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

[Michael]

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.

 

[Michael]

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.

 

[scifes]

...

 

[spidergoat]

...

Give up yet?

 

[786]

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-

Peace be unto you

 

[786]

Don't be discouraged.

Its rather encouraging that 'Not so.' is considered an argument by my opposition, although at the same time sad.

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.

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

 

[786]

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 I've since then read 20 translations and none of them use this word, for good reason.....


Peace be unto you

 

[spidergoat]

So you want another source that says these boundry layer waves can be visible from the surface? How about a photo?

Internal Waves in Rosario Strait North Puget Sound Washington

 

[786]

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

 

[Michael]

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 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.

 

[iceaura]

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]

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

 

[786]

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

Peace be unto you

 

[GeoffP]

Its rather encouraging that 'Not so.' is considered an argument by my opposition, although at the same time sad.

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.

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?

 

[spidergoat]

It's been 6 days without a response from scifes, I declare myself the winner of the debate.

 

[scifes]

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?

 

[scifes]

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..

 

[spidergoat]

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.

 

[iceaura]

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?

 

[iceaura]

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?