Quran is free of errors

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

And who has defined this logic? Us; we humans. The ones that don't know everything remember?

We must use what we humans have. And human logic we do have.
It is the same human logic by which we judge all others.

Actually it is a simple thing. If you claim that our logic doesnt fit, then you have NO way to really argue for your case. And frankly even if it were wrong it wouldnt make other ideas right.

 

[Faded]

Hi,
Only just registered, but after reading all 151 pages of this I had to comment. (Yep, all 1501 posts and a lot of the related links)

This is mainly aimed at the 'A-team':
Can you not see how Fatihah is just winding you up? His responses are some of the funniest things I have seen in a long time - he seems to have got you all good and proper.

This is for everyone:
A lot of the earlier debate (about the clay - please excuse me if i have the wrong impression) seems to me to be about the wrong thing.
One side seems to be debating wether people are made OF clay, the other defending if were made FROM clay - a subtle but important distinction.

It is entirely evident we are not made of clay - doesnt take much common sense to realise that, but if a being of limitless power (I.e. A god) were to exist and were to smash apart the atoms of clay and reform them it could be possible to theoretically be made from clay. (but you would not be made of clay, just from it)
However this is not proof but at our current technological level we have no way to verify the validity of the claim. It is a matter of belief.

Just for the record, I am not Muslim and do not believe the above is true, but it is not outside the laws of physics - presuming you had enough power and the capability of manipulating atoms.



Finally a question for the Muslims in the thread - do most Muslims believe the Koran is entirely literal, or that some is metaphorical?

 

[Ghostaka]

Finally a question for the Muslims in the thread - do most Muslims believe the Koran is entirely literal, or that some is metaphorical?

Welcome to RF Faded, your post has done a "bang-up job" at showing your intelligence. This much skill in the first post ... Frubals for you.

As for your question:

I would say it is quite noticeable when Allah presents a metaphor. Here's a compilation of some of the metaphors so you can see for yourself. Harun Yahya - General Knowledge From The Qur'an

The Qur'an therefore has both literal and metaphorical references. What to take literally is quite evident but more so, confirmed by Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and his companions.

Peace be upon you.

 

[Ghostaka]

We must use what we humans have. And human logic we do have.
It is the same human logic by which we judge all others.

Actually it is a simple thing. If you claim that our logic doesnt fit, then you have NO way to really argue for your case. And frankly even if it were wrong it wouldnt make other ideas right.

It is not me who is saying that the Qur'an is "illogical". Page back and you'll find out. Of course we have to use our logic, but the things that some star A-team members are claiming to be 'illogical' are events that have taken place in the past (that Allah mentions). If they don't make sense to you, does it make it untrue? I think not.

Peace be upon you.

 

[Ghostaka]

This is mainly aimed at the 'A-team':
Can you not see how Fatihah is just winding you up? His responses are some of the funniest things I have seen in a long time - he seems to have got you all good and proper.

He's a genius lol!

Ah I see you noticed the new term for atheists ay? I hope it's not offensive..

Peace be upon you!

 

[Faded]

He's a genius lol!

Ah I see you noticed the new term for atheists ay? I hope it's not offensive..

Peace be upon you!

Thank you for your kind words.

I would consider myself part of the atheist group (or more accurately, somewhere between atheist and deist) and I rather like the idea of being a member of 'The A-Team' even if I have to be murdoc

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

It is not me who is saying that the Qur'an is "illogical". Page back and you'll find out. Of course we have to use our logic, but the things that some star A-team members are claiming to be 'illogical' are events that have taken place in the past (that Allah mentions). If they don't make sense to you, does it make it untrue? I think not.

Peace be upon you.

Events can not be illogical. Regardless of when they supposedly happened.
What can be illogical are claims about events or other things.

Nice topics or related questions are certain attributes of Allah/God especially when postulated as being in relation to one another.
For example you could very well debate the claims about allknowingness versus free will (Qatha/Qadar-Topic) You could talk about absolute moral perfection of Allah/God in conjunction with absolute freedom of Allah/God to act.
These are nice topics for LOGIC.

If you want to talk about virgin births, creation of the universe, prophethood etc. then these most of the time are not topics of logic but rather topics of empiric data and science.

One of the most interesting things that one should debate first however are the groundrules for the debate itself.


PS: I saw you link to Harun Yahya. I would not ever do that. You should stick to serious scholars.

 

[Ghostaka]

Events can not be illogical. Regardless of when they supposedly happened.
What can be illogical are claims about events or other things.

Sure I agree. However, a specific statement that you look at as a "claim" to one person, could be confirmed as a fact to the other. Do you see z problem!?

If you want to talk about virgin births, creation of the universe, prophethood etc. then these most of the time are not topics of logic but rather topics of empiric data and science.

And again, if one says "virgin births" are real and have taken place (even though the Christian conclusions arising from it I do not agree with) and says it is a fact, then that turns into a claim to you because you don't take their word for it. It would bring up the "logic" aspect since it may seem "illogical" to you (or even other person who claims it) in comparison to the scientific evidence to show otherwise. (ooh, Theory of Knowledge flashbacks :cover

One of the most interesting things that one should debate first however are the groundrules for the debate itself.

Yep I agree but much too broad in this case! Also it basically means that the opposing debater cannot make their point if they don't refer to God's Power in some instances :eat: if you know what I mean ?!

PS: I saw you link to Harun Yahya. I would not ever do that. You should stick to serious scholars.

I don't think it's a no-no, I consider him to be serious (from the little I've read of his work).... unless I am unaware of some huge controversy...

Peace be upon you.

 

[Faded]

Just for the record, virgin births are entirely possible and are recorded to happen on occasion.

my next statement may not be suitable for younger audiences so please do not click the button unless you are 21 or over (or whatever the age of concent in your country is)

Spoiler: DO NOT PRESS UNLESS OVER THE AGE OF CONSENT

- please see this link:
edit: i cant post links yet - please replace all the - with . if you wish to view
www-netdoctor-co-uk/ate/sexandrelationships/sex/200945-html

It is even possible to get pregnant without direct sex. Aside from coming on the area outside of the vagina, If a man were to, for example, ejaculate on his finger then (in a relatively short period) insert that finger into a woman's vagina there is a SMALL chance that the sperm could still find its way to an egg and fertilize it. Its a very very small chance but consider how many people there are and how many years we've been around

Please understand i'm not trying to take away the 'miraculous' nature of virgin births or anyone born via this method - but I think its important to know what is within the realms of possibility and what is beyond it.
I feel that the fact we (or any species) can have babies at all is 1000 times more 'miraculous' than birth without intercourse.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

Sure I agree. However, a specific statement that you look at as a "claim" to one person, could be confirmed as a fact to the other. Do you see z problem!?

And again, if one says "virgin births" are real and have taken place (even though the Christian conclusions arising from it I do not agree with) and says it is a fact, then that turns into a claim to you because you don't take their word for it. It would bring up the "logic" aspect since it may seem "illogical" to you (or even other person who claims it) in comparison to the scientific evidence to show otherwise. (ooh, Theory of Knowledge flashbacks :cover

I do not think that anything should be considered a fact based just on someones word.
I rather take a "best current explanation" approach where nothing is absolutely a fact but only the most valid explanation at a certain time. Of course in daily life we often think of things to be facts but in reality i think this is a fallacy.
Now i think if you call something a fact then you should provide neutral evidence. If for example someone speaks about the virgin birth then he should provide evidence and in my view this evidence can not "only" consist of a supposed witness or book. If you claim the witness or the book is something special then this wouldnt help because you would have to provide evidence for that too. And that evidence would have to include proof for all claims made by the person or book (which would end in a kind of neverending proof: Claim is true because of book. Book is true because its claims are true....).

Yep I agree but much too broad in this case! Also it basically means that the opposing debater cannot make their point if they don't refer to God's Power in some instances :eat: if you know what I mean ?!

It wouldnt be a problem if one could provide evidence for that power as well.
But if you can't then you are merely invoking the invisible, undetectable man. Such a person however could be invoked then by anybody and with any claim.
In short... if you case your arguments on the "ghaib", then all arguments are equal and none are conclusive.
But actually i meant something else.
One would have to agree for example who the burdon of proof is on. One would have to agree by which rules one has to interpret or read the sources (in DETAIL).
etc

I don't think it's a no-no, I consider him to be serious (from the little I've read of his work).... unless I am unaware of some huge controversy...

Hmmm what evidence do you want ?
I once analyzed his book "evolution deceit". It surely is amongst the worst i ever read. If such kind of evidence is not to your liking you might consider his past when he once started preaching his flock that muslims would not need to pray 5 times a day but rather 3. Or when he orderded women to put the veil down.
I could also mention his diagnosed schizophrenia, his drug abuse or him facing prison (3 years) for building an illegal organization.

There is much from which one could pick.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

Just for the record, virgin births are entirely possible and are recorded to happen on occasion.

I think you are somewhat playing with words here (i do NOT mean this per se negatively, rather matter of factly).

A birth of a child requires semen and an egg.
Now the virgin birth in religious scriptures does NOT normally relate to God using the method you described in your post.

The virgin birth related in the scriptures relates to a "nonbiological" procreation (at least in the sense that you or I normally have in mind with "biology")

 

[Shahzad]

Semen dripping into Mary's holy vagina is not what the pious believers had in mind.

 

[Faded]

Now the virgin birth in religious scriptures does NOT normally relate to God using the method you described in your post.

I didnt think it did.. infact I was fairly sure that the scriptures dont mention it at all? (please correct me if i'm wrong, i'm not a scholar)

I was really responding to:

And again, if one says "virgin births" are real and have taken place (even though the Christian conclusions arising from it I do not agree with) and says it is a fact, then that turns into a claim to you because you don't take their word for it

Though I admit that I should have put the quote in my reply - I was pointing out that - as spoon said - these are topics of empiric data and science, and biological science has proven that virgin birth is not only relatively easy in this day and age(artifical insemination) but also entirely possible "way back then"

The point being, that since the point of this topic is "is the Quran free of errors" any references to the the conception of jesus in the koran - or, to quote wikipedia - "The Virgin Birth of Jesus is a religious tenet of Christianity and Islam which holds that Mary miraculously concieved Jesus while remaining a virgin " cannot be disproved, since such a thing is entirely possible.

shazad - I hid my comment to avoid offending people unnessessarily, could you do the same please?
but to respond to your comment - I quite agree - but see above

 

[Shahzad]

shazad - I hid my comment to avoid offending people unnessessarily, could you do the same please?
but to respond to your comment - I quite agree - but see above

I don't think anyone with any sense would be offended by your comment though I edited out your's anyway. I left mine as it is.

 

[YmirGF]

Hi,
Only just registered, but after reading all 151 pages of this I had to comment. (Yep, all 1501 posts and a lot of the related links)

This is mainly aimed at the 'A-team':
Can you not see how Fatihah is just winding you up? His responses are some of the funniest things I have seen in a long time - he seems to have got you all good and proper.

Hiya Faded,

I hear what you are saying. There is little doubt that Fatty is a classic case study. I do agree many of his/her/its comments are hilarious and can't really be taken seriously. However, as many are want to say, hindsight is 20/20. The point is, looking back on the history of a discussion is not quite the same dynamic as being a part of the discussion. Looking back, we can see patterns that were not obvious at the time whereas now those patterns are simply expected.

This is for everyone:
A lot of the earlier debate (about the clay - please excuse me if i have the wrong impression) seems to me to be about the wrong thing.
One side seems to be debating wether people are made OF clay, the other defending if were made FROM clay - a subtle but important distinction.

That subtle different has all the intellectual integrity of claiming that we are also made from alcohol. So what is the point in saying so? Wouldn't you expect a being as purportedly wise and all-knowing as a god to supply just a bit better explanation?

It is entirely evident we are not made of clay - doesnt take much common sense to realise that, but if a being of limitless power (I.e. A god) were to exist and were to smash apart the atoms of clay and reform them it could be possible to theoretically be made from clay. (but you would not be made of clay, just from it)

Yes, but it is a ridiculous argument that cannot be verified to any reasonable degree. My guess is that the Islamic notion is born from the stories of Christ as a child where he allegedly formed birds out of clay and breathed life into them. A scientifically primitive savage in the 7th century would put one and one together and there you have it. Instant creation -- god willing -- of course.

However this is not proof but at our current technological level we have no way to verify the validity of the claim. It is a matter of belief.

And therefore the claim remains spurious as it cannot be tested.

Just for the record, I am not Muslim and do not believe the above is true, but it is not outside the laws of physics - presuming you had enough power and the capability of manipulating atoms.

Doesn't this statement of the obvious strike you are being a rather large "IF".

 

[Faded]

Hi YmirGF,

That subtle different has all the intellectual integrity of claiming that we are also made from alcohol. So what is the point in saying so? Wouldn't you expect a being as purportedly wise and all-knowing as a god to supply just a bit better explanation?

Agreed - infact by the same token one could claim we were made from fish flavoured bonbons - or any material - the point being the statement that we were made FROM clay cannot be 100% disproved, the statement that we are made OF clay, can easily be disproved.

Yes, but it is a ridiculous argument that cannot be verified to any reasonable degree. My guess is that the Islamic notion is born from the stories of Christ as a child where he allegedly formed birds out of clay and breathed life into them. A scientifically primitive savage in the 7th century would put one and one together and there you have it. Instant creation -- god willing -- of course.

And therefore the claim remains spurious as it cannot be tested.

For the record I agree with this as being the most probable occourance by far, but if you wish to prove error in something, you have to be able to say "this is what happened" not "this is 99.999% likely what happened"
I'm not claiming we were made of clay - nor do I believe it. I'm just saying it IS possible, however unlikely.
To borrow a quote "God is in the numbers" - even if that number is 0.001.

Doesn't this statement of the obvious strike you are being a rather large "IF".

Surprisingly, no. At least not the regard of manipulating atoms. Humans can disassemble atoms even at our current technology level. We also know from evidence that combining protons, neutrons and electons is possible. (Fission that occours on a daily basis in stars) It not such a surprise that, should god exist, he can do that and more?
IF god exists and IF he had the will to make humans - those are the big IFs.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

For the record I agree with this as being the most probable occourance by far, but if you wish to prove error in something, you have to be able to say "this is what happened" not "this is 99.999% likely what happened"
I'm not claiming we were made of clay - nor do I believe it. I'm just saying it IS possible, however unlikely.
To borrow a quote "God is in the numbers" - even if that number is 0.001.

I guess thats why people do not normally need to disproove anything but rather proove something

Surprisingly, no. At least not the regard of manipulating atoms. Humans can disassemble atoms even at our current technology level. We also know from evidence that combining protons, neutrons and electons is possible. (Fission that occours on a daily basis in stars) It not such a surprise that, should god exist, he can do that and more?

I think you missed the point here.
The statement made of or from clay is of no use if you want to break it down to atoms, electrons, protons etc. Because IF you do that then you could put ANY word instead of clay and it would still be "true" according to that interpretation since all material things are made up of electrons, protons etc.
The sentence only makes sense if it is meant in a way that clay differs from other materials and that it was that difference that was used for humans.

 

[Faded]

I guess thats why people do not normally need to disproove anything but rather proove something

I agree that the burden of proof should be the other way around

I think you missed the point here.
The statement made of or from clay is of no use if you want to break it down to atoms, electrons, protons etc. Because IF you do that then you could put ANY word instead of clay and it would still be "true" according to that interpretation since all material things are made up of electrons, protons etc.
The sentence only makes sense if it is meant in a way that clay differs from other materials and that it was that difference that was used for humans.

I guess we'll have to disagree here - I mean to point out that since matter cannot be created (as far as we know) if you allow for the supposition that we were created by god, humans had to have come from some kind of base material. If i smashed up a house, then used the leftover bricks and stuff to build myself a new house, is it not fair to say I built the new house out of the old one?

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

I guess we'll have to disagree here - I mean to point out that since matter cannot be created (as far as we know) if you allow for the supposition that we were created by god, humans had to have come from some kind of base material. If i smashed up a house, then used the leftover bricks and stuff to build myself a new house, is it not fair to say I built the new house out of the old one?

I think the argument is contradictory in a theologic sense.
If matter cannot be created, then how could this world have been created in the first place? Obviously theists will tell you that God CAN create matter.

If God used clay to form us and we would have clay material in us then its fine to say so. If god used clay, transformed it somehow into some "base" materials and then reingeneered those into our building blocks then the statement "humans are made of clay" is senseless. Nobody could ever veryify that. You could just as well have written "humans are made of electrons and protons".

What i am getting at is that a sentence only makes sense if it contains a claim that is reasonably verifiable. All other claims are just postulations. And i would think better of God than to use silly postulations that require such "interpretations" in order to not be thought of as the obvious error they otherwise would be

Of course there is one interesting question.. If god created the whole universe from nothing ... why bother to pick up some handful of clay for us?

 

[Fatihah]

Hi,
Only just registered, but after reading all 151 pages of this I had to comment. (Yep, all 1501 posts and a lot of the related links)

This is mainly aimed at the 'A-team':
Can you not see how Fatihah is just winding you up? His responses are some of the funniest things I have seen in a long time - he seems to have got you all good and proper.

This is for everyone:
A lot of the earlier debate (about the clay - please excuse me if i have the wrong impression) seems to me to be about the wrong thing.
One side seems to be debating wether people are made OF clay, the other defending if were made FROM clay - a subtle but important distinction.

It is entirely evident we are not made of clay - doesnt take much common sense to realise that, but if a being of limitless power (I.e. A god) were to exist and were to smash apart the atoms of clay and reform them it could be possible to theoretically be made from clay. (but you would not be made of clay, just from it)
However this is not proof but at our current technological level we have no way to verify the validity of the claim. It is a matter of belief.

Just for the record, I am not Muslim and do not believe the above is true, but it is not outside the laws of physics - presuming you had enough power and the capability of manipulating atoms.



Finally a question for the Muslims in the thread - do most Muslims believe the Koran is entirely literal, or that some is metaphorical?

Response: Yes, the qur'an is tooken literally except what is mentioned not to be taken literally.