Total Posts:55|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Islamic Narrative vs. Christian Narrative

YassineB
Posts: 1,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2014 11:35:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Hello everybody,

This will be my first official thread on this wonderful Forum. I wanted to write something about Religion, but most members here are either Christian or with Christian backgrounds, a world that I am not very familiar with, for I am a muslim. & so I decided to write something about the divergent point between the Christian Narrative & the Islamic Narrative (according to my knowledge, if I make any mistakes please don't hesitate to correct me). Some of the interesting ones of these points are as follows:
1- Tawhid (Oneness of God) vs. Trinity (Three in One, which I, so far, don't understand)
2- The Age of Earth.
3- The Creation of the Universe.
4- Centrality of the Earth.
5- Privilege of Humanity.
6- Good & Evil.
7- God's Love.
8- The Original Sin.

>>> Just to make one thing clear: 'Allah' in Arabic is the equivalent of God in English or Dieu in French... Christian & Jewish Arabs also use Allah to describe God.

2- The Age of Earth:
- The Qur'an says: "Your Guardian-Lord is Allah, Who created the heavens and the earth in six days" (7:54) <<< Similar to the one in the Bible.
=> The divergence here is not in the words but in the meaning of the words. => 'Day' in Arabic is 'Yawm' which originally means Time.
=> Since the Qur'an & the Hadith are not clear about how long 'Day' is ( "a thousand years" (32:5) ; Or "fifty thousands years" (70:4) ... or up to 7,200,000 years according to the Hadith), & since the notion of 'Day' didn't really exist before the Creation of the Earth itself, muslim Exegetists reject the interpretation of 'Day' as a particular duration, & so they generally interpret 'Yawm' ('Day') as 'Waq't (Juncture, Instance).

3- The Creation of the Universe:
- In the Islamic Narrative, the Creation is seen as, not one, but several processes that include: "Creating", "Initiating", "Originating", "Designing", "Sustaining"" in such a way that a Creation doesn"t necessarily have a form or a substance, & isn"t necessarily sustained (meaning: actually being); unless of course it is initiated, originated, designed & sustained. Because, The Initiator, The Originator, The Designer, The Sustainer are also Attributes of God: The Creator. That is to say, "Creating" is a unique process that renders existent what had been intended to exist. & It is an unimaginable process by humans.
=> A notion that is at the root of a fundamental difference of Opinion between some of the Theological Schools of Thought in Islam.
=> Some argue that the Universe is eternal (like Avicenna, Averroes...) // Some others argue that the Universe must have an absolute beginning (like the Ash'ari School,..)

4- Centrality of the Earth:
The Centrality of the Earth among muslims in the Middle Ages was a Scientific Topic & not a Religious Topic. The majority of Scholars adopted the Geocentric Greek Model, & few others preferred other models (that didn't involve the geocentrism) such as, al-Marwazi (d. 869) , Abu Ma'shar (d. 886) al-Biruni (d. 1048), ar-Razi (d. 1209), Nasr ad-Din at-Tusi (d. 1274), Ibn ash-Shatir (d. 1375).
=> Abu Ma'shar was the first muslim to propose a heliocentric model of the planets.
=> Al-Bayruni doubted geocentrism after having proved the rotation of the Earth on itself.
=> Al-Marwazi, similarly, estimated that the Sun is at at Least ~170 times the Earth, after he estimated the he radius of the Earth (5162Km).
(..Etc)
- From a religious point of view, there is nothing in the Scripture that supports geocentrism.
=> The Prophet Muhammad said: "the Earth in the first heaven is like a grain in the desert, & the first heaven in the second heaven is like a grain in the desert, ["], & the seventh compared to the Kusri is like a grain in the desert, & the Kursi compared to the Throne is like a grain in the desert"". [ ^"Ruh al-Ma"ani" ; by al-Alusi ]

5- Privilege of Humanity:
- The Qur"anic Narrative is categorically & explicitly opposed to any kind of specialness associated to any creature of God. Anyone who reads the Qur"an would definitely know that. Literally, a third of the Qur"an is solely praise to God: "Your Lord does create and choose as He pleases: no choice have they (in the matter): Glory to Allah! and far is He above the partners they ascribe (to Him)!" (28:68).
=> According to the Qur"an, nothing, absolutely nothing is special. The one only thing that is special is God; not the angels, not the prophets, not Jesus, not Muhammad, not the sky not the earth, nor anything.
=> Sometimes the Narrative seems utterly "indifferent' towards humans: "Your Lord is self-sufficient, full of Mercy: if it were His will, He could destroy you, and in your place appoint whom He will as your successors, even as He raised you up from the posterity of other people." (6:133).
==>> & I think that's one of the fundamental differences between the Christian notion of God, & the Islamic notion of God. (unless I am wrong)
- The Tabi"un reported that before Adam there was the "Jin", & before those there was the "Bun", & before those there was the "Hun". [ ^"Bidaya wa Nhiya" ; by Ibn Kathir (d. 1373) ]
=> Those (Jin, Bun, Hun) are past cognitive populations on Earth. The "Jin" are mentioned in the Qur"an, the other two aren"t. Exegetists, thereby, differ in wether the "Bun" & the "Hun" were exempt from believing in God, or wether they were totally annihilated & extinct, & probably that"s why they are not mentioned in the Qur"an.
=> Ibn 'Abbas narrated that the Prophet Muhammad said: "There exists a white Planet, the size of which is equal to the distance marched by the Sun for 30 days, each day 30 times longer than your days. Tha" Planet is filled with a People, oblivious to the transgressions against God committed in this Earth, & oblivious to the fact that God even created Adam & Satan" [ ^"Jawahir al-Quran" ; by al-Gazali (d. 1111) ]
==>> In the Islamic Narrative, humans are not seen as the only cognitive beings that lived on Earth or elsewhere. (If there is a similar view in the Christian Narrative please correct me, I am not sure about that :) )

6- Good & Evil:
- According to the Islamic Narrative: Good & Evil are both created by God & are under the immediate act of God:
=> "But if Good comes to them, they say: 'This is from Allah' ; and if Evil befalls them, they say: 'This is from you.' Say: 'All things are from Allah'" (4:78). "No misfortune can happen on earth or in your souls but is recorded in a decree before We bring it into existence: That is truly easy for Allah" (57:22)" etc.
- In the Islamic Perspective, there is no stigma associated with God & Evil, in the same exact respect as there is no stigma associated with God & Good. In the sense that, there is inherently no difference between the two.
=> Because: "Indeed, all things We created with predestination (in proportion & measure)." (54:49); & "Allah is the Creator of every thing and He has charge over every thing." (39:62).
=> In the sense that, all things are but mere creatures of God, in complete & utter need of God whether be it Good (even the Angels) or Evil (even the Devil) >> "like the Devil, when he says to man: 'Disbelief' ; but when (man) disbelieves, the Devil says, 'I am free of you: I fear Allah, the Lord of the Worlds!' ".
- Within that perspective, Good & Evil are understood as relative concepts:
=> The Prophet said: "Indeed Allah Most High says: 'I am as My slave thinks of Me, if he thinks good of me then that"s what he gets, if he thinks bad of me then that"s what he gets" [ ^Ibn Hiban ].
=> That is to say, within an Islamic world view, this question: "Why does God create Evil?" is the same as this question: "Why does God create Good?". Similarly, the question: "Why would God create humans & put them in Hell Fire?" is the same as the question: "Why would God create humans & put them in Paradise?".

No space left :( . . .

>>> Please tell me what you think, what do you find most interesting or most shocking?
Current Debates In Voting Period:

- The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim. Vs. @Envisage:
http://www.debate.org...

- Drawing Contest. Vs. @purpleduck:
http://www.debate.org...

"It is perfectly permissible to vote on sources without reading them" bluesteel.
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2014 2:29:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/18/2014 11:35:59 PM, YassineB wrote:

2- The Age of Earth:
- The Qur'an says: "Your Guardian-Lord is Allah, Who created the heavens and the earth in six days" (7:54) <<< Similar to the one in the Bible.
=> The divergence here is not in the words but in the meaning of the words. => 'Day' in Arabic is 'Yawm' which originally means Time.
=> Since the Qur'an & the Hadith are not clear about how long 'Day' is ( "a thousand years" (32:5) ; Or "fifty thousands years" (70:4) ... or up to 7,200,000 years according to the Hadith), & since the notion of 'Day' didn't really exist before the Creation of the Earth itself, muslim Exegetists reject the interpretation of 'Day' as a particular duration, & so they generally interpret 'Yawm' ('Day') as 'Waq't (Juncture, Instance).

That makes a little more sense than the Christian perspective.

3- The Creation of the Universe:
=> Some argue that the Universe is eternal (like Avicenna, Averroes...) // Some others argue that the Universe must have an absolute beginning (like the Ash'ari School,..)

So there are disagreements in Islam? What do you think about the eternal properties of the universe?

4- Centrality of the Earth:
- From a religious point of view, there is nothing in the Scripture that supports geocentrism.
Same with the Bible. I think it was just ignorance and lack of understanding all the way around. Perhaps we'll look back in another thousand years and marvel at the ignorance of science today.

=> The Prophet Muhammad said: "the Earth in the first heaven is like a grain in the desert, & the first heaven in the second heaven is like a grain in the desert, ["], & the seventh compared to the Kusri is like a grain in the desert, & the Kursi compared to the Throne is like a grain in the desert"". [ ^"Ruh al-Ma"ani" ; by al-Alusi ]

Was Muhammad speaking about the physical universe or a metaphysical universe?

5- Privilege of Humanity:
=> According to the Qur"an, nothing, absolutely nothing is special. The one only thing that is special is God; not the angels, not the prophets, not Jesus, not Muhammad, not the sky not the earth, nor anything.
=> Sometimes the Narrative seems utterly "indifferent' towards humans: "Your Lord is self-sufficient, full of Mercy: if it were His will, He could destroy you, and in your place appoint whom He will as your successors, even as He raised you up from the posterity of other people." (6:133).
==>> & I think that's one of the fundamental differences between the Christian notion of God, & the Islamic notion of God. (unless I am wrong)

I think you are probably right.

- The Tabi"un reported that before Adam there was the "Jin", & before those there was the "Bun", & before those there was the "Hun". [ ^"Bidaya wa Nhiya" ; by Ibn Kathir (d. 1373) ]
=> Those (Jin, Bun, Hun) are past cognitive populations on Earth. The "Jin" are mentioned in the Qur"an, the other two aren"t. Exegetists, thereby, differ in wether the "Bun" & the "Hun" were exempt from believing in God, or wether they were totally annihilated & extinct, & probably that"s why they are not mentioned in the Qur"an.
=> Ibn 'Abbas narrated that the Prophet Muhammad said: "There exists a white Planet, the size of which is equal to the distance marched by the Sun for 30 days, each day 30 times longer than your days. Tha" Planet is filled with a People, oblivious to the transgressions against God committed in this Earth, & oblivious to the fact that God even created Adam & Satan" [ ^"Jawahir al-Quran" ; by al-Gazali (d. 1111) ]

Woah... I've never heard this before. A literal planet? With people who know nothing of Satan, or Adam, obviously. Tell me more about this please. It's fascinating. And according to the Qur'an, there were humans "or something like them" before Adam?

==>> In the Islamic Narrative, humans are not seen as the only cognitive beings that lived on Earth or elsewhere. (If there is a similar view in the Christian Narrative please correct me, I am not sure about that :) )

I don't know of one. Christians think humans are the begin all and end all of god's creation. They might correct me. But that's the impression that is given.

6- Good & Evil:
- According to the Islamic Narrative: Good & Evil are both created by God & are under the immediate act of God:
=> Because: "Indeed, all things We created with predestination (in proportion & measure)." (54:49); & "Allah is the Creator of every thing and He has charge over every thing." (39:62).

Do Muslims believe in free will?

=> In the sense that, all things are but mere creatures of God, in complete & utter need of God whether be it Good (even the Angels) or Evil (even the Devil) >> "like the Devil, when he says to man: 'Disbelief' ; but when (man) disbelieves, the Devil says, 'I am free of you: I fear Allah, the Lord of the Worlds!' ".
- Within that perspective, Good & Evil are understood as relative concepts:
=> The Prophet said: "Indeed Allah Most High says: 'I am as My slave thinks of Me, if he thinks good of me then that"s what he gets, if he thinks bad of me then that"s what he gets" [ ^Ibn Hiban ].
=> That is to say, within an Islamic world view, this question: "Why does God create Evil?" is the same as this question: "Why does God create Good?". Similarly, the question: "Why would God create humans & put them in Hell Fire?" is the same as the question: "Why would God create humans & put them in Paradise?".
Interesting concept. But it seems like a way to explain away why bad things do happen and is more for emotional pacification than an understanding of God.

----------------
Sorry I had to hack so much out of your original post, but I wanted to ask questions about some topics of interest. I'm especially shocked about the other planet that's inhabited, or was. Thanks for this. Very interesting read.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
YassineB
Posts: 1,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2014 4:35:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/19/2014 2:29:34 AM, jodybirdy wrote:
That makes a little more sense than the Christian perspective.

- Juncture means Order of Time, in the sense that, God intended to create the Heavens & the Earth in 6 Orders of Time ; & then, even if they are created, they have to be Originated, ..., & Designed to actually have a form (which is another story) <<< This is a Theological concept, so I am not sure if I can explain it in few lines :(

So there are disagreements in Islam? What do you think about the eternal properties of the universe?

- I follow the Ash'ari Theological School of Thought, so I support the idea of an absolute beginning of the Universe. But there are others (like some of the Mu'tazilis) that support the eternal Universe. Personally, as I've studied Philosophy & Logic, I think the former have more compelling proofs.
- The Eternal Universe approach uses Causality to infer a God that necessarily coexists with his creation. The non-Eternal approach infers a necessary God with absolute random (& thus free) choice, regardless of Causality.

Same with the Bible. I think it was just ignorance and lack of understanding all the way around. Perhaps we'll look back in another thousand years and marvel at the ignorance of science today.

- I did not know that! Thank you for telling me.

Was Muhammad speaking about the physical universe or a metaphysical universe?

- In Islam, we view the Creation as two Worlds one within the other:
* 'Alam al-Malakut: The World of Sovereignty (or the Unseen World: where the angels live & such).
* 'Alam al-Mulk: The World of Possession (the Seen World: the world humans have access to through senses or intellect).
* 'al-Barzakh: The Interstice (the world between the two I just mentioned) it's where the souls - partially - lay, & the dead & the Jin.
- & so, the World of Possession is existing within the World of Sovereignty, but is bound by the boarders of the First Heaven, which is called 'as-Samaa ad-Dunya- (the Lowest Heaven) which the Qur'an describes as the Heaven with Stars. Beyond the First Heaven, it's all the World of Sovereignty.
- & So, the Prophet was indeed speaking about the Physical Universe at first, & then what's beyond it.

Woah... I've never heard this before. A literal planet? With people who know nothing of Satan, or Adam, obviously. Tell me more about this please. It's fascinating. And according to the Qur'an, there were humans "or something like them" before Adam?

- According to the Qur'an, there were the Jin (kind of Spirits) before humans, & they'll still live among humans until the Hour. & according to the Hadith, there were other creatures who came before them which we do not know much about, what form were they or what time were they living on the Earth! But they all have two things in common - according to the Hadith - they are cognitive beings, & they spread corruption & killing on the Earth.
- In the Islamic Perspective, the Qur'an is a message to all beings, not just the Humans. So, the Jin are also accounted for in the Qur'an (& there is a Chapter in the Qur'an called 'Jin'). & since the Bun & the Hun are not mentioned in the Qur'an, the Exegetists concluded that they were either extinct, or uncountable for their actions, because otherwise, they should also receive the message of the Qur'an (since it was meant to be Universal).
- The Hadith about the White Planet is usually used, in the Islamic Tradition, to emphasis the notion that humans shouldn't think themselves special, even though they were blessed with intellect. However, there is another current that argues the opposites (it's a matter of difference in opinions among muslim Scholars).

Do Muslims believe in free will?

- Well, according to those that think God is necessarily bound by his own unchanging Will, free will is possible because there is a piece of that will in cognitive beings that allow them to chose or not chose.
- And, according to the Dominant School (that is the Ash'aris), everything is under the immediate & absolute act of God. So, in that case, real free choice is not possible. So, instead, they think of it as Intellect. In the sense that we have Intellect & thus can discern choices & chose, even though that choice is already prescribed by God. <<< It's a very similar concept to Determinism.
(+)Eg. imagine you go to a restaurant, & they give you a menu. So, the only choices you are allowed to make are those in the menu, & the only meals that you are gonna chose are those you desire, & so you end up choosing the only thing you are gonna chose anyways.
- There is a Conceptual Formalism about that called Nathariat al-Kasb (Theory of Realisation) that explains Free Will according to the Ash'ari, it's just a litte complex, so I can't talk about it here.
- The Qur'an is unequivocal about absolute predestination, as I exhibited earlier. & it says about free will: "But you shall not will except as Allah wills," (81:29).
- So, as muslims we know that God is Absolute & everything is His, so we can only try to understand the how & the what, without getting into the why. The Qur'an says: "Your Lord does create and choose as He pleases: no choice have they (in the matter): Glory to Allah!" (28:68)
=> Meaning: ultimately God does whatever he wants, no one has any right to say otherwise, for everything is created & under the immediate act of God.
=> So, asking why God is going to put people in the Fire? or why God is going to put others in Paradise? is ultimately none of our business, it's His absolute choice.
=> The Prophet said: "'Allah, the Blessed, the Exalted, created Adam. Then He stroked his back with His right hand, and progeny issued from it. He said, "I created these for Paradise and they will act with the behaviour of the people of Paradise." Then He stroked his back again and brought forth progeny from him. He said, "I created these for the Fire and they will act with the behaviour of the people of the Fire." - 'A man said, 'Messenger of Allah! Then of what value are deeds?' - The Prophet answered: 'When Allah creates a slave for Paradise he makes him use the behaviour of the people of Paradise, so that he dies on the actions of the people of Paradise and by those actions He brings him into Paradise. When He creates a slave for the Fire, (..etc)'" [ ^al-Muataa #1627 ]
=> That's another notion called 'Q'adaa': it's the notion that God already decided the fate of everything, so all Events are just a matter of course.

Interesting concept. But it seems like a way to explain away why bad things do happen and is more for emotional pacification than an understanding of God.

- Yes, the handling of Good & Evil in the Islamic Worldview is understood as Trials, as Tests:
=> "Every soul shall have a taste of death: and We test you by evil and by good by way of trial. to Us must you return." (21:35).
=> "And We divided them throughout the earth into nations. Of them some were righteous, and of them some were otherwise. And We tested them with good and evil that perhaps they would return [to obedience]" (7:168).
- In that sense, God provides blessings to people so that they can acknowledge them, & thus think of God. Or, He can sent misfortunes on them, so they may again remember God & pray to God.

Sorry I had to hack so much out of your original post, but I wanted to ask questions about some topics of interest. I'm especially shocked about the other planet that's inhabited, or was. Thanks for this. Very interesting read.

- Make another post & ask away. I am happy to discuss whatever you like.
Current Debates In Voting Period:

- The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim. Vs. @Envisage:
http://www.debate.org...

- Drawing Contest. Vs. @purpleduck:
http://www.debate.org...

"It is perfectly permissible to vote on sources without reading them" bluesteel.
YassineB
Posts: 1,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2014 4:43:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/19/2014 2:29:34 AM, jodybirdy wrote:

Woah... I've never heard this before. A literal planet? With people who know nothing of Satan, or Adam, obviously. Tell me more about this please. It's fascinating. And according to the Qur'an, there were humans "or something like them" before Adam?

- Also, some muslims today use the Hadith to further confirm the validity of Islam. Because the average Rotation Cycle of the sun is indeed 30 days (as what the Hadith mentions).

==>> Also, you should know that I actually studied the Islamic Tradition (Law, Theology...), so I am telling you stuff that aren't necessarily known by a lot of muslims.
Current Debates In Voting Period:

- The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim. Vs. @Envisage:
http://www.debate.org...

- Drawing Contest. Vs. @purpleduck:
http://www.debate.org...

"It is perfectly permissible to vote on sources without reading them" bluesteel.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2014 11:17:12 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/19/2014 4:43:49 AM, YassineB wrote:
At 12/19/2014 2:29:34 AM, jodybirdy wrote:

Woah... I've never heard this before. A literal planet? With people who know nothing of Satan, or Adam, obviously. Tell me more about this please. It's fascinating. And according to the Qur'an, there were humans "or something like them" before Adam?

- Also, some muslims today use the Hadith to further confirm the validity of Islam. Because the average Rotation Cycle of the sun is indeed 30 days (as what the Hadith mentions).

==>> Also, you should know that I actually studied the Islamic Tradition (Law, Theology...), so I am telling you stuff that aren't necessarily known by a lot of muslims.

You should really check your facts. The sun has several rotation periods since it is not solid but gaseous. they range from 24.7 to 27.27 days.[1] That's not 30. The Qur'an is not a science text and has no information in it that can be demonstrated as anachronistic knowledge.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
YassineB
Posts: 1,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2014 11:41:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/19/2014 11:17:12 AM, dhardage wrote:
You should really check your facts. The sun has several rotation periods since it is not solid but gaseous. they range from 24.7 to 27.27 days.[1] That's not 30. The Qur'an is not a science text and has no information in it that can be demonstrated as anachronistic knowledge.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...

- You are assuming I don't know what the Rotation of the Sun is. My field happens to be Theoretical Physics & I know for a fact that the Rotation Cycle of the Sun ranges from ~25 at the equator to ~35 at the poles. Apparently you misinterpreted the values given in the wikipedia article, & I can only guess that's due to your unfamiliarity with the topic.
=> Hence, I said: >> Average Rotation Cycle << which coincides with ~30.
- I agree with your second point, the Qur'an or the Hadith are not science texts, & I am against those who use them as such, it's just not the case, simple as that.
=> However, if the predictions of the Qur'an or the Hadith happen to correspond to the predictions of a scientific theory, then, the latter is evidence to support the former; in the sense that, the scientific theory supports further the claim of the Truth of the Qur'an, regardless of the nature or truth of that claim.
Current Debates In Voting Period:

- The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim. Vs. @Envisage:
http://www.debate.org...

- Drawing Contest. Vs. @purpleduck:
http://www.debate.org...

"It is perfectly permissible to vote on sources without reading them" bluesteel.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2014 11:55:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/19/2014 11:41:01 AM, YassineB wrote:
At 12/19/2014 11:17:12 AM, dhardage wrote:
You should really check your facts. The sun has several rotation periods since it is not solid but gaseous. they range from 24.7 to 27.27 days.[1] That's not 30. The Qur'an is not a science text and has no information in it that can be demonstrated as anachronistic knowledge.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...

- You are assuming I don't know what the Rotation of the Sun is. My field happens to be Theoretical Physics & I know for a fact that the Rotation Cycle of the Sun ranges from ~25 at the equator to ~35 at the poles. Apparently you misinterpreted the values given in the wikipedia article, & I can only guess that's due to your unfamiliarity with the topic.
=> Hence, I said: >> Average Rotation Cycle << which coincides with ~30.
- I agree with your second point, the Qur'an or the Hadith are not science texts, & I am against those who use them as such, it's just not the case, simple as that.
=> However, if the predictions of the Qur'an or the Hadith happen to correspond to the predictions of a scientific theory, then, the latter is evidence to support the former; in the sense that, the scientific theory supports further the claim of the Truth of the Qur'an, regardless of the nature or truth of that claim.

The rotation constants have been measured by measuring the motion of various features ("tracers") on the solar surface. The first and most widely used tracers are sunspots. Though sunspots had been observed since ancient times, it was only when the telescope came into use that they were observed to turn with the Sun, and thus the period of the solar rotation could be defined. The English scholar Thomas Harriot was probably the first to observe sunspots telescopically as evidenced by a drawing in his notebook dated December 8, 1610, and the first published observations (June 1611) entitled "De Maculis in Sole Observatis, et Apparente earum cum Sole Conversione Narratio" ("Narration on Spots Observed on the Sun and their Apparent Rotation with the Sun") were by Johannes Fabricius who had been systematically observing the spots for a few months and had noted also their movement across the solar disc. This can be considered the first observational evidence of the solar rotation. Christopher Scheiner ("Rosa Ursine sive solis", book 4, part 2, 1630) was the first to measure the equatorial rotation rate of the Sun and noticed that the rotation at higher latitudes is slower, so he can be considered the discoverer of solar differential rotation.

Each measurement gives a slightly different answer, yielding the above standard deviations (shown as +/-). St. John (1918) was perhaps the first to summarise the published solar rotation rates, and concluded that the differences in series measured in different years can hardly be attributed to personal observation or to local disturbances on the Sun, and are probably due to time variations in the rate of rotation, and Hubrecht (1915) was the first one to find that the two solar hemispheres rotate differently. A study of magnetograph data showed a synodic period in agreement with other studies of 26.24 days at the equator and almost 38 days at the poles.[4]

Sorry, your numbers still don't add up. Theoretical Physics is a wonderful field of study but it doesn't make your statement correct. It is an argument from authority.
There is no correspondence between your book and actual numbers.
YassineB
Posts: 1,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2014 12:35:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/19/2014 11:55:10 AM, dhardage wrote:
The rotation constants have been measured by measuring the motion of various features ("tracers") on the solar surface. The first and most widely used tracers are sunspots. Though sunspots had been observed since ancient times, it was only when the telescope came into use that they were observed to turn with the Sun, and thus the period of the solar rotation could be defined. The English scholar Thomas Harriot was probably the first to observe sunspots telescopically as evidenced by a drawing in his notebook dated December 8, 1610, and the first published observations (June 1611) entitled "De Maculis in Sole Observatis, et Apparente earum cum Sole Conversione Narratio" ("Narration on Spots Observed on the Sun and their Apparent Rotation with the Sun") were by Johannes Fabricius who had been systematically observing the spots for a few months and had noted also their movement across the solar disc. This can be considered the first observational evidence of the solar rotation. Christopher Scheiner ("Rosa Ursine sive solis", book 4, part 2, 1630) was the first to measure the equatorial rotation rate of the Sun and noticed that the rotation at higher latitudes is slower, so he can be considered the discoverer of solar differential rotation.

Each measurement gives a slightly different answer, yielding the above standard deviations (shown as +/-). St. John (1918) was perhaps the first to summarise the published solar rotation rates, and concluded that the differences in series measured in different years can hardly be attributed to personal observation or to local disturbances on the Sun, and are probably due to time variations in the rate of rotation, and Hubrecht (1915) was the first one to find that the two solar hemispheres rotate differently. A study of magnetograph data showed a synodic period in agreement with other studies of 26.24 days at the equator and almost 38 days at the poles.[4]

Sorry, your numbers still don't add up. Theoretical Physics is a wonderful field of study but it doesn't make your statement correct. It is an argument from authority.
There is no correspondence between your book and actual numbers.

- Cool story, with apparently no point to it, at all.
- Here is what I said:
"- Also, some muslims today use the Hadith to further confirm the validity of Islam." <<<< The key words are 'some muslims' >>>> I'll be eager to discuss with you such topic, if I was indeed one of these muslims, however, I am not. & so, I'll pass.
- I am for strong proofs, although small indications like these, if compounded, can turn into something more substantial. To me it's just curious, what did the Prophet say: 30 days?! ; but there are others much stronger & substantial proofs, this one becomes thus not worth getting scrutinised over.

- So, how about we discuss my first post, instead of the little remark I made later ;)
Current Debates In Voting Period:

- The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim. Vs. @Envisage:
http://www.debate.org...

- Drawing Contest. Vs. @purpleduck:
http://www.debate.org...

"It is perfectly permissible to vote on sources without reading them" bluesteel.
Roukezian
Posts: 1,711
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2014 1:59:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The Islamic narrative is far more compelling and convincing than the Christian one, that I do accept, but it is not mentioned that Islam borrows a lot from the Babylonian and Greek sources, and sometimes incorrectly. Not to mention that the Qur'an has many scientific errors based on false analysis. For instance, the Qur'an claims that mountains stop the earth from quaking, but on the contrary, mountainous regions have more earthquakes. An apologist called Dr. Zakir Naik claims that hospitals have more patients and yet heal more patients as a response, but that is nothing more than a false analogy logical fallacy, patients go to hospitals, earthquakes don't go to mountains, and earthquakes happen because of plates, so mountainous regions are formed where plates mostly crash but they don't in any way stabilize the plate movement, they are like tiny zits on huge moving blocks. Ergo, there is no proof that mountains stabilize the Earth or the plates. So I looked into the Muslim response, and again Dr. Zakir Naik misquotes a book called Earth(which i had to buy and read), which says nothing like that, to support his falsehood that mountains do.

The Qur'anic verse I"m referring to is Surah 21:30 - Yusuf Ali's Translation: 'And We have set on the earth mountains standing firm, lest it should shake with them, and We have made therein broad highways (between mountains) for them to pass through: that they may receive Guidance."

A Muslim on the forums once responded to me, trying to change "earth" to "soil and ground", although I"m a native Arabic speaker, and say that ground is stable on mountains, which it is oddly not, I used to live on a mountainous region, there is a reason why houses are not built there often. Another option is to play other word games on what it means to "quake" and so on, but in the end of the day, an honest reading of the verse shows that this is just speaking nonscientific nonsense, and back-flipping apologetic will only use word-games and falsehoods to get around that.
YassineB
Posts: 1,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2014 11:47:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/19/2014 1:59:58 PM, Roukezian wrote:

- First, I must commend you for your manner of argumentation. So far, all those attacking me weren't as persuasive, if persuasive at all.
- Also, could you tell me how you do the underlining in the text & other stuff?

The Islamic narrative is far more compelling and convincing than the Christian one, that I do accept.

- I'd really like to hear the reasons behind such statement.

but it is not mentioned that Islam borrows a lot from the Babylonian and Greek sources, and sometimes incorrectly.

- If you can provide me with proof supporting that claim, I'll be inclined to discuss it, but for now, I'll just ignore it.
- Plus, the Qur'an claims itself to be a continuation of past Traditions & confirms them.
- Also, even if there are similarities between notions in the Qur'an or Hadith & the Greek Narrative, that doesn't necessarily mean that the Qur'an borrowed from them ; especially, since as you said, there are instances where the Qur'anic Narrative departs from these similarities, & somehow those 'incorrect' departures turned out to the right thing to do.

Not to mention that the Qur'an has many scientific errors based on false analysis.

- I would replace "the Qur'an" by "the interpretation of the Qur'an made by non-authoritative sources". There are no contradictions between the Qur'an itself & established scientific theories. If you disagree with this statement then it's on you to come up with a conclusive counter-example, only one will suffice.

For instance, the Qur'an claims that mountains stop the earth from quaking, but on the contrary, mountainous regions have more earthquakes.

- The Qur'an says: "And He has cast into the earth firmly set mountains, lest it shift with you" (15:16) & it also says: "And the mountains as pegs" (78:7).
=> It says nothing about mountain regions!

An apologist called Dr. Zakir Naik claims that hospitals have more patients and yet heal more patients as a response, but that is nothing more than a false analogy logical fallacy, patients go to hospitals, earthquakes don't go to mountains, and earthquakes happen because of plates.

- Just a rectification here, I happen to have studied Logic, so I know which Analogy is false & which isn't. If the aspect (common quality) of Dr. Zakir Naik's analogy between hospitals & mountains is the fact that they both prevent an external effect by containing it into themselves, then that's just a simple comparison.

so mountainous regions are formed where plates mostly crash but they don't in any way stabilize the plate movement, they are like tiny zits on huge moving blocks. Ergo, there is no proof that mountains stabilize the Earth or the plates. So I looked into the Muslim response, and again Dr. Zakir Naik misquotes a book called Earth(which i had to buy and read), which says nothing like that, to support his falsehood that mountains do.

- Absence of proof means inconclusiveness, it doesn't mean uncertainty.
- To tell you the Truth, geology is not my specialty, but I remember doing some courses about such phenomenon. & they taught us about mountains being involved in constraining much of the tectonic movements (seeing that most of the movement is actually morphed into the mountains themselves).
- Forgive me if I can't take your word for it ; but, unless there is an no-contradicted study on the matter that negates the influence of mountains on tectonic plates movements, there is not much basis to argue with here.

A Muslim on the forums once responded to me, trying to change "earth" to "soil and ground", although I"m a native Arabic speaker, and say that ground is stable on mountains, which it is oddly not, I used to live on a mountainous region, there is a reason why houses are not built there often. Another option is to play other word games on what it means to "quake" and so on, but in the end of the day, an honest reading of the verse shows that this is just speaking nonscientific nonsense, and back-flipping apologetic will only use word-games and falsehoods to get around that.

- The interpretation of verses in the Qur'an is not taken from forums & laymen's opinions, it's taken from Authoritative Sources.
Current Debates In Voting Period:

- The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim. Vs. @Envisage:
http://www.debate.org...

- Drawing Contest. Vs. @purpleduck:
http://www.debate.org...

"It is perfectly permissible to vote on sources without reading them" bluesteel.
YassineB
Posts: 1,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2014 11:58:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/19/2014 1:59:58 PM, Roukezian wrote:
The Qur'anic verse I"m referring to is Surah 21:30 - Yusuf Ali's Translation: 'And We have set on the earth mountains standing firm, lest it should shake with them, and We have made therein broad highways (between mountains) for them to pass through: that they may receive Guidance."

- I also wanna add that the Qur'an describes Mountains as Pegs:
______________||____________________
___________||||||||_________________
_____|||||||||||||||||___________
__||||||||||||||||||||||_______
___|||||||||||||||||||||________
____|||||||||||||||||||_________
______||||||||||||||||___________
_______||||||||||||||____________
_________|||||||||||_____________
___________|||||_________________
- It's rather curious how the Qur'an succeeds in describing the form of the Mountains accurately! I doubt anyone at that time or before that time had the technology or the means to arrive at such conclusion.
Current Debates In Voting Period:

- The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim. Vs. @Envisage:
http://www.debate.org...

- Drawing Contest. Vs. @purpleduck:
http://www.debate.org...

"It is perfectly permissible to vote on sources without reading them" bluesteel.
Roukezian
Posts: 1,711
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2014 2:27:15 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/19/2014 11:47:40 PM, YassineB wrote:
At 12/19/2014 1:59:58 PM, Roukezian wrote:

- First, I must commend you for your manner of argumentation. So far, all those attacking me weren't as persuasive, if persuasive at all.

Thanks.

- Also, could you tell me how you do the underlining in the text & other stuff?

Below the text-editor, there are like three Icons for text format "Bold, Italic and Underlined". You chose a selection of text and then press one of them.

The Islamic narrative is far more compelling and convincing than the Christian one, that I do accept.

- I'd really like to hear the reasons behind such statement.

It's a long discussion why. I have studied both and came to that conclusion. Let's not digress into that. For now, i will just focus on the Earthquakes.


- Just a rectification here, I happen to have studied Logic, so I know which Analogy is false & which isn't. If the aspect (common quality) of Dr. Zakir Naik's analogy between hospitals & mountains is the fact that they both prevent an external effect by containing it into themselves, then that's just a simple comparison.

This is still false. Mountains don't prevent to that degree, or to any considerable degree.

.As put by experts on Earth Science here (http://www.madsci.org...), who were asked this question by a Muslim (I think):

Re: Do mountains play a part in stabilizing the earth's crust?

Date: Wed Jan 2 10:42:29 2008
Posted By: David and John Free, Post-doc/Fellow, MFA, MFA
Area of science: Earth Sciences
ID: 1197759178.Es

Hi Ahmed

Your interesting question is a bit like "Do the wrinkles on an old apple
affect how it shrinks" and the answer is the same - Very little!

The wrinkles are there BECAUSE the apple has shrunk: the mountains are
there because of the impact between two massive plates. They are
compression damage (buckling) at the edge of the plate.

The COLLISIONS do stablise the drift of the plates - by limiting the
drift and causing earthquakes when the plates "stick slip" unstably as
the plates slide past or over/under one another.

The earth's crust is very thin (about, to scale, like the skin on an
apple) and the mountains tend to be of lighter material (less dense)
than the rest of the crust. So the weight of the mountains near the edges
of the crust is negligible compared to the total weight of the crust. For
this reason the mountains tend to grow - rather than shrink as they would
do if they were stabilising the earth's crust.

In a VERTICAL sense mountains do a bit of stablising, and the crust can
be said to be floating on the mantle beneath. But the weight of the
mountain is negligible compared to both the crust beneath it and the
convection forces of rising magma from depths that far exceed the crust's
thickness. These thermal convection currents are due to the instabilities
in the rising mantle material (it's not actually liquid, but soft and plastic and
yields slowly over time..typically at the rate of inches per year. It does not
actually melt until it gets pretty near the surface where the pressure is lower).
You see these cell-like instability patterns on the surface of a pan of soup no
matter how evenly heat is applied from below.
Hot mantle MUST rise - so in other places it falls. This is presumably
what causes comtinental drift as well as upheaving forces that exceed the
weight of the crust (plus mountains).

The crust is thinnest under the sea and there, if weight was to be a
stablising factor, is where you would see the effect. The mountain plus
the crust it is sitting on is far thicker than the sub-sea crust. The
vents at the mid-ocean depths (where plates are moving apart) are there
because the crust there is thinnest (most fragile) not because the total
vertical weight is less there.

John"

So, if anything, mountains do stabilize but to a very minor and almost insignificant degree. Now notice what the Qur'an says, "lest it should shake with them." We are not speaking about how mountains can very slightly absorb, so to speak, the power of the Earthquake. We are saying that Mountains are really good at absorbing such power, since it would "shake without them", or shake lest mountains were not there. I referred in my previous post to the "quake" word-game. We can say, but mountains do very slightly contain the Earthquake, but would that really justify the claim that the Earth would be shaking without them? If we somehow lived on an Earth without any mountains, but flatlands, would that mean that we would almost continuously have Earthquakes? The answer is no. The role of mountains never achieves that. I hope you are honest in reading the verse and understanding that giving a very minor role to mountains doesn't solve that contradiction. There is a big difference between saying, "lest the Earth would shake" and saying "mountains are there so that it very slightly stops the Earth from shaking."

The Qur'an verse says, and sorry to repeat, I don't mean to sound aggressive, And We have set on the earth mountains standing firm, lest it should shake with them, and We have made therein broad highways (between mountains) for them to pass through: that they may receive Guidance."

- Absence of proof means inconclusiveness, it doesn't mean uncertainty.

We have overwhelming scientific evidence that Mountains play a very minor role. And so, proof that suggests that what the Qur'an is saying is a scientific error. If you require citations, i will find you ones easily, as that is something no two geologists would disagree upon. That to me, sounds like a scientific error, as we have opposing data that suggests an opposite to that claim by the Qur'an, which is that mountains only play a very minor role, and not the exaggerated role which the Qur'an states.

On mountains having pegs, or roots that look like pegs, that is an exaggerated claim, the majority of Mountains have roots which do not look or act like pegs. And you should realize that it was known in the ancient times that Mountains have roots that hold them. For instance, Jonah 2:6 : To the roots of the mountains I sank down; the earth beneath barred me in forever. But you, LORD my God, brought my life up from the pit." And so I don't see why it is significant if the Quran compared those roots to pegs, when they don't really act or look like pegs?
Roukezian
Posts: 1,711
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2014 2:45:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Point of clarification, "them" in the verse refers to the disbelievers in God. "Lest it[Earth] would shake with them[Disbelievers]" . This can be deduced from the context where the Surah says in its second verse, "Haven't those disbelievers considered...". And so mountains were placed to solve that issue, according to the Qur'an, and should be a sign for disbelievers that Allah placed those so the Earth would not quake with them, when scientifically we know they actually have a very little role in doing so as opposed to the very exaggerated role (first scientific error), and were never placed there by God but formed gradually due to plate movement (second scientific error).
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,580
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2014 9:52:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/18/2014 11:35:59 PM, YassineB wrote:

2- The Age of Earth:

=> Since the Qur'an & the Hadith are not clear about how long 'Day' is ( "a thousand years" (32:5) ; Or "fifty thousands years" (70:4) ... or up to 7,200,000 years according to the Hadith), & since the notion of 'Day' didn't really exist before the Creation of the Earth itself, muslim Exegetists reject the interpretation of 'Day' as a particular duration, & so they generally interpret 'Yawm' ('Day') as 'Waq't (Juncture, Instance).

You have revealed a serious flaw with Islam in how it determines the age of earth, which it obviously cannot answer. Of course, the fact that it states "six days" and the fact a the term "day" is quite specific, even in the bible it is defined as a morning and a night.

3- The Creation of the Universe:
- In the Islamic Narrative, the Creation is seen as, not one, but several processes that include: "Creating", "Initiating", "Originating", "Designing", "Sustaining"" in such a way that a Creation doesn"t necessarily have a form or a substance, & isn"t necessarily sustained (meaning: actually being); unless of course it is initiated, originated, designed & sustained. Because, The Initiator, The Originator, The Designer, The Sustainer are also Attributes of God: The Creator. That is to say, "Creating" is a unique process that renders existent what had been intended to exist. & It is an unimaginable process by humans.
=> A notion that is at the root of a fundamental difference of Opinion between some of the Theological Schools of Thought in Islam.
=> Some argue that the Universe is eternal (like Avicenna, Averroes...) // Some others argue that the Universe must have an absolute beginning (like the Ash'ari School,..)

It would appear that double speak is the explanation for the creation of the universe according to Islam. And, while you rightly claim it is an "unimaginable process by humans" simply because it makes no sense at all, science is showing humans the creation of the universe is understandable and has nothing to do with the Islamic version.

4- Centrality of the Earth:
The Centrality of the Earth among muslims in the Middle Ages was a Scientific Topic & not a Religious Topic. The majority of Scholars adopted the Geocentric Greek Model, & few others preferred other models (that didn't involve the geocentrism) such as, al-Marwazi (d. 869) , Abu Ma'shar (d. 886) al-Biruni (d. 1048), ar-Razi (d. 1209), Nasr ad-Din at-Tusi (d. 1274), Ibn ash-Shatir (d. 1375).
=> Abu Ma'shar was the first muslim to propose a heliocentric model of the planets.
=> Al-Bayruni doubted geocentrism after having proved the rotation of the Earth on itself.
=> Al-Marwazi, similarly, estimated that the Sun is at at Least ~170 times the Earth, after he estimated the he radius of the Earth (5162Km).
(..Etc)
- From a religious point of view, there is nothing in the Scripture that supports geocentrism.
=> The Prophet Muhammad said: "the Earth in the first heaven is like a grain in the desert, & the first heaven in the second heaven is like a grain in the desert, ["], & the seventh compared to the Kusri is like a grain in the desert, & the Kursi compared to the Throne is like a grain in the desert"". [ ^"Ruh al-Ma"ani" ; by al-Alusi ]

Ah yes, and here we are given a full helping of Islamic propaganda, hardly a word of truth contained within. Here are some actual facts for you to ponder:

http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com...

5- Privilege of Humanity:
- The Qur"anic Narrative is categorically & explicitly opposed to any kind of specialness associated to any creature of God. Anyone who reads the Qur"an would definitely know that. Literally, a third of the Qur"an is solely praise to God: "Your Lord does create and choose as He pleases: no choice have they (in the matter): Glory to Allah! and far is He above the partners they ascribe (to Him)!" (28:68).
=> According to the Qur"an, nothing, absolutely nothing is special. The one only thing that is special is God; not the angels, not the prophets, not Jesus, not Muhammad, not the sky not the earth, nor anything.
=> Sometimes the Narrative seems utterly "indifferent' towards humans: "Your Lord is self-sufficient, full of Mercy: if it were His will, He could destroy you, and in your place appoint whom He will as your successors, even as He raised you up from the posterity of other people." (6:133).
==>> & I think that's one of the fundamental differences between the Christian notion of God, & the Islamic notion of God. (unless I am wrong)
- The Tabi"un reported that before Adam there was the "Jin", & before those there was the "Bun", & before those there was the "Hun". [ ^"Bidaya wa Nhiya" ; by Ibn Kathir (d. 1373) ]
=> Those (Jin, Bun, Hun) are past cognitive populations on Earth. The "Jin" are mentioned in the Qur"an, the other two aren"t. Exegetists, thereby, differ in wether the "Bun" & the "Hun" were exempt from believing in God, or wether they were totally annihilated & extinct, & probably that"s why they are not mentioned in the Qur"an.
=> Ibn 'Abbas narrated that the Prophet Muhammad said: "There exists a white Planet, the size of which is equal to the distance marched by the Sun for 30 days, each day 30 times longer than your days. Tha" Planet is filled with a People, oblivious to the transgressions against God committed in this Earth, & oblivious to the fact that God even created Adam & Satan" [ ^"Jawahir al-Quran" ; by al-Gazali (d. 1111) ]
==>> In the Islamic Narrative, humans are not seen as the only cognitive beings that lived on Earth or elsewhere. (If there is a similar view in the Christian Narrative please correct me, I am not sure about that :) )

Yes, we know Islam and your God are above all other things, that's why your religion is so dangerous to mankind.

6- Good & Evil:
"Why does God create Evil?" "Why would God create humans & put them in Hell Fire?"

It keeps people in a constant state of fear using extreme threats.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
YassineB
Posts: 1,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2014 12:43:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/21/2014 2:27:15 AM, Roukezian wrote:
Below the text-editor, there are like three Icons for text format "Bold, Italic and Underlined". You chose a selection of text and then press one of them.

- Oh! yeah. I don't know how I missed that!! Thanks.

This is still false. Mountains don't prevent to that degree, or to any considerable degree.

- If you say so!!!

Your interesting question is a bit like "Do the wrinkles on an old apple affect how it shrinks" and the answer is the same - Very little!

- On the other hand, that's a false analogy.

The wrinkles are there BECAUSE the apple has shrunk: the mountains are there because of the impact between two massive plates. They are compression damage (buckling) at the edge of the plate.

- Obviously.

The COLLISIONS do stabilise the drift of the plates - by limiting the drift and causing earthquakes when the plates "stick slip" unstably as the plates slide past or over/under one another.

- That's what I just said!

The earth's crust is very thin (about, to scale, like the skin on an (apple) and the mountains tend to be of lighter material (less dense) than the rest of the crust. So the weight of the mountains near the edges of the crust is negligible compared to the total weight of the crust. For this reason the mountains tend to grow - rather than shrink as they would do if they were stabilising the earth's crust.

- So?

In a VERTICAL sense mountains do a bit of stabilising, and the crust can be said to be floating on the mantle beneath. But the weight of the mountain is negligible compared to both the crust beneath it and the convection forces of rising magma from depths that far exceed the crust's thickness. These thermal convection currents are due to the instabilities in the rising mantle material (it's not actually liquid, but soft and plastic and yields slowly over time..typically at the rate of inches per year. It does not actually melt until it gets pretty near the surface where the pressure is lower). You see these cell-like instability patterns on the surface of a pan of soup no matter how evenly heat is applied from below. Hot mantle MUST rise - so in other places it falls. This is presumably what causes continental drift as well as upheaving forces that exceed the weight of the crust (plus mountains).

- Seems to me he is saying that mountains are doing a lot of preventing the crust from drifting.

So, if anything, mountains do stabilise but to a very minor and almost insignificant degree. Now notice what the Qur'an says, "lest it should shake with them." We are not speaking about how mountains can very slightly absorb, so to speak, the power of the Earthquake. We are saying that Mountains are really good at absorbing such power, since it would "shake without them", or shake lest mountains were not there. I referred in my previous post to the "quake" word-game. We can say, but mountains do very slightly contain the Earthquake, but would that really justify the claim that the Earth would be shaking without them? If we somehow lived on an Earth without any mountains, but flatlands, would that mean that we would almost continuously have Earthquakes? The answer is no.

- First of all, you gave me an ambiguous loose opinion of some person from a website, & not the non-contradicted conclusive scientific study I asked for. Basing our judgements on some few lines on a website is naive & irrational. We have to start off from a strong basis, a real conclusive scientific theory, or else, what's the point?! Tomorrow it'll be replaced with another. & we have to make sure there isn't any other theories that say the opposite. Natural Science is based on Abductive Reasoning, the inference that, ideally, provides a good (sufficient), though not unique, explanation to a fact ; in the sense that if such Sufficient Explanation were indeed True, then, Ideally, it would Predict the Fact. <<< That's what I am looking for.
- Second of all, if there were no mountains, that would mean there will be no tectonic plates in the sense that we know today! How can you possibly know how the crust is gonna behave in such inexistent conditions?!
- Third of all, you are so much focused on semantics in English you forgot to look up the word 'Tamid' in the Tafsir, or in the Arabic Dictionary. 'Tamida' for a tree means 'Sway' ; 'Tamida' for a ship means 'Shake' ; 'Tamid' for a giant rock means 'Drift, Shift, Slide slowly'... >>> So, which of these meanings is the verse referring to? Not necessarily: 'Shake'.
=> Listen, you are basing your argument on not so accurate scientific description, not really conclusive evidence & not really sound semantics. So, if I take your argument & put it against the 1,000 arguments that support the opposite position, I'll evidently go with the latter, I am not that irrational!

We have overwhelming scientific evidence that Mountains play a very minor role. And so, proof that suggests that what the Qur'an is saying is a scientific error. If you require citations, i will find you ones easily, as that is something no two geologists would disagree upon.

- No we don't, where is this overwhelming evidence. I do Theoretical Physics, so maybe I have different standards of accepting evidence.
- Please do find me a STUDY, not a quote, we are not kids. I am a Scientist, not a fool.
- Also, you have to understand how Argumentation works. The Qur'an states 'Mountains prevent the ground from Tamida', & your evidence supports poorly this statement. The question is: where is the evidence that supports the opposite of the statement? Meaning: the evidence that supports the statement: 'Mountains do not prevent the ground from Tamida'. No or little evidence is far from being conclusive, in that case, you need a direct evidence that supports your Theory, & direct evidence that negates the opposite of the Theory.
(+) Eg. at 1000 B.C when the general belief was: "the Earth is Flat"; at that time "there is no or little evidence to support the round shape of the Earth ; therefore, the earth is not round" ; which turns out to be not the case.

On mountains having pegs, or roots that look like pegs, that is an exaggerated claim, the majority of Mountains have roots which do not look or act like pegs.

- Actually, the opposite of what you said is true (about the looking like pegs part).

And you should realise that it was known in the ancient times that Mountains have roots that hold them. For instance, Jonah 2:6 : To the roots of the mountains I sank down; the earth beneath barred me in forever. But you, LORD my God, brought my life up from the pit."

> Listen man, you are not being very persuasive here!
- First, you bring me a verse of the Bible, which is a Scripture & not 'Knowledge' in ancient times! => Where is that knowledge?
- Second, the Qur'an has no quarrels with the Bible, on the contrary, it confirms it.
- Third, there is obviously no correlation between 'Roots of the Mountains' & Mountains looking like Pegs. => 'Roots' could mean anything.

And so I don't see why it is significant if the Quran compared those roots to pegs, when they don't really act or look like pegs?

- They do look like Pegs, we are intelligent people here, let's not resort to such dull tricks. 'Act like Pegs'? that's the question we've been trying to approach through this whole discussion.
- Here is an advise, augment your standards of reasoning. There are lots & lots of evidence that are consistent with the claim of the Qur'an, it's not about just one verse. So, unless you can disprove deductively or inductively a clear statement in the Qur'an, you have to falsify or at least heavily weaken all the evidence that support the claim of the Qur'an, so that, even if they are cumulated they won't amount to much.
Current Debates In Voting Period:

- The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim. Vs. @Envisage:
http://www.debate.org...

- Drawing Contest. Vs. @purpleduck:
http://www.debate.org...

"It is perfectly permissible to vote on sources without reading them" bluesteel.
YassineB
Posts: 1,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2014 1:06:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/21/2014 2:45:13 AM, Roukezian wrote:
Point of clarification, "them" in the verse refers to the disbelievers in God. "Lest it[Earth] would shake with them[Disbelievers]" . This can be deduced from the context where the Surah says in its second verse, "Haven't those disbelievers considered...". And so mountains were placed to solve that issue, according to the Qur'an, and should be a sign for disbelievers that Allah placed those so the Earth would not quake with them, when scientifically we know they actually have a very little role in doing so as opposed to the very exaggerated role (first scientific error), and were never placed there by God but formed gradually due to plate movement (second scientific error).

- First of all, the verse is NOT talking about disbelievers: "And He has set up on the earth mountains standing firm, lest it should shake with you" (16:15) [ even the other one isn't ]

- Second of all, I already made my point about your 'first scientific error'.

- Third of all, there is nothing in the Qur'an that says Mountains were not formed gradually due to tectonic drift, what gave you that impression? Instead it says: God chose to set up mountains on the Earth so that the ground wouldn't 'Tamida', whether God did it in 1 day or 1 billion day it doesn't say.

==>> The evidence you bring is the worst type of evidence, it's an Ad Hoc evidence. There are many types of evidence, the useful ones are as follows:
- Direct: sensory observation. Eg: I see fire, therefore there is fire.
- Causal: effect. Eg: I see smoke coming out of the forrest, therefore there might be fire.
- Circumstantial. Eg: I see a burned piece of wood in the forrest, therefore there might have been a fire.
- Congruent. Eg. Almost every time Jack goes into the forrest, he sets up fire. Jack went into the forrest, so there'll probably be a fire.
(... etc)
- Ad Hoc: Eg. There is burned wood in the forrest, but, it may have been brought down by an eagle, therefore there was no fire.

==>> If a verse in the Qur'an conforms with both scientific explanations & fantastic explanations, that, in NO WAY, signifies that the verse is fantastic!!! <<< & that's what you did in n"2.
Current Debates In Voting Period:

- The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim. Vs. @Envisage:
http://www.debate.org...

- Drawing Contest. Vs. @purpleduck:
http://www.debate.org...

"It is perfectly permissible to vote on sources without reading them" bluesteel.
YassineB
Posts: 1,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2014 1:38:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/21/2014 9:52:31 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
You have revealed a serious flaw with Islam in how it determines the age of earth, which it obviously cannot answer. Of course, the fact that it states "six days" and the fact a the term "day" is quite specific, even in the bible it is defined as a morning and a night.

- Exactly, the Qur'an doesn't answer the question: 'how old is the Earth?'. We muslims use Science to do such calculations.
- Also, you seem to misunderstand. 'Yawm' (Day) in Arabic means Time, not necessarily morning+night.

It would appear that double speak is the explanation for the creation of the universe according to Islam. And, while you rightly claim it is an "unimaginable process by humans" simply because it makes no sense at all, science is showing humans the creation of the universe is understandable and has nothing to do with the Islamic version.

- That's a big claim, where is you proof?
- I don't think doublespeak means what you think it means.
- I am a Scientists, & apparently you aren't, otherwise you wouldn't have made such an obvious mistake.
- Science can not have access to what is outside its methodology, it's just the way it is, by design & by definition.
- Here is a lesson, Science is base on Abduction (empirical evidence).
> Abductive Reasoning: inference that seeks to provide a Good, though not Unique, Explanation to a Fact. Or: inference that provides a Sufficient, but not necessary, Possible, Plausible, Verifiable & Simple Explanation to a given Fact. In that case, this Explanation is a Rationally Expected one. A valid argument based on Abduction can not provide a definitive Conclusion, only a rationally justifiable one.
(+) Abduction, by design, predicates the validity of the Law of Causality: It assumes that for every given fact (particular) there exists a possible sufficient explanation (general).
* Possible: as opposed to not-possible.
* Plausible: as in instinctively or reasonably Likely Explanation.
* Verifiable: as in Testable or Falsifiable.
* Simple: as opposed to complex, (not requiring additional & cumulative premises to consider).
* Sufficient Explanation: as in, if a Sufficient Explanation were indeed True, then, Ideally, it would Predict the Fact.
> There is a great number of ways to verify the veracity of a claim or statement, & "empirical evidence" is simply one of these ways. To test if a mathematical abstract statement is True or Not, we can not involve "empirical evidence". To test if a unverifiable Occurrence is Probable, we can not involve "empirical evidence". To test if a rhetorical sentence is Good, we can not involve "empirical evidence". To test the link between two particulars or two generals, we can not use "empirical evidence". <<< We other other methods of reasoning.
- The Unimaginable Process I was speaking of is the process that turns non-existence into existence, which negates the Law of Causality, & therefore invalidates Abductive Reasoning. <<< Science, by design & by definition, can not explain such a process.

Ah yes, and here we are given a full helping of Islamic propaganda, hardly a word of truth contained within. Here are some actual facts for you to ponder:
http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com...

- I don't think you even bothered to read your own link!!!! It says EXACTLY what I said. LoL.

Yes, we know Islam and your God are above all other things, that's why your religion is so dangerous to mankind.

- First of all, any God to any Religion is above all things, or else, why is he God. So, the first half of your sentence works for every Religion & not just Islam.
- Second of all, according to your Logic, every religion is dangerous to mankind, because their God is above all things.
- Third of all, you made your claim, what is the proof of correlation between Religion & Dangerous to Mankind. <<< Show me.

It keeps people in a constant state of fear using extreme threats.

- Alright, if there was really a God, wouldn't is be obvious that one would fear Him, because if one doesn't fear God, it means one is more capable than God. <<< Absurd.
=> So, if someone believes in God, & doesn't fear God, then he is an irrational idiot. Same can be said about Love instead of fear.

>>> you don"t seem very scientific to me & obviously you don't know the Scientific Methodology & don't know Philosophy, you can"t even make an elementary valid argument ; plus, you barely know anything about Religion, or what religion stands for, or what it offers, heck you barely know anything. Why do you believe firmly you are in the right?!
Current Debates In Voting Period:

- The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim. Vs. @Envisage:
http://www.debate.org...

- Drawing Contest. Vs. @purpleduck:
http://www.debate.org...

"It is perfectly permissible to vote on sources without reading them" bluesteel.
Roukezian
Posts: 1,711
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2014 4:18:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/22/2014 1:38:20 AM, YassineB wrote:

Yassine, You are responding both irrationally and angrily, so I believe you have yourself realized that the Qur'an is wrong but suffering cognitive dissonance. I will continue this discussion although I'm very dissatisfied with your responses.

You are clearly not familiar with Arabic if you have read the verse and argued that it is addressing "you". The verses says "BIHOM" which is plural and not direct, as opposed to "BIKOM" which is plural and direct , so it is not saying "it doesn't shake with you" but saying, "it doesn't shake with them." If you don't know Arabic, please don't discuss the Qur'an with a native Arabic speaker. The surah begins with addressing "disbelievers" and then in the end of this same verse, hopes they have "guidance" in a plural manner without directly addressing them. It's the difference between saying "you people" and "they disbelievers".

It is not just a scientific theory that the Earth's crust is much thicker and that mountains are just little wrinkles on its face, or that mountains are on plates floating on magma and that those wrinkles are very small and insignificant to prevent Earthquakes. it's all scientific facts in modern geology.


I don't even require a study to show that mountains don't considerably stop or prevent Earthquakes, as it is clear they don't from their insignificant location and weight. You will get nowhere in Science if you only follow scientific studies as some things are so obvious they don't need any. I don't need a scientific study to tell me that my dancing doesn't move the stars and stops the clouds from raining.

The citation SAYS that mountains "do a little bit of stabilizing" because of their weight. It doesn't say they play a great role in preventing drifting, but the contrary, so read it again. The keyword being "very little" at the start on the question if they absorb Earthquakes, and "a little bit of stabilizing" in the paragraph you cited. Although the citation is not from an Edu website, it's an email from an experts on Earth Sciences belonging to the Mad Scientists Network which is very credible institution that has many scientists with doctorates. Your dismissal of it is ludicrous at best .

There is no specific study on how mountains play a very minor role on Earthquakes, but it is claimed in various academic works of modern geology. For instance, in the academic paper, The Wenchuan Earthquake (May 12, 2008), Sichuan Province, China, and resulting geohazards, by Peng Cui, Xiao-Qing Chen, Ying-Yan Zhu, Feng-Huan Su,
Fang-Qiang Wei, Yong-Shun Han, Hong-Jiang Liu and Jian-Qi Zhuang, we understand that Earthquake prevention techniques should be applied in mountainous regions, as naturally there is nothing to prevent them, as it goes in explaining what the crust and mountains really are in significance to the moving plates.

In summary, you didn't give me any good or reasonable response. You simply denied the words of two modern geologists, denied modern geology and tried to play word-games I have warned about. And you so far haven't submitted any scientific evidence that Earthquakes stop the mountain from shaking, but assumed it is true on no basis at all but a biased and ludicrous denial of overwhelming evidence in modern geology. Moreover, you think that mountain roots look like pegs, this is atrociously ignorant, they're nothing like pegs and don't act like pegs. I have yet to see any evidence that they look or act like pegs.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,580
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2014 8:17:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/22/2014 1:38:20 AM, YassineB wrote:
- Also, you seem to misunderstand. 'Yawm' (Day) in Arabic means Time, not necessarily morning+night.

Then, the Quran is useless as a reference.

It would appear that double speak is the explanation for the creation of the universe according to Islam. And, while you rightly claim it is an "unimaginable process by humans" simply because it makes no sense at all, science is showing humans the creation of the universe is understandable and has nothing to do with the Islamic version.

- That's a big claim, where is you proof?

The proof is in the difference between reality and Islam.

- I don't think doublespeak means what you think it means.

Yeah, I do know.

- I am a Scientists, & apparently you aren't, otherwise you wouldn't have made such an obvious mistake.

I seriously doubt you are a scientist.

- Science can not have access to what is outside its methodology, it's just the way it is, by design & by definition.

What does the even mean? Science has access to all there is in the universe.

- Here is a lesson, Science is base on Abduction (empirical evidence).
> Abductive Reasoning: inference that seeks to provide a Good, though not Unique, Explanation to a Fact. Or: inference that provides a Sufficient, but not necessary, Possible, Plausible, Verifiable & Simple Explanation to a given Fact. In that case, this Explanation is a Rationally Expected one. A valid argument based on Abduction can not provide a definitive Conclusion, only a rationally justifiable one.
(+) Abduction, by design, predicates the validity of the Law of Causality: It assumes that for every given fact (particular) there exists a possible sufficient explanation (general).
* Possible: as opposed to not-possible.
* Plausible: as in instinctively or reasonably Likely Explanation.
* Verifiable: as in Testable or Falsifiable.
* Simple: as opposed to complex, (not requiring additional & cumulative premises to consider).
* Sufficient Explanation: as in, if a Sufficient Explanation were indeed True, then, Ideally, it would Predict the Fact.
> There is a great number of ways to verify the veracity of a claim or statement, & "empirical evidence" is simply one of these ways. To test if a mathematical abstract statement is True or Not, we can not involve "empirical evidence". To test if a unverifiable Occurrence is Probable, we can not involve "empirical evidence". To test if a rhetorical sentence is Good, we can not involve "empirical evidence". To test the link between two particulars or two generals, we can not use "empirical evidence". <<< We other other methods of reasoning.
- The Unimaginable Process I was speaking of is the process that turns non-existence into existence, which negates the Law of Causality, & therefore invalidates Abductive Reasoning. <<< Science, by design & by definition, can not explain such a process.

Sorry, but science has every capacity to understand that process. How does that process negate the Law of Causality?

Ah yes, and here we are given a full helping of Islamic propaganda, hardly a word of truth contained within. Here are some actual facts for you to ponder:
http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com...

- I don't think you even bothered to read your own link!!!! It says EXACTLY what I said. LoL.

No, it doesn't.

Yes, we know Islam and your God are above all other things, that's why your religion is so dangerous to mankind.

- First of all, any God to any Religion is above all things, or else, why is he God. So, the first half of your sentence works for every Religion & not just Islam.

That is why your religion and the others that place their imaginary gods above all else are so dangerous to mankind.

- Second of all, according to your Logic, every religion is dangerous to mankind, because their God is above all things.
- Third of all, you made your claim, what is the proof of correlation between Religion & Dangerous to Mankind. <<< Show me.

Simple, because humans come second to imaginary gods. History is replete with countless examples of the atrocities caused by your religion and others as a result.


It keeps people in a constant state of fear using extreme threats.

- Alright, if there was really a God, wouldn't is be obvious that one would fear Him, because if one doesn't fear God, it means one is more capable than God. <<< Absurd.
=> So, if someone believes in God, & doesn't fear God, then he is an irrational idiot. Same can be said about Love instead of fear.

Sorry, but there is huge difference between love and fear. And no, one is not an irrational idiot because they don't fear a god.

>>> you don"t seem very scientific to me & obviously you don't know the Scientific Methodology & don't know Philosophy, you can"t even make an elementary valid argument ; plus, you barely know anything about Religion, or what religion stands for, or what it offers, heck you barely know anything. Why do you believe firmly you are in the right?!

Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
YassineB
Posts: 1,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2014 8:37:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/22/2014 4:18:46 PM, Roukezian wrote:
Yassine, You are responding both irrationally and angrily, so I believe you have yourself realized that the Qur'an is wrong but suffering cognitive dissonance. I will continue this discussion although I'm very dissatisfied with your responses.

- Not at all, I am not angry. I am just not impressed. :)
- If you are used to convince others with pity arguments, you have to try harder. It's not me who's making claims, it's you. & if you want me to believe your claims, don't expect me to do so without proof.

You are clearly not familiar with Arabic if you have read the verse and argued that it is addressing "you". The verses says "BIHOM" which is plural and not direct, as opposed to "BIKOM" which is plural and direct , so it is not saying "it doesn't shake with you" but saying, "it doesn't shake with them." If you don't know Arabic, please don't discuss the Qur'an with a native Arabic speaker. The surah begins with addressing "disbelievers" and then in the end of this same verse, hopes they have "guidance" in a plural manner without directly addressing them. It's the difference between saying "you people" and "they disbelievers".

- One: you have no authority & no license to interpret the Qur'an, & therefore everything you've got to say about the meaning of the verse is by principal irrelevant.
- There are three verses:
"And He has set up on the earth mountains standing firm, lest it should shake with you" (16:15)
"And We have set on the earth mountains standing firm, lest it should shake with them" (21:31)
"He set on the earth mountains standing firm, lest it should shake with you" (31:10)
=> That's a sign you haven't done your homework right!

It is not just a scientific theory that the Earth's crust is much thicker and that mountains are just little wrinkles on its face, or that mountains are on plates floating on magma and that those wrinkles are very small and insignificant to prevent Earthquakes. it's all scientific facts in modern geology.


- What exactly do you mean by: insignificant , & prevent ?

I don't even require a study to show that mountains don't considerably stop or prevent Earthquakes, as it is clear they don't from their insignificant location and weight. You will get nowhere in Science if you only follow scientific studies as some things are so obvious they don't need any. I don't need a scientific study to tell me that my dancing doesn't move the stars and stops the clouds from raining.

- So you are ready to speculate on a Natural Phenomenon with no proper examination & experimentation. I get it, you are not a scientist, & probably not a rational person. But, you just can't extend your low standards to mine.
- You don't need a scientific study to tell you the Sun will rise from the east tomorrow. Because, such things are inductively deduced.
- In a realm where pure induction doesn't work, you can't speculate on the results with the same attitude. You have to make Hypothesises, verify them & see if they go with the made observations ; & then if there is consistency between the a Hypothesis & Observations, you conclude on favour of the Hypothesis.

The citation SAYS that mountains "do a little bit of stabilising" because of their weight. It doesn't say they play a great role in preventing drifting, but the contrary, so read it again. The keyword being "very little" at the start on the question if they absorb Earthquakes, and "a little bit of stabilizing" in the paragraph you cited. Although the citation is not from an Edu website, it's an email from an experts on Earth Sciences belonging to the Mad Scientists Network which is very credible institution that has many scientists with doctorates. Your dismissal of it is ludicrous at best .

- It says: "The COLLISIONS do stabilise the drift of the plates". <<< You can't get clearer than that.
- It also says: "the crust can be said to be floating on the mantle beneath. But the weight of the mountain is negligible compared to both the crust beneath it and the convection forces of rising magma from depths that far exceed the crust's thickness." => From what I understand, the crust slides under the mountains due to their light weight & thus full scale drifting is prevented.
- You are too focused on 'Earthquake', you are not even considering the other possible meanings.
- Are you saying my dismissal of an email from an unknown person to me about a scientific theory is ludicrous?! You must have high tolerance for gullibility.

There is no specific study on how mountains play a very minor role on Earthquakes, but it is claimed in various academic works of modern geology. For instance, in the academic paper, The Wenchuan Earthquake (May 12, 2008), Sichuan Province, China, and resulting geohazards, by Peng Cui, Xiao-Qing Chen, Ying-Yan Zhu, Feng-Huan Su,
Fang-Qiang Wei, Yong-Shun Han, Hong-Jiang Liu and Jian-Qi Zhuang, we understand that Earthquake prevention techniques should be applied in mountainous regions, as naturally there is nothing to prevent them, as it goes in explaining what the crust and mountains really are in significance to the moving plates.

- Mr. Roukezian, your persuasive power just declined exponentially. There is nothing in that paper remotely related to your conclusion. (or maybe I read the wrong one).
- I am not a fool. I am an actual scientist, you have to understand that: No proof, No argument.
- Now let me ask you: why are you putting so much faith in so little science?

In summary, you didn't give me any good or reasonable response. You simply denied the words of two modern geologists, denied modern geology and tried to play word-games I have warned about.

- Your 'geologists' haven't said anything conclusive, there was nothing to be denied in the first place.
- 'denied modern geology'!! <<< that's a false & amateurish generalisation.
- 'play word games'!!! You mean: suggesting other meanings for the word Tamida based on Authoritative Tafsir!

And you so far haven't submitted any scientific evidence that Earthquakes stop the mountain from shaking, but assumed it is true on no basis at all but a biased and ludicrous denial of overwhelming evidence in modern geology. Moreover, you think that mountain roots look like pegs, this is atrociously ignorant, they're nothing like pegs and don't act like pegs. I have yet to see any evidence that they look or act like pegs.

- There is NO overwhelming evidence, you saying it over & over doesn't make it any more True. Provide me with this overwhelming evidence, please.
- Why would I submit any evidence, I am not making any Claims, & I am not assuming any Truths.
- They look like pegs in the sense that they have roots that penetrate deep into the earth's mantle, due to gravity. The continental crust is much thicker in mountain regions than in all else.
- Also, lack of evidence doesn't mean unlikelihood, it means inconclusiveness.

- If you are serious about having a serious debate, then bring me proper authentic arguments, so that we can move forward. If you keep bringing me approximative & speculative arguments, I am afraid we can't get past that.
Current Debates In Voting Period:

- The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim. Vs. @Envisage:
http://www.debate.org...

- Drawing Contest. Vs. @purpleduck:
http://www.debate.org...

"It is perfectly permissible to vote on sources without reading them" bluesteel.
YassineB
Posts: 1,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2014 9:04:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/22/2014 8:17:27 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
Then, the Quran is useless as a reference.

- Point?

The proof is in the difference between reality and Islam.

- Which difference is that?

I seriously doubt you are a scientist.

- You have every right to. It's not like you know me or anything.

What does the even mean? Science has access to all there is in the universe.

- NO! science has access to what can be empirically falsified. Science doesn't have access to Mathematics, or Logic, or Metaphysics, or Aesthetics, or Ethics, or Abstract Universals, or Judgements, or Testimonies...
- The condition of the Scientific Method is that Hypothesis have to be empirically Verifiable, or else they are of no use.

Sorry, but science has every capacity to understand that process. How does that process negate the Law of Causality?

- Law of Causality: for every Event A , there is a necessary Event B , such that if B then A.
> Consider Event A : "coming into existence".
> Before A there was no existence, & therefore, there was no Event.
> So, there is no Event B , such that if B then A.
=> The Law of Causality is invalid.
=> & since Abductive Reasoning presupposes the Law of Causality, it is thus, in that case, invalidated.
=> Science can not possibly explain such a Phenomenon.

No, it doesn't.

- One of us must either be blind or lying.
- Show me where it doesn't.

That is why your religion and the others that place their imaginary gods above all else are so dangerous to mankind.

- I can't see the 'Why'!!
- What does That refer to?

Simple, because humans come second to imaginary gods. History is replete with countless examples of the atrocities caused by your religion and others as a result.

- How about you stop making claims, & start arguing with proofs & evidence. Then we'll have a proper discussion.

Sorry, but there is huge difference between love and fear. And no, one is not an irrational idiot because they don't fear a god.

- Yeah, what huge difference? & why is that?

Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.

- I have studied Logic & Philosophy & Theology & Islamic Law, & my field is Theoretical Physics. & yet, I don't assume I am right, I could be wrong, that's why I keep learning. But at least I have the rational tools to verify & judge Truth. If you don't know Logic, Philosophy, Science... you are just sheep, & you don't deserve to be called rational.
Current Debates In Voting Period:

- The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim. Vs. @Envisage:
http://www.debate.org...

- Drawing Contest. Vs. @purpleduck:
http://www.debate.org...

"It is perfectly permissible to vote on sources without reading them" bluesteel.
Roukezian
Posts: 1,711
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2014 9:14:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/22/2014 8:37:47 PM, YassineB wrote:

I am sorry, it is you who is not being impressive. I have cited many scientific studies, even when i don't need to, and you still can't get yourself to admit that the Qur'an is demolished.

1- You misquote the text showing a lack of understanding. It says "COLLISIONS" between plates lead to stabilization. Not "MOUNTAINS" which are small wrinkles on the plates. You yourself refuted the Qur'anic verse. Good job.

2- In your twisted logic, if there is no specific scientific study about something, then you can't call it a scientific error. So basically, claiming that I can change the course of the winds with my armpits is not a scientific error, because that argument is speculative. "Where is the scientific study that says that I can't change that? Huh? " You don't understand Science. Even without specific studies, we can deduce things from other studies not directly related, and call something that contradicts those, a scientific error.

3- My argument is as follows:

P!- Mountains are small wrinkles with insignificant weight laying on thick plates of the Earth's crust that float on magma. [Scientific Fact] [Cited by the Geologists I referenced].

P2- Earthquakes are caused by the collisions of those thick plates of the Earth's Crust that float on magma. [Scientific Fact] [Cited by the Geologists I referenced].

P3- Due to this insignificant weight and size of the mountains, which are mere wrinkles, it is not possible for them to prevent or lessen an Earthquake or stabilize the crust, what stabilizes the crust is actually the craton kneels which are far below the mountain roots.. [Jordan, T. H., Nature, 1978, 274, 544"548; Elasser, W. M., in The Application of Modern Physics to Earth and Planetary Interiors (ed. Runcorn, S. K.), Interscience, New York, 1969, pp. 223" 240; Morgan, W. J., J. Geophys. Res., 1968, 73, 1959"1970].


P4- The Qur'anic verse says God placed the Mountains so that the Earth doesn't shake in verse 21:31. [Fact]

Conclusion: The Qur'an commits a scientific error as mountains don't have this significant role, and a planet of flatlands without any mountains wouldn't be shaking.

Thanks for your time,
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,580
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2014 9:17:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/22/2014 9:04:41 PM, YassineB wrote:
I have the rational tools to verify & judge Truth. If you don't know Logic, Philosophy, Science... you are just sheep, & you don't deserve to be called rational.

Baaaaaa.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Posts: 2,744
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2014 9:20:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
What about the part where the Quran or Koran ......the Muslim book......says Muslims are supposed to kill Jews and Christians like they are doing now in many places in various countries......Like ISIS beheading four children in front of their parents because they said they always have and always will love Jesus? What aobut that part of the Islamic narrative? Islam is peace after there are no more Jews and Christians to murder?

and compare that with the narrative of Jesus who taught, "love your enemies,.......",
and "do good unto all men......"........and "go into all the world and preach the gospel (the good news from God of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ who is God who died for the sins of the world to prove God's love for all mankind and His desire to make peace with them through the blood of His cross?
YassineB
Posts: 1,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2014 9:21:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/22/2014 9:17:27 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 12/22/2014 9:04:41 PM, YassineB wrote:
I have the rational tools to verify & judge Truth. If you don't know Logic, Philosophy, Science... you are just sheep, & you don't deserve to be called rational.

Baaaaaa.

- Hahahahhahahahahahahahah. LoL.
Current Debates In Voting Period:

- The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim. Vs. @Envisage:
http://www.debate.org...

- Drawing Contest. Vs. @purpleduck:
http://www.debate.org...

"It is perfectly permissible to vote on sources without reading them" bluesteel.
Roukezian
Posts: 1,711
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2014 9:33:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Anyhow, if you look at a diagram of the size of a mountain and the plates it resides on, and how the plates collide, it is very clear that if there is no magic, that small wrinkle can never play the vital role which the Qur'an describes as stropping the earth from shaking.

The burden of proof in the regard is not on me, but on the book that defies our common sense with such absurd scientific claims. It is like saying that my armpits change the direction of the winds, and then objecting to that being called a "scientific error" because the other person is using his common sense with some scientific papers on wind movement and what decides it, which do not explicitly say anything about how my armpits do not redirect the wind, and so I can whine about how that is not explicitly mentioned, when those papers have a more reasonable and logical explanation supported by evidence and academic papers that don't involve magic.

And then, although my statement defies common sense and logic, I can go on about how he is being very speculative and not offering powerful arguments, when he actually is, as I'm saying absurd things and he is seeing clearly that they don't go along with the geographical model which Modern Geology describes.

It seems to me this discussion was more of lawyering than a seeking of truth, which is why I barely join such discussions, they only are good in the long run to the other person, but never on the short one where he is so convinced of something that he wouldn't shift perspectives but hold on to his absurdity until his fingers break.
YassineB
Posts: 1,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2014 11:15:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/22/2014 9:14:57 PM, Roukezian wrote:
I am sorry, it is you who is not being impressive.

- Why would I try to impress you, I am not trying to convince you of anything.

I have cited many scientific studies, even when i don't need to, and you still can't get yourself to admit that the Qur'an is demolished.

- Where are those studies, am I blind or something!?

1- You misquote the text showing a lack of understanding. It says "COLLISIONS" between plates lead to stabilisation. Not "MOUNTAINS" which are small wrinkles on the plates. You yourself refuted the Qur'anic verse. Good job.

- Collision leads to Stabilisation, because the impact of the plates is morphed into MOUNTAINS. Ergo, building Mountains are the phenomenon behind this Stabilisation ; because otherwise, the plates would be pushing each-other to no end, & we'll end up with god knows what.

2- In your twisted logic, if there is no specific scientific study about something, then you can't call it a scientific error.

- I did not say that, you deduced that on your own.

So basically, claiming that I can change the course of the winds with my armpits is not a scientific error, because that argument is speculative. "Where is the scientific study that says that I can't change that? Huh? " You don't understand Science. Even without specific studies, we can deduce things from other studies not directly related, and call something that contradicts those, a scientific error.

- So, you wanna make an Analogy between: "armpit movements influence insignificantly the wind." & "mountains stabilise insignificantly the earth's crust" >>> By all means, but you have to justify it.
- Yes? What other studies?

3- My argument is as follows:

P!- Mountains are small wrinkles with insignificant weight laying on thick plates of the Earth's crust that float on magma. [Scientific Fact] [Cited by the Geologists I referenced].

- Evidently.

P2- Earthquakes are caused by the collisions of those thick plates of the Earth's Crust that float on magma. [Scientific Fact] [Cited by the Geologists I referenced].

- Of course.

P3- Due to this insignificant weight and size of the mountains, which are mere wrinkles, it is not possible for them to prevent or lessen an Earthquake or stabilise the crust, what stabilises the crust is actually the craton kneels which are far below the mountain roots.. [Jordan, T. H., Nature, 1978, 274, 544"548; Elasser, W. M., in The Application of Modern Physics to Earth and Planetary Interiors (ed. Runcorn, S. K.), Interscience, New York, 1969, pp. 223" 240; Morgan, W. J., J. Geophys. Res., 1968, 73, 1959"1970].


- I wound't say it like that. But the collision zones are home to focused earthquakes. Which begs the following question: if there were no mountains, meaning: if there were no collision zones, how would the relationship crust/mantle go?

P4- The Qur'anic verse says God placed the Mountains so that the Earth doesn't shake in verse 21:31. [Fact]

- That's just one interpretation of it, it's not a Fact. It could also mean: shift, drift, sway, slide...

Conclusion: The Qur'an commits a scientific error as mountains don't have this significant role, and a planet of flatlands without any mountains wouldn't be shaking.

- "a planet of flatlands without any mountains wouldn't be shaking." I very much doubt that. Take Venus for example, it has one plate quasi-uniformly spread, & look how that turned out.

- You are trying to make an Ad Hoc Argument, that's why you & I aren't seeing eye to eye, let me elaborate:
> You suppose that the Qur'an states: "Mountains are responsible for stabilising the Earth's crust from Earthquakes".
> You go on & find ways to say: "According to science, Mountains play a small role in stabilising the Earth's crust from Earthquakes"
> You conclude: "The Qur'an is thus committing a scientific error"

- Now, let's suppose you are right: Mountains do play a small role in stabilising the Earth's crust from Earthquakes.
=> & so, if the Qur'an states: "Mountains are responsible for stabilising the Earth's crust from Earthquakes" then it's in the wrong.
=> Turns out, the verse in the Qur'an could mean other than stabilising the Earth's crust from Earthquakes. & thus, You still have to deal with the other meanings the word Tamida could've meant. Or else, you can't conclude on the error of the Qur'an.

- Furthermore, suppose you are even right about the meaning of the verse, that is to say: stabilising the Earth's crust from Earthquakes.
=> The Qur'an doesn't technically say the Mountains stabilise the Earth's crust from Earthquakes. It rather says, Mountains are set on the Earth with the Objective of stabilising the Earth's crust from Earthquakes, which is clear from the word 'An' (Harf Ta'lil = for Purpose & Objective). That is to say, the whole idea of Mountains is to allow for a more stable Earth's crust.
=> So, suppose there were no Mountains, meaning: no mountain building process, meaning: no plate tectonics. <<< What do you imagine is gonna happen?
==>> Point Being: the Design of Mountain Building & Plate Tectonics is to serve the purpose of more stable Earth's curst. As we know, there is no other planet or satellite that have plate tectonics in our Solar System! <<< Now, How stable do you think these planets are?

==>> Conclusion: even we admit the validity of your argument it's still not conclusive. On the other hand, the Mountains verse is not the only proof for the validity of the Qur'an, having inconclusive doubt about on proof, doesn't negate the rest.

Thanks for your time,

- You have been most patient. Kudos to you. ;)
Current Debates In Voting Period:

- The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim. Vs. @Envisage:
http://www.debate.org...

- Drawing Contest. Vs. @purpleduck:
http://www.debate.org...

"It is perfectly permissible to vote on sources without reading them" bluesteel.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,580
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2014 11:23:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/22/2014 11:15:11 PM, YassineB wrote:
==>> Conclusion: even we admit the validity of your argument it's still not conclusive. On the other hand, the Mountains verse is not the only proof for the validity of the Qur'an, having inconclusive doubt about on proof, doesn't negate the rest.

You could be correct about that, however there are few if any documents, manuals, scopes, etc. written with the intent of having anything invalid contained within it, even if that one thing may not invalidate the entire piece.

Usually, there is a correction when new evidence is presented, no so with the Quran.

And, of course, when the inconsistencies such as the one above are revealed time and again throughout the article, we can start to conclude the entire validity must come into question.

Again, not so with the Quran.]

Curious book, the Quran, somewhat... teflonic.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
YassineB
Posts: 1,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2014 11:40:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/22/2014 9:20:08 PM, LifeMeansGodIsGood wrote:
What about the part where the Quran or Koran ......the Muslim book......says Muslims are supposed to kill Jews and Christians like they are doing now in many places in various countries......Like ISIS beheading four children in front of their parents because they said they always have and always will love Jesus? What aobut that part of the Islamic narrative? Islam is peace after there are no more Jews and Christians to murder?

- There are no such parts. Show them to me.
- ISIS are insane criminals & terrorists killing MUSLIMS. Just because they claim to be muslim, then Islam must be responsible for their action?! In that case, everyone who claims to belong to a denomination is a representative of the Values & Laws of the denomination.
> So, the actions of any Christian or Atheist represent the values of their respective denominations. > Or, if americans rape & torture Iraqis, then rape & torture must be the Values of the U.S.. <<< That's an absurd & stupid generalisation.

and compare that with the narrative of Jesus who taught, "love your enemies,......."

- We believe in Jesus (pbuh) too, & we have more than 400 sayings of his in our books of Hadith, which one of them is: "love - in humanity - your enemy".
- Muhammad (pbuh) said: "The merciful are shown mercy by The Most Merciful. Be merciful on the earth, and you will be shown mercy from Who is above the heavens." [^at-Tarmidhi #1429]
- "Allah does not forbid you to deal justly and kindly with those who fought not against you on account of religion and did not drive you out of your homes. Verily, Allah loves those who deal with equity." (60:8)

- "go into all the world and preach the gospel (the good news from God of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ who is God who died for the sins of the world to prove God's love for all mankind and His desire to make peace with them through the blood of His cross?

- Yes, agreeable words, unfortunately not supported by Reality or History. Now, why is that?
- "Invite (all) to the Way of your Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious" (16:125).
- "O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that you may know each other (not that you may despise (each other). Verily the most honoured of you in the sight of Allah is (he who is) the most pious of you." (49:13)
Current Debates In Voting Period:

- The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim. Vs. @Envisage:
http://www.debate.org...

- Drawing Contest. Vs. @purpleduck:
http://www.debate.org...

"It is perfectly permissible to vote on sources without reading them" bluesteel.
YassineB
Posts: 1,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2014 11:53:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/22/2014 11:23:53 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 12/22/2014 11:15:11 PM, YassineB wrote:
==>> Conclusion: even we admit the validity of your argument it's still not conclusive. On the other hand, the Mountains verse is not the only proof for the validity of the Qur'an, having inconclusive doubt about on proof, doesn't negate the rest.

You could be correct about that, however there are few if any documents, manuals, scopes, etc. written with the intent of having anything invalid contained within it, even if that one thing may not invalidate the entire piece.

- You are right. The Qur'an asserts itself to be True, & so if one verse in the Qur'an turned out to be not True, the assertion of Truth is invalidated.

Usually, there is a correction when new evidence is presented, no so with the Quran.

- There is correlation. The problem is with the Evidence, in the sense that there are no conclusive evidence, at most they are circumstantial.

And, of course, when the inconsistencies such as the one above are revealed time and again throughout the article, we can start to conclude the entire validity must come into question.

- You'd be right, if there was indeed inconsistency. The example above is not an inconsistency, it'a an -invalid- Ad Hoc argument, that tries to falsify one possible interpretation of the verse & conclude on the veracity of the verse itself, without accounting for the other interpretations.
=> In our case, 'Tamida' in the verse can mean: Shake, or Slide, or Shift, or Drift, or Sway... My opponent's argument tried to falsify the meaning of Shake, & concluded on the verse without exhausting the other meanings.

Again, not so with the Quran.

- Not True.

Curious book, the Quran, somewhat... teflonic.

- You think so? Bring me arguments that support your position against the Qur'an. We all can make baseless claims, the feat is to support our claims.
Current Debates In Voting Period:

- The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim. Vs. @Envisage:
http://www.debate.org...

- Drawing Contest. Vs. @purpleduck:
http://www.debate.org...

"It is perfectly permissible to vote on sources without reading them" bluesteel.