The Quran on Seas and Rivers:
- Thread starter alex sam
- Start date
I just read Spidergoat's ending debate post and I started laughing
"In the course of research for this debate"-
Research = "I don't buy it" :roflmao:
(I encourage people to read the discussion thread instead, that was more of a debate)
Peace be unto you
"In the course of research for this debate"-
Research = "I don't buy it" :roflmao:
(I encourage people to read the discussion thread instead, that was more of a debate)
Peace be unto you
What? If the evidence was so compelling, it would have made it's case, but it didn't. Where's the part that talks about the unified field theory before we discover it? I guarantee they will find it in there after science does.
"I don't buy it" refers to not the evidence- but the level of research you did on YOUR evidence, you can read the parts about the picture you posted to refresh your memory.
Anyways I don't want to start again, but I did find it funny cuz I hadn't read your ending post in the debate section until now.
Peace be unto you
It's not like I even had to do any research because the evidence from the Quran was too vague to constitute proof of anything (like all religious prophecies). The only reason I did any research at all was to show that even if I assumed scifes' assumption to be correct about the Quran referring to subsurface layers- it was still wrong.
You lost before you began, typical theist. Predictions, in science, have to be clear and specific, otherwise they are meaningless. Your interpretation of a vague and poetic statement to mean something specific reveals your initial bias. You wanted the Quran to reveal scientific truths that could not have been known at the time, but all that was revealed was an attempt to make things fit what science already told you.
I knew everything I needed to know to refute your premise. You wanted to pull in all sorts of knowledge that were ultimately irrelevent to the question. I played along just to cover all the bases, but I didn't have to.
you debated a topic in a formal debate thread and you didn't bother to research. period.
this in itself speaks volumes of what one is to expect of most atheists on forums, look for excuses all you want, you've arrogantly admitted your ignorance, please spare us the lame excuses which only expose you more.
"i didn't research it because i knew i was right all along.. i just played along"...what a typical proud atheist jerk.
this in itself speaks volumes of what one is to expect of most atheists on forums, look for excuses all you want, you've arrogantly admitted your ignorance, please spare us the lame excuses which only expose you more.
"i didn't research it because i knew i was right all along.. i just played along"...what a typical proud atheist jerk.
I read what you offered, I read the Quran, I read some information on the layering effect you talked about... what did you want? ....me to read the entire Quran and then somehow be transformed by Islamic propaganda so that I would ignore basic scientific principles? Not going to happen. It's Muslim arrogance that assumes they are presenting compelling evidence when they are actually just reading things into the text that are not there.
What you call research, I call religious apologetics. Believe the Quran if you want to, I can't say anything about it's advice to be a good person, just don't say that it talks about things that couldn't have been known at the time because like every other religious text on the planet, it doesn't.
What you call research, I call religious apologetics. Believe the Quran if you want to, I can't say anything about it's advice to be a good person, just don't say that it talks about things that couldn't have been known at the time because like every other religious text on the planet, it doesn't.
I'm referring to the picture.. And the only research you did about that was "I don't buy it".
No reason to defend yourself on that point
Peace be unto you
The picture showed that underwater layers are visible from the surface in the right conditions, thus proving that it was something that could be known at the time.
Clearly.
Theistic impressions are invariably fit after the fact - neither scifes nor 786 nor anyone else can deny this.
If the Quran is so all-predictive, why is its prophetic value so miniscule? Why does it have, at best, one or two very tenuously suggestive "predictions" rather than a clear, concise description of, say, a ribosome? God didn't have the language for it? Couldn't have made the plebians understand it? Right. Horseshit from the word "go".
Theistic impressions are invariably fit after the fact - neither scifes nor 786 nor anyone else can deny this.
If the Quran is so all-predictive, why is its prophetic value so miniscule? Why does it have, at best, one or two very tenuously suggestive "predictions" rather than a clear, concise description of, say, a ribosome? God didn't have the language for it? Couldn't have made the plebians understand it? Right. Horseshit from the word "go".
I don't know which part of faith comes after the fact?
Quran doesn't predict... So rest of it needs no answering
Peace be unto you
No. If fact comes after faith- then that is just reaffirmation of faith.
Hypothesis is essentially an educated guess. Quran only makes statements of fact- even if you don't think its a 'fact yet' (hence faith?) Quran doesn't hypothesize, it simply states the fact whether you know it or not.
There is a difference.
Peace be unto you
Only science discovers facts scientifically. God can reveal them without need for experiments- so sure its not revealed 'scientifically'- but why must information be given scientifically if its true.
Peace be unto you