Discussion: Quran detailing stuff impossible to know without modern scientific gear

[GeoffP]

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.

 

[786]

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 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

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

 

[spidergoat]

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!

 

[786]

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......


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

 

[786]

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

 

[spidergoat]

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.

 

[spidergoat]

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.

 

[786]

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

 

[786]

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

 

[spidergoat]

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.

 

[spidergoat]

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.

 

[786]

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

 

[GeoffP]

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

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.

 

[786]

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

 

[Michael]

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.

 

[iceaura]

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.

 

[786]

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

 

[scifes]

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?

 

[scifes]

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.

 

[spidergoat]

So, is the argument now that internal waves are an illusion that happen to be real?