The Instigator
NiqashMotawadi3
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
tahir.imanov
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

There exists a scientific miracle in the Qur'an [#2]

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
NiqashMotawadi3
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/11/2013 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,845 times Debate No: 38771
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (67)
Votes (1)

 

NiqashMotawadi3

Con

Anyone who accepts this debate should accept it based on the obligatory rules and definitions that I'm going to provide below.

PREFACE:

Scientific knowledge: Knowledge accumulated by systematic study and organized by general principles[1].

Scientific miracle: Scientific knowledge that is accurately revealed in a qur'anic verse, although such knowledge was not discovered by humankind before the Qur'an. Note that there must be no ambiguity but a preponderance of evidence that the Qur'an mentions such scientific knowledge and that such information didn't exist prior to the times of the Prophet. (This is not claiming that a miracle could scientific as a literal interpretation might suggest. It only is a term Muslims use and which I'm forced to use if I want to disprove them...)

To win the debate, Pro has to prove conclusively that the Qur'an contains a scientific miracle. On the other hand, I take the agnostic position in which I would win the debate if I disprove the miracle-claim effectively, or show that it is not supported with evidence beyond preponderance.

OBLIGATORY RULES:

R1- Both participants(Pro and Con) are allowed to use material from their previous debates if and only if such content is original and not plagiarized. Plagiarism doesn't only involve copying/pasting material exactly from other people without references; it also involves changing a few words and sentences while retaining the same structure, organization, linguistic style, information, images and other patterns from the original source. In case any participant in this debate violates this rule, he/she automatically receives a seven-point loss.

R2- Participants must never use more than one image, and they must never have screenshots of paragraphs which allow them to exceed the character-limit. In case any participant in this debate violates this rule, he/she automatically receives a seven-point loss.

R3- Pro must take the burden of proof solely by himself, because he is supposed to prove beyond the preponderance of evidence that there exists a scientific miracle(as defined above) in the Qur'an. Con takes an agnostic position and wins the debate if he could refute Pro's miracle-claim or show that the evidence for it is not beyond preponderance.

R4- Pro is only allowed to provide and defend one scientific miracle-claim throughout the whole debate. Pro is not allowed to provide more than one miracle-claim. In other words, Pro must only choose one miracle-claim in the first round and continue defending it until the debate ends without presenting any new miracle-claims. In case Pro violates this rule, he/she automatically receives a seven-point loss.

R5- Pro must start arguing in the first round where he must present his miracle-claim. When it comes to the final round, Pro must only say "As agreed", so that Con can respond to everything he/she presents. In case Pro violates this rule, he/she automatically receives a seven-point loss.

R6- Both participants(Pro and Con) must list their citations without using URL-shorteners or directing users to other websites to see them. All the citations must be listed in text-format in the end of each entry made by the debaters. In case any participant in this debate violates this rule, he/she automatically receives a seven-point loss.

R7- Both participants(Pro and Con) must accept the definitions and obligatory rules presented here, or else they will be penalized by the voters. Asking for further clarifications should be done before the debate is accepted, so that the rules and regulations are updated accordingly.

INFO:

Rounds: 3 (No acceptance round)
Voting period: 10 days.
Time to argue: 72 hours.
Argument Max: 5000 characters.

CITATIONS:

[1] thefreedictionary.com/scientific+knowledge
tahir.imanov

Pro

Hello all, I agree that rules are mostly non-sense, but I will discuss this topic with Con.

First of all lets define the word "miracle". There is an event and nature of event. if there is no link or connection between event and nature of event, then it is called "miracle".

Now, why Quran is miracle. If Quran is the event (of miracle) then the nature of miracle is Arabic language. Arabic has limited lexicology, limited grammer and 28 letters. And Arabic literature has two main forms, poetry and prose (these forms also ha subforms). Quran is neither poetry, nor prose. And no man has produced a book like it eversince. And Quran challanges all mankind to produce a book better or alike it, or at least a single chapter. And the most funny thing is the smallest chapter of Quran has 3 verses.

Now all I have to do is to show one scientific fact from Quran.
Everybady knows that Universe is expanding, and expanding from day one. What Quran says about it.
والسماء بنيناها بايد وانا لموسعون
51.47
And it is We Who have constructed the heaven with might, and verily, it is We Who are steadily expanding it.

The words "sama, samavat, asiman" means heaven, heavens, sky, skies, universe.

As to the Universe Expanding, the Arabic Word used by Allah Almighty is MOUSI'OONA (موسعون expanding) in Noble Verse 51:47, which is a verb of the noun WAASI'A (واسع vast). MOUSI'OONA is clearly a verb that refers to a continuing expansion, or a happening and ongoing expansion.

Did any muslim translated or interpreted this verse as expension before 19th century.

1- Tafsir muqatel ibn solaiman (year AD 767)
means: we are able to expand it as we want.

تفسير مقاتل بن سليمان/ مقاتل بن سليمان (ت 150 هـ
{ وَإِنَّا لَمُوسِعُونَ } [آية: 47] يعني نحن قادرون على أن نوسعها كما نريد


2- Tafsir Bahr alolum , (year 985)
means: we are able to expand it as we will.

(فسير بحر العلوم/ السمرقندي
{ وَإِنَّا لَمُوسِعُونَ } يعني نحن قادرون على أن نوسعها كما نريد


3- Tafsir alfayruz abadi (year 1414)
means : we we are expanding it as we will.

{ وَإِنَّا لَمُوسِعُونَ } لها ما نشاء
تفسير القرآن/ الفيروز آبادي (ت817


4- Tafsir Alnukat waloyon (year 1058)
means : we are able to make the heaven expanding more that it is already expanded.

تفسير النكت والعيون/ الماوردي (ت 450 ه)
الثاني: لموسعون السماء، قاله ابن زيد.
الثالث: لقادرون على الاتساع بأكثر من اتساع السماء.


5 - Tafsir Alqasemy : (year 1913 )
means: we are able to expand it, more than it is already expanded.

تفسير محاسن التأويل / محمد جمال الدين القاسمي (ت 1332هـ
{ وَإِنَّا لَمُوسِعُونَ } أي: لقادرون على الإيساع، كما أوسعنا بناءها


6- Tafsir Altabarani (year 970)
means :we expand the heaven in every direction.

تفسير التفسير الكبير / للإمام الطبراني (ت 360 ـ)
{ وَإِنَّا لَمُوسِعُونَ }؛ في السَّماء على الأرضِ في كلِّ جهاتٍ


Relativity of time.:

(Allah) Rules the cosmic affair from the heavens to the Earth. Then this affair travels to Him a distance in one day, at a measure of one thousand years of what you count. 32.5
The angels and the Spirit ascend to Him in a day, the measure of which is fifty thousand years. 70.4

Sex of Baby:
And He (Allah) creates pairs, male and female, from semen emitted. 53.45-46
The Quran says that it is the semen (sperm) that determines whether the baby is male or female

Now simple Arithmetics :
  • The count of chapters (Suras) in the Quran is a multiple of 19.
  • The sum of chapters' numbers in the Quran is a multiple of 19.
  • The sum of all digits mentioned in the Quran is a multiple of 19.
  • The count of the word "Allah" in all the Quran is a multiple of 19.
  • The sum of all verse numbers (Ayat numbers) in which the word "Allah" appears is a multiple of 19.
  • Some chapters start with letters that have no meaning at all. When we add the number of occurrences of those letters in their chapters we always get a multiple of 19.





Debate Round No. 1
NiqashMotawadi3

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate, although I am extremely disappointed by how he violated and disregarded many rules and DDO standards.

This is not a forum discussion. Pro has to either accept the obligatory regulations or ask me to change them in the comment section as specified by R7.


1- On Plagiarism

Anti-plagiarism is commonly accepted as a DDO standard. Even if Pro doesn't want to follow the obligatory regulations, he must follow such a standard to avoid being penalized by voters.

I have to tell everyone that Pro plagiarized large portions of his text without any references by copying it exactly from Answering-Christianity.com.

Pro's text is a total of 3834 characters. Pro plagiarized 1526 characters from Answering Christianity, and that made up 1526/3834 (almost 40%) of the text he used.

You can visit this page and find in the bottom of the gray rectangle what Pro presented as his expanding universe claim: http://www.answering-christianity.com...

2- On providing more than one miracle-claim

I clearly specified that Pro must only provide one miracle-claim or else he receives a seven-point loss, and I emphasized on the point that this doesn't mean "at least one" but "only one."

R4- Pro is only allowed to provide and defend one scientific miracle-claim throughout the whole debate. Pro is not allowed to provide more than one miracle-claim... In case Pro violates this rule, he/she automatically receives a seven-point loss.

Pro, however, adopted the snake-oil merchant strategy of throwing many "snake-oil advantages,", given that one advantage would be easily refuted and tossed aside. He used: Qur'an as linguistic miracle, expanding universe miracle, baby gender miracle, relative time miracle, and the arithmetic miracle.

I will not address the last two miracle-claims due to space restrictions. Even if I allowed this to be a 10,000 characters debate, Pro would have filled his space with many miracle-claims to the degree that I wouldn't be able to respond to everything he presents. Ergo, why I demanded only one miracle-claim.

3- Qur'an as a linguistic miracle?

Pro's argument can be summarized as.....

P1- Arabic literature is composed of poetry and prose and in-between subforms.

P2- Qur'an is neither poetry, prose or an in-between subform. [False premise - Qur'an is chanted prose(hymns) and that kind of prose has unique rhymes and structures such as in the Hindu Vedas]

P3- Qur'an is the greatest work of Arabic literature because nothing could be like it or better. [Baseless assertion - subjective opinion]

Conclusion: Qur'an is a miracle. [Conclusion doesn't follow premises - Non sequitur logical fallacy]


You don't have to be a logician to realize that even if we grant all the three premises, there is no way in logic to reach the deduction that the "Qur'an is a miracle." It can be man-made and still be the best and most unique work of Arabic literature. Hence, the whole argument is a textbook example of a non-sequitur fallacy and a "God did it" argument.


4- Expanding universe miracle?

The whole text Pro provided here was stolen from Answering Christianity(non-trusted source), even when the article was obviously written by someone playing language tricks on non-Arab Muslims. As a native Arabic speaker, I can easily expose it.

It is important to note that classic Arabic and Modern Standard Arabic are very similar. According to Bin Muqbil (2006), the grammatical syntax and morphology has NOT been changed between MSA and CA[1]. In the Arab world, we use the same word "Fos7a" to both languages due to the symmetry.

Answering Christianity says, "
...the Arabic Word used by Allah Almighty is MOUSI'OONA (موسعون expanding) in Noble Verse 51:47, which is a verb of the noun WAASI'A (واسع vast). MOUSI'OONA is clearly a verb that refers to a continuing expansion..."

Rebuttal:

(1) The word Wassi'a (vast) is not a noun. It is obviously an adjective to every Arabic and English reader, so AC loses its credibility.

(2) The Qur'an doesn't use "Mousi'oona" (Expanding). It's "L-Mousi'ona" which is a variation of "Al-Mousi'oona" (Expanders) but with a shortened prefix due to its grammatical position. The "Al-" prefix in Arabic is the equivalent of saying "The"[2], and "The" can't possibly come before verbs as AC suggests.[3].

(3) Expanders could both be for expanders now or in the past. I have no reason to accept Pro's interpretation.

5- Baby gender miracle?

Pro tells us that the Qur'an says males and females are created from Semen, and claims that this is saying that sperms decide the gender of babies. This is a fabrication on Pro's behalf. A scientific miracle (as defined above) should reveal accurate knowledge not ambiguities, and here the Qur'an is making an erroneous statement identically made by Aristotle's theory on embryology[4].
...


[1] Bin-Muqbil 2006, p. 14
[2] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-
[3] Arabic for dummies, p. 36

[4] Aristotle, De Generatione Animalium, Book II, p. 1148.
tahir.imanov

Pro

I say, The Qur’an is impossible to match linguistically. And this proposition so easy to be disproved. Just produce a chapter alike or better than Quran (producing three verse is not so hard). If my opponent does so, then he proves his point, and all muslims will refuse Islam and God. And world will be "better" place, without "Extremist Islamic Terrorists".

My opponent showed the source from Aristotel's book, to disprove my point on baby gender, but he did not cite anything from this book. (Aristotle, De Generatione Animalium, Book II, p. 1148.) - I read it, here is link http://catalog.hathitrust.org...;, I invite everyone to read it, and make their decision whoi is right , and who is wrong.

I am not idiot, I always check and read all source, do not try to decieve me and fellow debate.org members.

Now Hindu Vedas is not impossible to imitate (replicate in the same linguistic pattern). The hindu priests did it through out the history, and that is how vedas were produced. Same for Avesta.

P3- Qur'an is the greatest work of Arabic literature because nothing could be like it or better. [Baseless assertion - subjective opinion] If only I said it, or only muslims said it, I would totally agree with you. But non-muslims also said same thing:

"That the best of Arab writers has never succeeded in producing anything equal in merit to the Qur’an itself is not surprising. In the first place, they have agreed before-hand that it is unapproachable, and they have adopted its style as the perfect standard; any deviation from it therefore must of necessity be a defect. Again, with them this style is not spontaneous as with Muhammad and his contemporaries, but is as artificial as though Englishmen should still continue to follow Chaucer as their model, in spite of the changes which their language has undergone. With the Prophet, the style was natural, and the words were those in every-day ordinary life, while with the later Arabic authors the style is imitative and the ancient words are introduced as a literary embellishment. The natural consequence is that their attempts look laboured and unreal by the side of his impromptu and forcible eloquence." - E H Palmer (Tr.), The Qur’an, 1900, Part I, Oxford at Clarendon Press, p. lv.

"…the Meccans still demanded of him a miracle, and with remarkable boldness and self confidence Mohammad appealed as a supreme confirmation of his mission to the Koran itself. Like all Arabs they were the connoisseurs of language and rhetoric. Well, then if the Koran were his own composition other men could rival it. Let them produce ten verses like it. If they could not (and it is obvious that they could not), then let them accept the Koran as an outstanding evident miracle." - H A R Gibb, Islam – A Historical Survey, 1980, Oxford University Press, p. 28.

If you want more source open google and type "non-muslims on quran".

Con did not answer my definition of "miracle," so he agrees.

Con, instead of answering my points, counted the number of characters I used. Congratulations, you can count, also.


Quran was revealed in 7th century, and 8th century scholar, interpreted the verse 51.47 as " we are able to expand it as we want." and 11th century scholar interpreted as "we are able to make the heaven expanding more that it is already expanded.", so your interpretation of the word "waasi'a" or "mousi'oona" is baseless.
You cannot speak and understand 7th century arabic better than 8th century arab scholar whose job was to study arabic especially arabic of Quran. Even dummies and idiots know that.

I have almost 1400 characters left, incase Con counts them. I answered every point Con made.
And about the rules that Con made or invented. I am not SUBJECTED to anyone's rule or rules (but only, God's rules). I am higher than and more honorable any man-made rule.




Debate Round No. 2
NiqashMotawadi3

Con

Pro didn't apologize for violating DDO standards by plagiarism and the obligatory regulations by providing more than one miracle-claim, but instead shamelessly declared the following...

Pro remarked, "I am not SUBJECTED to anyone's rule or rules (but only, God's rules). I am higher than and more honorable any man-made rule."

Rebuttal: So acts of plagiarism and intellectual-theft are honorable and encouraged in Allah's rules? You must be kidding me.

1- On Pro's distortion of my Aristotle Citation

Aristotle's books are found online but with a different page-numbering than my offline book-collection. Pro, however, assumed that the citation was not found.

Online source: http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au... [CTRL+F the paragraph]

Aristotle says, "It has been previously stated that the discharge accompanying sexual pleasure in the female contributes nothing to the embryo. The chief argument for the opposite view is that what are called bad dreams occur by night with women as with men; but this is no proof, for the same thing happens to young men also who do not yet emit semen..."[1]

Aristotle here says that he is convinced that the female discharge contributes nothing to the embryo, because of the weakness of the cheif argument of the opposite view which he falsifies brilliantly. This is considered a scientific error because we now know the role of the female discharge.

Pro here attempts a cheap-shot on the credibility of my citations, and completely fails because I showed with an online, trusted citation that Aristotle held such a belief.


2- Qur'an as a linguistic miracle?

Pro says, "I say, The Qur’an is impossible to match linguistically. And this proposition so easy to be disproved."

Rebuttal 1: Pro here is shifting the Burden of Proof. Pro is the one making the positive claim that th Qur'an is impossible to match linguistically, and thus he should be the one proving it. This is also a "Black Swan" argument. If it hasn't been done, this doesn't mean it never will.

Rebuttal 2: What are the criteria to determine if it matches linguistically? Are they objective? Pro mentioned eloquence and beauty in his quotes when eloquence and beauty are pretty much subjective. Even if I were to present a chapter, there would be no way to objectively determine its linguistic value. Pro has not provided any objective criteria for that.

Rebuttal 3 [Knockdown refutation]: Pro is still committing the same non-sequitur fallacy by implying that if the Qur'an cannot be matched, it should be sent from God. The conclusion doesn't follow the premises and the hence whole argument is a big logical fallacy. The Qur'an could still be man-made and yet be unmatched with all Arabic literature. Pro's argument is completely demolished on logical grounds, even if I don't provide a replicated Surah.

Pro explains, "If only I said it, or only muslims said it, I would totally agree with you. But non-muslims also said same thing."

Rebuttal 1: Pro quotes E H Palmer who actually refutes Pro by saying that he believes the Qur'an is unmatched to Arab Muslims because "they[Arab Authors] have agreed before-hand that it is unapproachable, and they have adopted its style as the perfect standard; any deviation from it therefore must of necessity be a defect." Palmer is explaining the "prejudice" and "priori illogic" that Arab Muslims have.

Rebuttal 2: Pro quote-mines Gibb who actually is saying that Prophet Mohammad satisfied what the Meccans thought was a miracle. If Gibb believed it was a miracle, why would he remain Non-Muslim?


3- Expanding universe miracle claim?

Pro said the interpretations he offered say the universe is "currently expanding". They don't.

Tafsir Alqasemy: We are able to expand it, more than it is already expanded.
[It says "we are able" not "we are currently"]

Tafsir alfayruz abadi: {We are the expanders} of it when we want. [Corrected Translation]
[Al Fayruz used the noun "L-Mousi'ona لَمُوسِعُونَ " which we established to mean (Expanders)]

In summary, Pro's interpretation is not even supported by Muslim interpreters.


3- Arithmetic miracle claim?

This miracle-claim says that because the number "19" appears in many counts in the Qur'an, then the Qur'an must be revealed by God. This is yet another non-sequitur; conclusion doesn't follow the premises. Any human author can follow such a mathematical model. Why must it be God?

4- Relative Time miracle claim?

The verse simply says that an angel's travel to God would seem like thousands of years to humans. How is that Einsteinian relativity? It's like saying 2 days of traveling by camel is like 14 days of walking on foot. Moreover, the verse commits a scientific error because it is built on the assumption that God is in the sky and angels physically reach Him.

...

Pro deserves a seven-point loss, but I continued demolishing all his miracle-claims. He is expected to say "As Agreed" in the next turn.


[1] ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/a/aristotle/generation/book2.html

tahir.imanov

Pro

Aristotel says - "It has been previously stated that the discharge accompanying sexual pleasure in the female contributes nothing to the embryo." then continues, "The chief argument for the opposite view is that what are called bad dreams occur by night with women as with men;" then he says " but this is no proof, for the same thing happens to young men also who do not yet emit semen is infertile"

So Aristotel opposes who says "female contributes nothing to the embryo" because of "bad dreams occur by night with women as with men;"

So Aristotel does not say "gender is identified by sperm". But Quran does say.

"we are able to make the heaven expanding more that it is already expanded." -
Tafsir Alnukat waloyon (year 1058)
Again 11 century scholar says " the heaven expanding more that it is already expanded." So you are wrong.

"Rebuttal 3 [Knockdown refutation]:
Pro is still committing the same non-sequitur fallacy by implying that if the Qur'an cannot be matched, it should be sent from God. "

Where I said "Qur'an cannot be matched, it should be sent from God." I basicaly said if it is the work of man, then it is most possible other man also could do the same. And to prove this opposition (all who oppose to Quran) required to produce three verses alike Quran or better. And it is not "Black Swan" argument.
Is producing three verses is ho hard?!
Is humanity so stupid that they cannot do better job than the Arab who lived in desert, in 7th century and also was illiterate?!

There are four explanations for who wrote Quran:
1. Non-Arab did it.
2. Arab did it.
3. Muhammed (s.a.s.) (and his companions) did it. (is option is unnecessary because Muhammed (s.a.s.) and his companions were Arab)
4. God did it.

Is here another possible explanation. If you use a very little (minimum IQ requirement is 40) logic, and deduction, and rational thinking, you will left with one choice, and it is upto you (by, you I mean each person). All, you have to do read the Quran, study it (what it says, why it says that, what is the reason, and etc, ask questions to yourself.)

I did not say arithmetic miracle, I said "simple arithmetics".

(Allah) Rules the cosmic affair from the heavens to the Earth. Then this affair travels to Him a distance in one day, at a measure of one thousand years of what you count. 32.5
The angels and the Spirit ascend to Him in a day, the measure of which is fifty thousand years. 70.4

First of all where these verses say Go in the sky?! And it does not say also "2 camel day = 14 foot day" It says (first one) your 1,000 years is equal to 1 day for the affair (which is traveling). So you are wrong, again.

I have left approximately 2400 characters, if you count.

And by the way, it is the muslims who saved the ancient greek knowledge, from Church. You should thank us, for making you able to quote from Aristotle.
Debate Round No. 3
67 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Artur 3 years ago
Artur
{{{But (if) Quran as the whole book is the word of God (factual, evidentual, and logical proof) (then) you should and must accept all stories in Quran as true.}}}

I dont think so @Tahir.

there is no guarantee being true of a word said by a book which contains several miracle, fact and e.t.c, then all thing s said in that book, the book which have several miracle and evidence and e.t.c may also contain error.

unless you prove you can not say all words are true in quran because of some words are true. the book which contain true has also possibility to contain the lies or errors.
Posted by makhdoom5 3 years ago
makhdoom5
yeah why not thank u so much.
its my pleasure i am sending u frnd request.
Posted by makhdoom5 3 years ago
makhdoom5
so now.
about evidence.
and facts.
i always say thanks to ALLAH.
islam has faith as well as evidence.
we are not who need things to believe with faith but not evidence.
see.
for debate there are so much work to be done.
but i havent studied much there is much work remaining for me.
i am lazy guy.
i cant do debate coz i do debate the way it is suppose to be done.
coz of my study.
if i would be free from it there would be dozen of debates from me.
but i can give u very easy and so simple way to find the turth by ur self.
if it dosent works than tell me.
but it worked with every body always.
i tried it more than 100 of times.
it always works.
on my own self.
my every step is under the control of ALLAH.
very little time i forget and give devil to occupy me.
there is no superstition come near to me.
i also act on facts and evidence.
i guess every body.
if some one not its not good or right thing to do.
Posted by NiqashMotawadi3 3 years ago
NiqashMotawadi3
@makhdoom5

You can PM me anything, my friend. We can both learn from each other.
Posted by makhdoom5 3 years ago
makhdoom5
yes,
indeed
u are right.
see i dont do unjust.
u even dont kow i get so many msgs to vote on debates.
i never.
see in 7 months.
i mostly voted on debates in which some one forfeit the debate its easy to vote that.
the reason is i dont have much time to read long debates i read short and vote just.
if some thing againt my belive and the debator is weak than i dont vote.
simple.
but i found u great man now as u understand my stanse to vote.
u know i saw soem of ur debate before u was good but was against prophet saww.
i did not vote coz i cant vote unjust.
also.
yes it is the ture.
i must always be nice.
lol
see thats why we always say dont see muslim see islam.
i become some time bad but the good thing i realize later that i did.
its human instinct.
we become some time hyper.
but u dont know how bad i was.
i look like above pic now.
but before i had so short bear wearing the modrren style dress doing martial art was streeth fights.
have so much wound on my body.
but still keep in mind.
i was fighting with bad guys to help poors and needy.
and always againt rich and bad peoples.
but that is not still justifiable.
coz there are more good ways.
which i found now in islam.
coz i am preacher.
a member of preacher organization.
which works world wide
i learn many things.
now i effect the hearts of peoples.
i stop the fights of two peoples.
and make the frnds.
thanks to ALLAH.
but see some time i slip.
and do what i was doing in past.
but i am trying my best to overcome and eradicate it.
in sha ALLAH its helping.
see did it not in ur case as well.
i become violent many time on DDO.
but finally good with all of them whom i had this kind of discussion.
so the end product is good.
so sorry again.
give me a chance to preach u in PM.
thank u very much for being nice.
man i am getting emotional.
give little tears in my eyes.
Posted by NiqashMotawadi3 3 years ago
NiqashMotawadi3
@makhdoom5

As an agnostic, I wouldn't follow a way without being given convincing reasons and evidence. I rather have no answer to the origin of life and everything than a wrong one which is based on superstition more than it is based on evidence. That's just my position on matters.
Posted by NiqashMotawadi3 3 years ago
NiqashMotawadi3
@makhdoom5

"Votebomber" is not an insult. It was an accusation on the previous debate which I made when I didn't know you as I do know. Now I know that you didn't intentionally votebomb, so I withdraw my accusation which was the result of our inferential difference(disagreement in outlooks). You had personal reasons to vote that way, and I believe you somewhat misunderstood what LoopsEye did to pull an intellectually dishonest trick. So I've reached the conclusion that you're "not a votebomber." Just someone with a different mind-set and behavior.

Moreover, even if I'm disrespectful to you, Islam doesn't allow you to be disrespectful to me. There are many hadeeths on Prophet Mohammad being disrespected and remaining respectful to others. I remember the story about his Jewish neighbor and those who threw things at him when he was praying.

So even if I were disrespectful, it's quite non-Islamic of you to be also disrespectful.
Posted by makhdoom5 3 years ago
makhdoom5
and about quran.
u have read the quran.
and studies.
u even dont know what is quran.
if i tell u what is it.
u will be shocket.
its miracle coz of not scentific.
prohet saww never claimed it.
even we say and there are no scientific facts in it.
which i know there are.
and here no debator know them very well lol.
that why i wanted to do debte but in december there is my exam and i cant efford a debate.
coz i take 1 week to finsh the debate i take full three days.
coz i can and i do a lot of search.
for that u must have base than u can surf the real thing.
which i have allhumdu ll ALLAH.
well i was saying.
that Qur'an is miracle coz of not scientific fact or any other thing.
its miracle coz of some other thing.
that is the thing which which i make peoples muslim.
that is secret i cant tell here.
there were many debtor here so great.
with great knowledge.
esp agnostic.
coz agnostic are positive peoples than hesitate.
coz atheist completely reject GOD.
but agnostic says if u are there than show us ur self.
this is it.
if u are like that i can show u a way which will lead u to another way , lol that way will lead u to the GOD.which u are searching.
for bad.
i cant lead u in both ways.
u have to go on ur own.
i can lead u to the gate of first way.
this is it.
if u want truth its here.
ask me
it not about debate its about truth.
if u want that than PM me.
as brother.
but keep in mind there is world and there is heaven.
than u will go far away from world.
and i guess u dont want that.
but its so important coz the next life is eternal one.
keep in mind.
its last msg for u.
coz u behave nice and want to be nice.
this conversation is for only nice peoples.
Posted by NiqashMotawadi3 3 years ago
NiqashMotawadi3
"if all primary evidences are true, and because of secondary evidences are based on primary then you do not have other choice but accept the secondary evidences"

Says who? An agnostic can reject anything that is not supported with primary evidence.

"But (if) Quran as the whole book is the word of God (factual, evidentual, and logical proof) (then) you should and must accept all stories in Quran as true."

The Qur'an hasn't been proven to me to be factual, evidential and logical proof of God.
Posted by makhdoom5 3 years ago
makhdoom5
see this is not manner.
can u imagine.
what i been hearing here.
have u ever seen other here.
man how can i know some one is nice and some one not.
u are nice.
so i will be nice with u as well.
as u said dont insult indeed u dont wana insult dont wana have.
ok.
its best.
i really like this attitude.
its the attitude of person who has knowledge.
but u said u are not honest
u are vote bomber.
from ur button of heart tell me am i.
u know insulting language give hadace and to me blood pressure coz i am patient of blood pressure.
i am very sensitive.
even i cant bear the pain in insect.
so i suffer so much
that kind of person is always emotional.
and cant control some time.
person like me need frindly and clean envirment.
which u are promissing to provide.
so its good.
sorry if i did untill now.
but this is good.
ittle fight before being nice make u more to realize what u must do further more.
right.
its good u wana be nice.
here i am i will never say bad words again.
so
its a deal.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Weiler 3 years ago
Weiler
NiqashMotawadi3tahir.imanovTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: The rules for the debate were clearly laid out and PRO completely ignored them. As PRO agreed to by accepting the debate, his disregard for the rules incurs an automatic 7 point loss.