Do you believe in God?

[Famine]

The Quran describes very precisely what is happening during the act of the formation of the baby in the embryo.

If it does that, it doesn't do it in the passage you quoted...

14. Then We made the Nutfah into a clot (a piece of thick coagulated blood), then We made the clot into a little lump of flesh, then We made out of that little lump of flesh bones, then We clothed the bones with flesh, and then We brought it forth as another creation. So blessed be Allah, the Best of creators.

 

[DK]

Yes, but that's the trick. It's too ridiculous to say it this way, so you stop using it completely.

Maybe I could use "oh my God" to describe something unbelievable? 💡

 

[CodeName]

Seriously read a little more....

...second link and less than two minutes scan reading to find a lot more than you have just stated as if it were fact. Rather he claimed the exact opposite, being the source of Epigenesis which refutes Preformationism, and as such the source of embryology.

Oh and read some more

None of which gets away from the point that I made earlier and you have (not surprisingly) ignored..../QUOTE]

I already know about embryology, but anyway, thanks. The text you wrote or added is only talking about the heart and his importance, it's only saying that the heart, during the creation, is the center of every organs. But this, I think that we knew since long time the importance of the heart in the body, so he's only making theorie there. Again, the Quran is saying much more than what you think.

 

[Famine]

I already know about embryology, but anyway, thanks. The text you wrote or added is only talking about the heart and his importance, it's only saying that the heart, during the creation, is the center of every organs. But this, I think that we knew since long time the importance of the heart in the body, so he's only making theorie there. Again, the Quran is saying much more than what you think.

The Qu'ran gets it wrong. More importantly it gets it exactly as wrong as you would expect for the time and for a culture whose best source at the time for human prenatal development is an Arabic translation of Aristotle's much earlier works.

 

[CodeName]

The Qu'ran gets it wrong. More importantly it gets it exactly as wrong as you would expect for the time and for a culture whose best source at the time for human prenatal development is an Arabic translation of Aristotle's much earlier works.

What is wrong with the Quran? Even Jeith L.Moore accepted Islam because of these verses. Aristotle said nothing that advanced science, he's only making theorie. Quran describes very precisely. Now think by yourself.
Maybe you want more miracles?

 

[Liquid]

Aristotle said nothing that advanced science, he's only making theorie. Quran describes very precisely.

Whatever Aristotle said, the Quran simply said the same thing, just in a different language and is treasured so much that it leads to the arrogant pretense of divine righteousness.

Maybe you want more miracles?

Even one would be a start. From any god from any religion.

Hint: Something unexplained isn't automatically a miracle.

 

[ScouserInExile]

What is wrong with the Quran? Even Jeith L.Moore accepted Islam because of these verses. Aristotle said nothing that advanced science, he's only making theorie. Quran describes very precisely. Now think by yourself.
Maybe you want more miracles?

I vaguely remember reading about the Keith Moore thing, granted in a story that had a clear anti religion stance. But the gist of what it said was that Keith Moore said these things while in a Muslim country, while being funded by an Islamic university and what he said has been widely debunked by embryologists. Not only that, but when he was asked to comment on what he said more recently, he refused to say anything which, to me, would imply that he doesn't agree with what he said anymore, but saying as much would draw a lot of negative attention.

 

[ScouserInExile]

Anyway, I can't believe we are still seriously debating the existence of some mysterious being who is always there and knows everything about everything, ever but they only communicate via occasionally cryptic texts. Does anyone seriously believe such a being exists? Really?

Next thing, you'll be trying to tell me these texts are only ever written in purple...

 

[nealcropper]

Next thing, you'll be trying to tell me these texts are only ever written in purple...

Is Lumis hanging around here???

 

[Luminis]

Is Lumis hanging around here???

Actually yes Kinda wanted to post something, so I take this as a sign to do so.

Ahem.

Now, as some of you might now, my stance as to whether or not god exist (or rather, whether I believe in him or not) is pretty clear. I don't. Never did, never will - and, frankly, I can't. The whole concept contrasts my rather matter-of-fact philosophy of life. You may also know that I'm quite negative towards religion itself, as I perceive it as a tool to funnel power to a selected few people that has been abused time and time again over the course of mankind's history.

Today, though, I've got to admit that there's quite a positive side to it - something that I failed to acknowledge for quite some time.

It's astonishing to see how much strength my grandmother derives from her believes. She's pretty much the prototype catholic cristian, I suppose. Not as fixated on the church, but mostly on the values that come with it. Her believe in god and that there's a greater plan for all us, alongside the firm believe in an afterlife, a better place for the deceased to go to, a chance to see our beloved ones again - that is what gives her the strength to bear the early loss of her daugher. Not only that, but also the strength to still comfort those that lack that sort of faith. Namely, myself.

While I, myself, can't possibly start believing in all of that, I'm glad that religion exists - even if only for my grandmather to source all that strenght from it. Which then means I might have to re-think my very negative attitude to all kinds of religions.

 

[Famine]

What is wrong with the Quran?

It fails to describe the sequence with present day accuracy - assuming that systems develop in a sequence rather than codevelopment.

Even Jeith L.Moore accepted Islam because of these verses.

Whoever that is.

Aristotle said nothing that advanced science, he's only making theorie.

A theory that advanced science...

Quran describes very precisely.

And wrongly.

Now think by yourself.

Repeatedly saying something that is incorrect and ending it with "think by yourself" doesn't make it correct. In fact were you thinking by yourself and not blindly accepting the demonstrably incorrect statements posted on heavily biased websites with the aim of trying to divert non-critical thinkers into believing the translations of words printed in the Qu'ran accurately reflect reality rather than the thinking of the time, you wouldn't even be posting this drivel.

Maybe you want more miracles?

Folk who want to look for miracles find them everywhere. It's a lot harder for them to find reality.

 

[Scaff]

I already know about embryology, but anyway, thanks.

Your posting seems to suggest otherwise, to quite some degree.

The text you wrote or added is only talking about the heart and his importance, it's only saying that the heart, during the creation, is the center of every organs. But this, I think that we knew since long time the importance of the heart in the body, so he's only making theorie there.

The text I quoted is a small part of a rather sizable text on the subject, and goes into a lot more detail that just that section. That section does however clearly illustrate that you were utterly wrong when you claimed that it supported Preformationism.

I would also like you to explain, if its so blindingly obvious, why he was the very first person to ever write on the subject of Epigenesis and is regarded as the father of embryology?

Also if its so blindingly obvious that kind of makes a bit odd that when the Koran goes into a lot less detail (and borrows rather heavily from his text) its all of a sudden a miracle.

Oh and you still have to explain why its a miracle anyway, given that cutting dead people up, having a look and referencing Aristotle's text was all you needed to do.

Once again this (just like the Ocean) is claimed as a miracle because people want it to be.

Again, the Quran is saying much more than what you think.

Citation required, because if what you've posted so far is all you have then no it doesn't.

 

[Super Novi]

Repeatedly saying something that is incorrect and ending it with "think by yourself" doesn't make it correct.

Gee, maybe that's because it's an opinion. Everyone needs to stop shoving facts along with their opinions just to attempt to make them "correct". Its that simple.

 

[DQuaN]

No there are Facts, and there are Opinions. These two are not interchangeable. I could be of the opinion that gravity is caused by the wind. If I was, someone would undoubtedly shove the fact down my opinionated throat.

 

[Encyclopedia]

Gee, maybe that's because it's an opinion. Everyone needs to stop shoving facts along with their opinions just to attempt to make them "correct". Its that simple.

Yeah because backing up claims and/or opinions with facts is so wrong isn't it?

 

[Scaff]

Gee, maybe that's because it's an opinion. Everyone needs to stop shoving facts along with their opinions just to attempt to make them "correct". Its that simple.

If something is stated as a fact (this is a miracle because of x, y, z) then it needs to be corroborated. If something is presented as an opinion then it doesn't.

It was claimed that the Koran was the first document to detail embryology and that in doing so it was a miracle, as claims of fact then need to be proven, and should any evidence to refute them as fact exist then it can be presented as well.

This is how discussions work.

 

[Famine]

Gee, maybe that's because it's an opinion. Everyone needs to stop shoving facts along with their opinions just to attempt to make them "correct". Its that simple.

Saying that the Qu'ran is (miraculously) the first source to precisely cover the embryological pathway isn't a statement of opinion - it's a statement of fact.

However, even if it were stated as an opinion, it's an opinion based on facts - that it is the first source to cover it and that it covers it precisely, constituting a miracle.

These facts are incorrect - and demonstrably so. It is neither the first source to adopt the epigenesis model of embryology (for which we have Aristotle to thank, some 700 years previously, in a work known to the Arabic scholars of the time through translation) nor correct in its description of the pathway (it assumes organ development by set, whereas the reality is codevelopment).

This annuls the statement as fact and it calls into question any opinion on the basis of the false facts - which should be modified as a result. Clinging to the original opinion or the opinion that the original facts are correct but adding "think by yourself" doesn't make the original facts any less wrong.


Let me draw a parallel.
"I like the Bugatti Veyron" - Opinion.
"The Bugatti Veyron is the fastest car in the world" - Fact (and an incorrect one).
"I like the Bugatti Veyron because it's the fastest car in the world" - Opinion based on incorrect fact.
"The Bugatti Veyron is the fastest car in the world. THINK BY YOURSELF" - Still an incorrect fact.

I wouldn't challenge the first of those four, but I certainly would challenge the others.

 

[CodeName]

Scaff : Aristotle was the first person to make a false THEORIE about embryology. I don't know why he's called the father of this science, I even don't know if he's really called the father of it. Quran was the first to detail the reality of embryology very precisely. If this book wasn't called the Quran, the book surely had to bee the most interesting book about embryology.

Famine : You're saying that the Quran contains something wrong. Try to find it, knowing that it is impossible, because God doesn't make mistakes. The Quran is a special book, and it start with. " here is the book where in it there is no doubt " ( sorry, crapp english ). The Quran is also a very rithmic book where there are rhymes everywhere ( I'm only talking about the Quran in arabic ). It also contains all sorts of miracles, purpose of life, very precises laws, and all others very clear and precises things. Why, do you think, this book " came out" and for which purpose.
And before posting another miracle, i just ask you to think again with the serius one, which i think you totally forgot to think about. Knowing that the firsts telescopes were created around 1600, how and who could talk about them and say that they are rotating with themselves?
Again, I only ask you finally to think by yourself.

 

[orimarc]

SYou're saying that the Quran contains something wrong. Try to find it, knowing that it is impossible, because God doesn't make mistakes.

God may not make mistakes, but the book was written by a man (unless God himself made the words suddenly appear in the paper). Humans make mistakes, and have a limited pool of knowledge (specially in pre-Internet times).

 

[arora]

I'm far from convinced that the internet has made man any smarter in the slightest

 

[Famine]

Famine : You're saying that the Quran contains something wrong. Try to find it, knowing that it is impossible, because God doesn't make mistakes.

You already found it... Because:

Quran was the first to detail the reality of embryology very precisely.

... it doesn't.

I've said it twice now, so hopefully the third will be the last time it's required. It gets the sequence of foetal development wrong as it makes the classic mistake of assuming that organ systems develop in a set pattern - but the reality is that they codevelop.

Of course we know why it gets it wrong - there were no microscopes when it was written and miscarried foetal dissection was clearly poorly advanced. The authors merely wrote the best that they could do at the time. God would have got it right.

And before posting another miracle, i just ask you to think again with the serius one, which i think you totally forgot to think about.

I think you forgot that we discussed it at length and busted that one too.

Again, I only ask you finally to think by yourself.

Something you tell us is forbidden in the Qu'ran if that independent thought ever grazes the subject of "Is the Qu'ran correct"...

Once you free yourself of that limitation, you'll be in a better position to advise people to think for themselves rather than slavishly accepting the demands of a tome.

 

[Scaff]

Scaff : Aristotle was the first person to make a false THEORIE about embryology.

Did Aristotle get it all right first time? No he didn't, but he got a damn sight more right than the Koran did and more importantly he was the very first person to theorise that embryos develop via Epigenesis rather than preformationism and he beat the Koran to it by a good few centuries.

I don't know why he's called the father of this science, I even don't know if he's really called the father of it.

Because he was the very first person to detail that embryos develop via Epigenesis, rather a big deal all told and more than enough to have basically discovered the entire field.

Quran was the first to detail the reality of embryology very precisely.

No it wasn't. Even Aristotle discussed the possibility that organs may or may not co-develop, something the Koran gets utterly wrong.

If this book wasn't called the Quran, the book surely had to bee the most interesting book about embryology.

You base that on a few lines of partially inaccurate text, rather than the entire book that Aristotle wrote on the subject.

To be honest if the Koran wasn't a holy book then it (along with the bible and Torah) would be interesting footnote in the field of ancient literature studied by a few select academic, it would certainly note be seen in the same light as Aristotle's works on Embryology.

 

[lbsf1]

Guys, we are about to enter a huge problem with religious arguements. Religious people will quote their religious text as proof, and fully believe that it is completely true.

However not religious people just see the religious text as a piece of writing, there is nothing inherently true about it in our view. Thus us trying to be convinced about anything religious simply by using religious text a proof means absolutely nothing.

The best way I have found to describe this too religious people that it is like me saying that evolution exists and that the proof for that is Darwins Origin of The Species. You won't see that as genuine proof because you don't believe the text.

 

[MarinaDiamandis]

Guys, we are about to enter a huge problem with religious arguements.

There is no problem at all, as everything is laid out clear as day.

Religious people stating their opinion is fine, right up until they state it as fact. At this point, proof must be provided (a fact is only factual if it can be proven) as per the AUP.

As Famine said before, faith cannot be proven as proof is scientific - so religious people should just be religious and not try to prove their faith through scientific method.

 

[Scaff]

Guys, we are about to enter a huge problem with religious arguements. Religious people will quote their religious text as proof, and fully believe that it is completely true.

However not religious people just see the religious text as a piece of writing, there is nothing inherently true about it in our view. Thus us trying to be convinced about anything religious simply by using religious text a proof means absolutely nothing.

The best way I have found to describe this too religious people that it is like me saying that evolution exists and that the proof for that is Darwins Origin of The Species. You won't see that as genuine proof because you don't believe the text.

One rather large problem with your analogy. "Origin" contains detailed evidence that can be subjected to the scientific method and has stood up as robust proof of Evolution. Its been subject to falsability on numerous occasions and has passed.

The Bible (and other religious texts) do not stand up to this level of scrutiny in regard to proof of God (and indeed most religious people claim that it should be exempt from the same standard).

So I have to utter disagree with the point you have made, using the Bible to try and prove God is not the same as using Origin to prove Evolution. Not that Evolution need rely on just one book as a source of proof, it has a vast bank of evidence (that is growing almost daily), yet for God we are still awaiting the first piece of valid evidence.

 

[CSLACR]

Are there any religions that don't include promise of an appeasing afterlife, aka immortality of some kind?

 

[Tesla]

Buddhism and Hinduism are the two I know of, although they both offer some kind of immortality through reincarnation I suppose.

 

[Mic_Col]

This thread, I haven't entered before. I have my own views and a big discussion on it isn't going to affect my views, also this thread being TLDR

But I've kind of got a question / observation. And seeing this thread again I figured I could put it here. There might be some interesting views on it.

Last night on TV where I live they showed Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull. It raised an issue that I've thought of before.

- spoiler alert : if you haven't seen the movie, all following text -

A key point of the movie is that the crystal skull is an alien skull and they've visited had a presence on earth etc etc.

But in the Indiana Jones world we have also seen a physical act of the power of God, with the opening of the ark of the covenent. God kills all the Nazis, well not all the Nazis, just the ones in the nearby area. Funny that.

My question or point is that I've always figured the two things to be mutually exclusive. ie that when people believe in god, they won't believe in the possibility of aliens. You'll hear people who laugh at the idea of creatures from outer space, but their view is mostly based on their belief in god.

And that anyone who doesn't believe in god would be open to the likelihood that alien life is possible. Even if they have or haven't visited earth. Drake equation and so on.

So are the two things mutually exclusive??

 

[Tesla]

I wouldn't say they're mutually exclusive. Rather, proponents of a creation myth may put forward that they weren't covered because god didn't want early humans to think that they were less special. Or they may also realize that believing in their god does not mean that they must also believe their holy book to be perfect and literally accurate in all senses.

What I'm trying to get across is that they believe in an infinitely powerful god, one who can just as easily create another species on another planet as he apparently did with ours. And assuming that they could conveniently be created after Genesis, it would excuse them from being mentioned (although this wouldn't be the first time that something exists without also being mentioned in a holy book).

 

[CodeName]

Orimarc : Quran was not written by God. God sent Jibriel ( an angel ) to teach the Quran to Muhammad ( peace be upon him ). Muhammad ( peace be upon him ) did not changed even one letter, because he and his companions ( the Sohabian ) memorized the Quran entirely and then wrote it, today, people keep memorizing it. Sometimes, God talked to him suddenly, but he was the only able to hear him, he had a little bit headache and was sweating. During it, the companions knew that God was talking to him. This is how verses of Quran appeared.

Famine : First : I'm a little bit limited with my knowledge ( I'm not as old as you ) but anyway, I know lots of things. So could you tell me the difference between develop and codevelop, in internet I find something about migrants. In my opinion, there are not a lots of differences. Anyway, the Quran doesn't use this word :
Surah 23
12. And indeed We created man out of an extract of clay (water and earth).

13. Thereafter We made him as a Nutfah (mixed drops of the male and female sexual discharge) (and lodged it) in a safe lodging.

14. Then We made the Nutfah into a clot (a piece of thick coagulated blood), then We made the clot into a little lump of flesh, then We made out of that little lump of flesh bones, then We clothed the bones with flesh, and then We brought it forth as another creation. So blessed be Allah, the Best of creators.

And, yes, we can't discuss about is the Quran correct or not, especially with the islamic religion. Because if we were able to, then we also were able to change things that we don't like, then the religion is lost. And Allah told us that this is the last book with the last prophet, and he will ensure that he will keep the book safe, and since 1400 years, nothing is changed.

Scaff : Aristotle has maybe talked about epigenesis, but has made a theorie with it, It's only after that we had the correct definition of epigenesis. The Quran has just directly described embryology.

For the others : In islam we're not able to believe in aliens because God said that he made the earth the only form of living. ( know that sometimes when God say one year, it means a lot longer time ) God has created all the world in 6 days. And the earth in 4 days. This reflects how Gos has given importance to earth. I find Drake's equation and other things ridiculous.