waves, but not surface waves.
Fact: when you search google images for internal waves, you get only two sources(the one you posted plus this (http://science.whoi.edu/labs/pinedalab/HTMLdocs/IWave_I_Pictures.html)) in the first 5 pages which are not taken from satellites and sometimes air planes. and those are taken by professional marineologists, not on any sea cruise, but are especially studying internal waves.

if those waves are as easily viewed as you claim, then why aren't their pics all over the net, why don't fishers blog them? wave surfers and those who go out on leisure trips, veteran seamen, why didn't those guys snap a lot of pics of the awesome and easy to see internal waves?

why are they all from satellites? what happened to normal cameras?

you get some pics by scientific groups raving the sea looking for internal waves then say everybody just saw them everywhere and knew exactly what they were 1400 years ago, you examine your logic?


3. Fact: The Arabs were expert mariners, and it's perfectly reasonable to assume that colloquial knowledge of the sea was transmitted orally throughout the Arab Empire where Mohammed could have heard it.
Fact: humans are expert mariners.
Fact: bedwins are arabs, and are not expert mariners.
Fact: mohammad's life is one of the most (if not the most) detailed biographies that exist in human history, ignorance of the magnitude of such piece of history doesn't change that fact, and such huge account of information doesn't include;
a-mohammad being anywhere near a large mass of water.
b-of ALL the preserved conversations he had and boring details written down, one with a fisherman or whoever about the sea is not documented.
hence, it would be reasonable to say;
Fact: mohammad hasn't seen a sea, nor spoke to anyone about it.
Fact: (and this is important) "colloquial" knowledge that is passed through whole empires gets documented, not only there is no such claimed document, but--->(at the end)

4. Fact: Series of ocean waves coming from different directions combine to form interference patterns, and chaotic waves.
i don't know but still;

This makes it the more likely phenomenon that Mohammed was referencing, rather than the farfetched notion that he was revealing previously unknown scientific knowledge about the depths of the ocean.
??
where do chaotic waves come into the verse?
and how would mohammad know about them if they did exist?
and why is he revealing previously unknown scientific knowledge farfetched?



5. Fact: I do not have to prove that Mohammed wasn't talking about deep underwater waves, I only have to show that there is at least one more likely explanation.
sums it up nicely.
you do not need to just offer an explanation.
you need to show it being more likely.

and seeing as any astronomically small possibility of chance is "more likely" than a proof of god existing, then as long as we're in a prejudiced environment believing that, we will always lose.

if mohammad said; "the first man who will step on the moon carries the name neil armstrong"...
-it could have been a coincidence.
-it could have been a lie of history.
-it could have been mistranslated.
-it could have been literary flourish.

and all those possibilities are more probable, in a place full of granite skulled atheists like sciforums, then mohammad proving his flying spaghetti monster exists.

because in reality, the thought process that goes in most of your brains, is;
-god doesn't exist.
-whatever mohammad said can't be proof of the existence of a non-existing thing.
-any other explanation is then -by default- more probable.


You two share the "rabid" goal of proving that the Quran was really the revealed words of God rather than the work of an Arab mystic who was not in communication with any omniscient supernatural entity.
we are rabidly defending common sense and simple logic. we refuse to yield to the community's unfounded joint beliefs.


The burden of proof is not on me, since your premise is extraordinary, and must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt by extraordinary evidence, not by a few casual words that have other, more obvious meanings.
so now you're back to his words having another meaning?
wasn't your last argument that anyone could've known that, that it was common knowledge?

besides, why is my claim extraordinary, other than because the majority or the masses here think so?
:facepalm:

================================================== =======================
some facts i found:

fact1: the islamic nation has had some great contributions to science, (that huge body of knowledge after being translated is what pulled Europe out of its dark centuries), so in essence, any discoveries the arabs made are built upon by the westerners and the rest of the world. they are integrated and entwined. i assume i don't need to offer examples in medicine, mathematics, physics, astronomy, philosophy, chemistery etc..

fact2: the first man to observe internal (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v155/n3944/abs/155669b0.html) waves was Bjørn Helland-Hansen, who lived from 1877 to 1957.

from fact 1 and 2:
fact3: nobody could have observed internal waves at the time of the prophet.

fact 4: the metaphor contained in the verse, by simple international linguistic standards, is based on the deep sea waves and deep sea darkness being real physical happenings.

fact5: unless mohammad didn't know how to string a comprehensible sentence together, the description in the verse CLEARLY and UNDOUBTEDLY resembles the happening modernly known as internal waves.

hence the final fact: the quran has detailed something impossible to know without modern scientific gear.

fact 0: god doesn't exist, all the previous is not possible.

i know i know...
just what was i thinking when i attempted this..?
it is actually more probable that mohammad heard a fisherman speak about internal waves and decided to put them into his book, either the fishermen was an oceanologist who didn't have a log, or mohammad had a strike of genius and figured it out, plus no other fishermen or scientist around the whole freaking earth ever seeing those waves or none of them decided to write them down, AND those who are shadowing their prophet were all busy with some other things while mohammad met his undercover guest.

that, is more probable than god told him, and he just conveyed.

Fact: humans are expert mariners.
Fact: bedwins are arabs, and are not expert mariners.
Therefore Bedouins aren't human?
:rolleyes:

And you wonder why spidergoat commented on your grasp of logic.

Therefore Bedouins aren't human?
:rolleyes:

And you wonder why spidergoat commented on your grasp of logic.

aaaaah gotta qoute this before you delete it!!

there, got it:D.. so you were saying?

oh yes, let me explain my simple logic to you my dear friend;

just because arabs are good mariners doesn't mean all of them are, hence my mirror by saying humans are also good mariners.

then i explain by saying that while bedwins are arabs, they as a sub group sure as hell are no good mariners, hence untangling the twisted fact that it's so easy for mohammad to know of sea stuff because he's from a group who are good mariners, mohammad was good with cattle and its business, so was his culture, if those who speak his language know how to swim so what? those who are of his biological species also know how to swim...
get it?

now let's wonder, my whole long thread was lost on you, to come and tell me i'm saying bedwins are not human?
and then roll your eyes?
you're trying to show me that i'm wasting my time on you eh?

If it were apparent, people would have seen it hundreds of years ago.

And did you read the rest of what I said about the 'eye' of your brain?



A difference of opinion which disproves the OP conjecture - the science is from the reader, not "detailed" in the Quran.

I think the d-o-opinion because of your bias towards the understanding of 'those people', and 'poetry' rather than words. While you stick to 'those people' you refuse to accept what they believed about the Quran at 'those times' and so on....

Anyhow why don't you give me the example I gave to GeoffP... I'm still waiting on it... this is getting pretty pathetic that you have to keep on posting 'one-liners' without ever really taking into account what I have been saying- maybe your goal is to piss me off, its working!

So I take my leave, as I think the debate is over- as JamesR suggested.

Peace be unto you ;)

Therefore Bedouins aren't human?
:rolleyes:

And you wonder why spidergoat commented on your grasp of logic.



you're trying to show me that i'm wasting my time on you eh?

Ooooh, he's got you now, Dyw. :eek:

/sarc off

Meanwhile 786 is blathering about an example that I blasted ages back.

I agree that the thread should be closed. And that a cement image should be made for display in a public place as a monument to illogical devotion.

Meanwhile 786 is blathering about an example that I blasted ages back.

'Ages back'- I'll take your word for it, lol....:D Well if taking 'word' was the point of discussion then I think no one should ever debate- James R you should close the whole formal debate section because everything has been 'blasted' by most people, at least most topics that people debate- since everything is 'blasted' 'ages ago'- why discuss anything... no reason, absolutely no. All of us should take each others words that everything has been blasted 'ages back'- yes that is how a discussion should begin and end.

Although I'm interested in knowing if you even know what example I gave you because previously you asked for 'Proof' even though I gave it in the very post to which you responded with the question of 'proof?'- so I'm wondering if you even know about it before you blasted it 'ages back'- :confused:

Yes close the thread-

Peace be unto you ;)

true, i've searched to see whether all seas have them, including the red sea (http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/view_rec.php?id=5805) and the arabian gulf, and found out they do exist there. not only in certain seas around the world.
OK, that fact, coupled with the fact that I posted a picture of some off the west coast of America, proves that people could have seen such waves in the Middle East, with their naked eyes.

You would then need to prove that Mohammed could not have known about them. The lack of evidence showing that he did know about them does not prove that he couldn't know about them.

The lack of evidence showing that he did know about them could also show that this wasn't what he was talking about in the verse.

In the debate, it was your task to show that Mohammed talked about things that couldn't be known, not just things that were unlikely to be known.


Fact: when you search google images for internal waves, you get only two sources(the one you posted plus this (http://science.whoi.edu/labs/pinedalab/HTMLdocs/IWave_I_Pictures.html)) in the first 5 pages which are not taken from satellites and sometimes air planes. and those are taken by professional marineologists, not on any sea cruise, but are especially studying internal waves.

if those waves are as easily viewed as you claim, then why aren't their pics all over the net, why don't fishers blog them? wave surfers and those who go out on leisure trips, veteran seamen, why didn't those guys snap a lot of pics of the awesome and easy to see internal waves?



why are they all from satellites? what happened to normal cameras?

you get some pics by scientific groups raving the sea looking for internal waves then say everybody just saw them everywhere and knew exactly what they were 1400 years ago, you examine your logic?

Doesn't matter. One picture proves that they could have been known by anyone with eyes. You would have to show that it could not have been known, that it was impossible to know, that no circumstances could ever have led anyone without an orbiting satellite to know.


Fact: humans are expert mariners.
Fact: bedwins are arabs, and are not expert mariners.
Fact: mohammad's life is one of the most (if not the most) detailed biographies that exist in human history, ignorance of the magnitude of such piece of history doesn't change that fact, and such huge account of information doesn't include;
a-mohammad being anywhere near a large mass of water.
b-of ALL the preserved conversations he had and boring details written down, one with a fisherman or whoever about the sea is not documented.
hence, it would be reasonable to say;
Fact: mohammad hasn't seen a sea, nor spoke to anyone about it.
Fact: (and this is important) "colloquial" knowledge that is passed through whole empires gets documented, not only there is no such claimed document, but--->(at the end)
I question your notion that there is any contemporaneous biography of Mohammed detailed what he said and didn't say. Even the Quran itself was lost and then reconstructed later from various sources. Anyway, your statement here seems to imply that people could not have talked about something they knew. Was it impossible that people talked about something they saw from the coast? Of course not. You would have to show that such communication was impossible.


i don't know but still;

??
where do chaotic waves come into the verse?
and how would mohammad know about them if they did exist?
and why is he revealing previously unknown scientific knowledge farfetched?
Yes. I do not agree with your premise that the verse is actually talking about boundry layer waves, but I have assumed so for the sake of argument. Chaotic waves would better evoke the (alleged) internal chaos of the unbeliever's mind. In addition, chaotic surface waves are easily seen, and would have been a distinct feature in any tales of ocean travel, like whales and flying fish.

Now you ask why Mohammed revealing previous unknown scientific knowledge is farfetched. Accounts of his life reveal that he was not a scientist, but rather a religious person, a leader, a warrior. So, you ask why it is unlikely that a supernatural being communicated science to him? Are you serious? It's just about the most unlikely thing that could happen to a person. Such phenomenon have never been proven by any evidence other than that person's account. There is no evidence that anything like that ever happened. Therefore, it is an extraordinary claim.




sums it up nicely.
you do not need to just offer an explanation.
you need to show it being more likely.
No, I do need to offer an explanation. Any plausible naturalistic explanation would cancel out your idea that the knowledge in question was impossible to know at the time. More possible beats less possible.


and seeing as any astronomically small possibility of chance is "more likely" than a proof of god existing, then as long as we're in a prejudiced environment believing that, we will always lose.
This does happen to be my personal prejudice, but that doesn't matter, it is also the prejudice of the scientific community, but for good, rational reasons. Nothing supernatural has yet been shown to exist. When it does, scientists would have to consider such explanations to be just as valid as any other explanation.


if mohammad said; "the first man who will step on the moon carries the name neil armstrong"...
-it could have been a coincidence.
-it could have been a lie of history.
-it could have been mistranslated.
-it could have been literary flourish.
No, in that case, it would be proof of something supernatural. You see, that is the difference. This prediction would be specific and detailed. Specificity and detail are lacking in most prophecies.




because in reality, the thought process that goes in most of your brains, is;
-god doesn't exist.
-whatever mohammad said can't be proof of the existence of a non-existing thing.
-any other explanation is then -by default- more probable.
I never said there could not be proof of the existence of God, but the point of view of science is skeptical. That is just good science. Naturalistic explanations are common, and functional ways of explaining the world. The actions of a hypothetical God cannot (presently) be distinguished from pure randomness. Therefore, the burden of proof is on you to prove something so strange and bizzare.





so now you're back to his words having another meaning?
wasn't your last argument that anyone could've known that, that it was common knowledge?
Yes, I think in your zeal to prove something extraordinary about this verse, you have overlooked the real meaning of it. I don't think it has anything to do with some obscure fact about the ocean (which was nevertheless possible for people to know).


================================================== =======================

some facts i found:

fact1: the islamic nation has had some great contributions to science, (that huge body of knowledge after being translated is what pulled Europe out of its dark centuries), so in essence, any discoveries the arabs made are built upon by the westerners and the rest of the world. they are integrated and entwined. i assume i don't need to offer examples in medicine, mathematics, physics, astronomy, philosophy, chemistery etc..

fact2: the first man to observe internal (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v155/n3944/abs/155669b0.html) waves was Bjørn Helland-Hansen, who lived from 1877 to 1957.
Not the first man to observe it, but perhaps the first one in the western world to write it down.


from fact 1 and 2:
fact3: nobody could have observed internal waves at the time of the prophet.
I already proved that they could have.


fact 4: the metaphor contained in the verse, by simple international linguistic standards, is based on the deep sea waves and deep sea darkness being real physical happenings.
No, it is questionable if he was talking about under the sea, or just the kind of waves that mariners knew about, which was sinking their boats, and which would have also been a fine metaphor for unbelievers.


fact5: unless mohammad didn't know how to string a comprehensible sentence together, the description in the verse CLEARLY and UNDOUBTEDLY resembles the happening modernly known as internal waves.
Nope. You have not proven that. That could have been the meaning, but it is improbable.


hence the final fact: the quran has detailed something impossible to know without modern scientific gear.
Asserting a fact doesn't make it so. You have failed to prove your premise.


fact 0: god doesn't exist, all the previous is not possible.
Now you said something correct. God doesn't exist, and all your elaborate explanations are about as possible as monkeys flying out of my butt.


i know i know...
just what was i thinking when i attempted this..?
it is actually more probable that mohammad heard a fisherman speak about internal waves and decided to put them into his book, either the fishermen was an oceanologist who didn't have a log, or mohammad had a strike of genius and figured it out, plus no other fishermen or scientist around the whole freaking earth ever seeing those waves or none of them decided to write them down, AND those who are shadowing their prophet were all busy with some other things while mohammad met his undercover guest.

that, is more probable than god told him, and he just conveyed.
Or, Mohammed was trying to convert people, and told them that the unbeliever was like a tiny bird lost in a raging storm at sea, at night, in the darkness, floundering against impossible towers of water, lost in the darkness, needing the light of Allah to guide them to the exact opposite of such a state, to the light, to the oasis, to paradise where the wisdom of God would leave us at peace, in a calm ordered sunny land full of food and pretty girls where the chaos of doubt would be vanquished. It's the same heaven and hell story that any Christian would tell. To doubt this explanation is to doubt the wisdom of Mohammed in replicating the successful theology of Christianity while giving it an Arab flavor.

You would then need to prove that Mohammed could not have known about them. The lack of evidence showing that he did know about them does not prove that he couldn't know about them.

So he needs to prove a negative.... okay great... Lets have a new debate... I will argue the case that Science has found nothing new..... I'll just say that why don't you prove that they found something that people did not know about 3000 years back. Lack of evidence obviously isn't proof that they didn't know... I understand completely.

'could have known'- anything could be known by using this type of logic.

Why don't we close this thread and participate on the thread about 'proving a negative' in the General Philosophy thread.... I think that is more reasonable.

Please close this thread James.

Peace be unto you ;)

There are many, many things that could not have been known at the time, such as the speed of light, the number of planets in the solar system, what keeps the sun going, the structure of DNA...

There are many, many things that could not have been known at the time, such as the speed of light, the number of planets in the solar system, what keeps the sun going, the structure of DNA...

Can you prove they did not know?

Peace be unto you ;)

Yes.

Accurate clocks were not developed, which were necessary to calculate the speed of light based on the eclipse of one of Jupiter's moons seen from different places at the same time.

Telescopes were not developed at the time, which were necessary to discover the planets.

Einstein had not yet discovered his famous E=MC2 equation leading to the idea that the Sun could be powered by a fusion reaction.

X-ray crystallography had not yet been invented, so the structure of DNA could not have been known.

Yes.

Accurate clocks were not developed, which were necessary to calculate the speed of light based on the eclipse of one of Jupiter's moons seen from different places at the same time.

Telescopes were not developed at the time, which were necessary to discover the planets.

Einstein had not yet discovered his famous E=MC2 equation leading to the idea that the Sun could be powered by a fusion reaction.

X-ray crystallography had not yet been invented, so the structure of DNA could not have been known.

Lol glad you're using logical reasoning now... but having this has nothing to do with if they knew or not... pay attention to my question... "Did they know?" I hope you see the difference between my question and your answer.

Peace be unto you ;)

Is there any evidence that they knew? If not, it is unreasonable to assume they knew.

Is there any evidence that they knew? If not, it is unreasonable to assume they knew.

So you're not going to prove the negative? I thought so.

Anyhow, I think the debate is over- so thank you all for those who participated. I enjoyed the discussion very much. Peace out :wave:

Peace be unto you ;)

Scientific logic isn't always an absolute. It's always possible that someone in the distant past knew something and didn't communicate it to anyone. The analogy of Russel's teapot comes to mind, and I think it was mentioned before. Can I prove that there ISN'T a teapot in orbit around Jupiter? No, but I can show that such a thing would be so unlikely that it would be unreasonable to assume it was true.

Can I prove that Mohammed didn't know what you think he knew? No, because time-travel mind-reading is not yet possible. But I can show that he could have known, given no special equipment, unlike the phenomenon I described in post #231.

If it were apparent, people would have seen it hundreds of years ago.
”
And did you read the rest of what I said about the 'eye' of your brain? Yes. Did you read the various, multiple, patient posts from several people explaining to you why that entire argument is a capitulation, a reduction to absurdity of the OP?

I even posted a couple of poems for you to employ the eye of your brain on, and deduce that Tagore (for example) had the same Deity-inspired knowledge of salinity waves in the midocean waters that whoever wrote the Quran had, that Marianne Moore had either divine information or unusual oceanographic expertise.

Either that, or the eye of your brain is not to be assumed as the eye of other people's brains, especially the long dead and cryptically informant, without evidence. And your ability to reinterpret text to suit yourself is not such evidence.

Yes. Did you read the various, multiple, patient posts from several people explaining to you why that entire argument is a capitulation, a reduction to absurdity of the OP?

Almost all of the arguments were rather stupid... Although I can't seem to have you to agree, but I guess that's how it is.... you're welcome to see how the debate happened the way you want.


I even posted a couple of poems for you to employ the eye of your brain on, and deduce that Tagore (for example) had the same Deity-inspired knowledge of salinity waves in the midocean waters that whoever wrote the Quran had, that Marianne Moore had either divine information or unusual oceanographic expertise.

You posted poems, to which I responded using the context- while you pulled your meanings of the words out of your own head which doesn't even make sense when you put them there... while the same is not true for the Quran- it would still make sense. Anyhow, you don't agree, so....


Either that, or the eye of your brain is not to be assumed as the eye of other people's brains, especially the long dead and cryptically informant, without evidence. And your ability to reinterpret text to suit yourself is not such evidence.

Hmm... and you presented evidence? Did you present the evidence of how people understood it in 600 CE? Did you present evidence of what people believed about the Quran in general? And have you presented evidence why your 'interpretation' is correct? Have you presented argument of what the prophet believed about the Quran and its meanings? Have you presented evidence why my 'reinterpretation' totally changes the language of the Quran? Have you presented evidence that my interpretation is against the context?

By the way I'm still waiting for you to cite the example I gave to GeoffP...:D

Whatever. Enjoy your delusional win. :wave:

Peace be unto you ;)

But I can show that he could have known, given no special equipment,

Really? The picture right? My response I guess had no effect on your view... okay :shrug:

Peace be unto you ;)

Your notion that the picture didn't represent what it says it represents, and instead shows plankton or something floating on the surface? No, I don't buy it.

Your notion that the picture didn't represent what it says it represents, and instead shows plankton or something floating on the surface? No, I don't buy it.

And did you care to ask the owners of the website? I did! And I explained to you WHY they labeled it with 'internal waves'- this is why I'm getting disgusted by this whole debate- all you want to do is win.... I even told you to e-mail the website owners and ask them that what I said was correct!

'You don't buy it'- but you don't give a damn about what I say is true or not! This sums up the whole motivation of this discussion. 'don't buy it'- wow! I guess you're not an informed shopper.

With this admission of yours- I officially declare my leave from this debate- because there is no point arguing with people like you who 'don't buy it' but don't care to research! I don't care what anyone posts, don't expect a response anymore- I'm done. :wave:

Peace be unto you ;)

OK, it could be plankton, but it is moving in a wave formation separate from most of the surface waves. Therefore, it's still possible for someone to see such a thing from the shore and conclude there are sub-surface waves.

Any culture familiar with fishing would know the issue well.

You posted poems, to which I responded using the context- while you pulled your meanings of the words out of your own head which doesn't even make sense when you put them there... while the same is not true for the Quran- it would still make sense. The way I interpret the words, which seems to be the same as everyone else has interpreted them for thousands of years, makes sense in every context in which they appear.

The eye of your brain is quite oddly selective - apparently the meanings of common images and poetic wordings are much different in the Quran than anywhere else, in the eye of your brain. But you cannot explain why that would be, except to point to a "difference of opinion" and a "belief", which I readily acknowledge as the likely foundation of your unique interpretations of these common poetic images.

Hmm... and you presented evidence? Did you present the evidence of how people understood it in 600 CE? I did not know there was any question about that. Are you now claiming that people in those days took that verse as describing the kinds of internal waves you claim are not observable without modern scientific gear? That is not your argument earlier, in which you claimed "hidden" meanings unknown to the earlier audience.

And have you presented evidence why your 'interpretation' is correct?

Have you presented argument of what the prophet believed about the Quran and its meanings?

Have you presented evidence why my 'reinterpretation' totally changes the language of the Quran? Why do these irrelevancies come up? My contention is that nothing in that verse details anything the people of the time could not have observed, or even anything they were unlikely to be familiar with - that it is obviously and commonly possible to take such language as referring to things obviously and commonly known to its original audience.

The writings of the Q'uran are quite intellectual. The Islamic religion believes in something similar to the big bang theory.