Muhammad sent him with an army against the Fazarah settlement. He met them in Qura and inflicted casualties on them and took Umm Qirfah prisoner. He also took one of Umm’s daughters and Abdallah bin Mas’adah prisoner. Zyad bin Harithah ordered Qays to kill Umm, and he killed her cruelly. He tied each of her legs with a rope and tied the ropes to two camels, and they split her in two.
(cont.) and cosmological argument. Hmmm. There must be more but this is the foundation. I know it is long and not too organised but the bottom line is it is actually logical and simple. The logic about 1 God is obvious without the Qur'an really but the Qur'an is the final proof which perfects religion and proves Islam. I am sorry I am not as organised as you and I do not ask you to discuss everything but just a few things about it that you don't agree with it and why. We both share the BOP.
1. Please use the reply button so that I can see what you are responding to. Otherwise it will all get mixed up.
2. Common sense is based on our day-to-day experiences. This is why it does not work when we are confronted with something that is beyond our experiences. And the beginning of the universe is far beyond our experiences.
@Jeremias1111 (cont.) Which falls faster (I think in a vacuume) a bowling ball or feather it was worked out without using either but using sense and reasoning. I assume that is how the theory of relativity is also. I agree that even though it makes sense it takes a lot of workings out to realise it and seems impossible but it does not remove basic sense from many other scientific teachings. Finally, God is extremely complex but the idea is simple so weall can all be believers if we choose.
@Jeremias1111 I am sorry I wrote so much of the same thing. It wasn't showing up on my computer. i am having computer issues... BOP = Burden of Proof. We cannot just refute the opponents arguements we need to give our own good proof. Also to answer something else... Science always chaning isn't a weakness but it does make it unreliable but Islam is the religion of Adam (pbuh) and the only changes are based upon the individual ages untill it was finally perfected with the Glorious Qur'an.
The fall of a bowling ball and a feather in a vacuum, that you bring up, is another good example to show that our common sense fails in unusual situation. Of course reason allows us to figure out gravity, Quantum Physics and what else - but then we have to use proper scientific methods so that our common sense does not get into the way.
Please have in mind that there are many different ideas of what a god is throughout history and in different cultures. Not all of those are in conflict with logic and science in the same way.
For example it is hardly possible to dismiss the idea of a deist god - a god, who does not take part in the ongoings of this universe and is not interested in human affairs. But such a god would obviously not be important for us. Still - I see no reason to believe that a deistic god exists.
I do not say that a deistic god makes more sense than the Islamic idea of a god or the Greek for that matter.
I said a deistic god is hard to disprove. A deistic god does not take part in the ongoings of the universe. Because of this we would not expect evidence for its existence. It does not make a difference in this world if such a god exists. So how would we know?
Still I do not see a reason to believe that such a god exists.
@Jeremias1111 OK, I am sure you have many a thing to say about this but we have come to a stage where I feel I must mention the Glorious Qur'an as a proof for a God who has sent a message. I ask you why is that not proof?
I have read it and I found not one statement in it that a person from the seventh century could not have made. Because of this I see no reason to believe that the quran has any kind of supernatural author.
@Jeremias1111 OK. What about where it says the heavens are expanding and says the earth and heavens are one and split apart (big bang theory), explains stories in the Bible and Torah in a way that makes sense like with Yusuf (pbuh). Where it says that he was known to have not advanced on potimers wife because then rape would have been punishable by the death penalty many know. Or how it says iron was sent down by God from the heavens, we now know it couldn't have formed in this solar system.
I know about those miracle claims and I have looked into a bunch of them. None that I encountered so far was convincing.
See the iron-miracle for example. The quran also says that prophets were sent down, the quran, even cows. We know the meaning of the phrase "sent down": Allah gave those to mankind.
In none of this cases you would take the phrase literally as prophets or cows descending from space, so why in the case of iron?
Those miracle claims seem to be driven by the desire for miracles and not by proper analysis of the quranic verses.
Such miracles are then created by taking metaphors literally (see above), by choosing the "miracleous" over other possible or even the likely translation (alaqa as leech instead of clot of blood) and even by inventing translations (the egg-shaped earth).
@Jeremias1111 The Hour (of Doomsday) has drawn near and the Moon has split. (Surat al-Qamar, 1)
The word “Moon” appears in the first verse of Surat al-Qamar. There are 1390 verses from that verse to the end of the Qur’an. The year 1390 in the Islamic calendar corresponds to 1969 AD, the date of the lunar landings. “inshakka,” meaning “split,” is used. It is derived from the word "shakka" meaning “to plow, dig up, to turn the soil..." Apollo 11 took lunar dust back to Earth.
"Sputnik 1," the first unmanned satellite, launched 1957
Surah, "an-Najm," means “Star.” The stars comprising Sirius approach one another in their courses once every 49.9 years. It's indicated in verses 49 and 9 of Surat an-Najm.
Excuse me, but what are you intending to do here? I respond to one of your miracle claims and you throw ten other at me? Having a discussion does not work that way.
For one: Do you have a response to my remarks regarding the iron-miracle? Do you agree that there is no good reason to claim a miracle there?
Second: Is there any miracle claim that you have looked into, that you have checked and that you consider the strongest case for a scientific miracle in the quran?
@Jeremias1111 I agree it is not good enough for YOU. So I will give you one good one. I just discovered myself a miracle that shocked me. The pharaoh of Moses (pbuh) says to someone he calls Haman to build a tower to look at the God of Moses (pbuh). The Christians said Haman was 1000 or so years later but with the help of the Rosetta stone using hieroglyphics have proven Haman was a title for someone in charge of I think stone or a quarry of stone. Basically how would he have known that.
It is not good enough for ME? So it is good enough for you. Why would you accept the miracle of the iron, I really would like to know. Why do you think that "sent down" is meant literally here when it is meant metaphorically in all the other cases?
Regarding Haman you say that you just discovered it. So I think you haven't had the time to check and confirm that miracle claim. Please tell me, when you have done, that so that we can discuss it in depth.
@Jeremias1111 In Ranke's dictionary of Egyptian personal names, which was prepared based on the entire collection of inscriptions, Haman is said to be the head of stone quarry workers. Now in the Qur'an (Al-Qasas 28:38). There, now you can check if you like.
The iron miracle is good enough for me but then that might be because it is one of many.
I asked you to check that miracle yourself before we discuss it. Apparently you are not willing to do that. So I point you to a video, that responds to that "miracle" in great detail: watch?v=aZWOoi-PNko
Regarding the iron miracle I asked you specifically: "Why do you think that "sent down" is meant literally here when it is meant metaphorically in all the other cases?" - Would you please answer that question?
@Jeremias1111 I watched that video and you have a point so I will change which miracle is the best for you based on lack of evidence, so instead how come Yusuf (Joseph) peace be upon him called the leader king and not pharoah? Because Jews were in charge at the time and so the leader was not pharaoh. How could it have been copying from the Bible when the Bible called him pharaoh? About iron, well it couldn't have formed in this solar system so Allah (swt) sent it down to us.
You will not find a shred of historical evidence that supports your claim that the Jews have been in charge in Egypt.
Now will you please stop pulling one miracle claim after the other out of your hat and stay with the ones brought up so far?
You still did not answer my question: "Why do you think that "sent down" is meant literally here when it is meant metaphorically in all the other cases?" What in the surah indicates that "sent down" is not meant in the same way as anywhere else?
@Jeremias1111 Think what you want of my evidence but as for iron, it was sent down in the sense that it could not have naturally have come about without God (swt.) That is how I see it. You see it could not have been from this solar system.
"Think what you want of my evidence"? You have not shown any evidence that the Jews ruled in Egypt at the time of Joseph and I guarantee that you will not be able to. So go ahead - show what you have!
Regarding the iron you do not get it. I ask you to show from the text that "sent down" is meant literally here and not metapgorically as in the case of the prophets the cows and the quran. Is there any indication for that you do you just like to understand it that way?
This solar system developed from the remnants of an exploded star. This included iron, oxygen, silicium - every element you can find on earth. These elements have not been "sent down" but the earth (as the other plantes and even the sun) formed as an agglomeration in the dust and gas cloud that once had been that star.
But this does not really matter, because you are not able to show that the quran means "sent down" literally anyway.
(cont.) and also something out of nothing and do more. He also knows, records and has power over everything. He is so unique he has NO son, and NO partners (thus no trinity) and is NOT everywhere. (first part over). Secondly God records everything and will judge us for it. Also he has sent us prophets, messengers and books and created the angels, jinns (spirits), humans. (second part over) Finally, proof is the Glorious Qur'an. All the signs in the world mentioned in it.The teleological (cont.)
How can common sense not work. It is the foundation of science... unless you think logic is not the foundation of science. Look, this is my point about God. I am sorry if I repeat. I do not believe you can answer this. This is very logical and seen as God gave us a mind to understand it it should be understandable... God is the creator... We are the creation. The creator is better than the creation. The creator is not similar to the creation i.e. the creator can create time (cont.)
Effect what is outside the Universe, thus why do we look for cause and effect when that is within our Universe and our only possiblility when God is greater than that and not in this Universe. I tried to give an example but it is not easy to do. Maybe later on I wil think of one.
You gave no proof and without it logically there is nothing forcing time to have started when the Universe did. Still it does not disprove God. 3 (I think) I made a mistake about cause and effect and was thinking of the cosmological argument. The point is God is unique in power and knowledge thus can create a world out of nothing because all power comes from him and he is eternal and unlike creation. I am gunna stop using numbers now... Also why does what is in this Universe
You gave no proof and without it logically there is nothing forcing time to have started when the Universe did. Still it does not disprove God. 3 (I think) I made a mistake about cause and effect and was thinking of the cosmological argument. The point is God is unique in power and knowledge thus can create a world out of nothing because all power comes from him and he is eternal and unlike creation. I am gunna stop using numbers now... Also why does what is in this Universe
- Please read the discussion so far. You claimed that the universe must have had a cause and therefore a god who did that must exist.
- I pointed out that you apply common sense here and that this will not work. I even showed why the idea of causality will not work with the beginning of the universe.
- You now claim that this does not disprove god.
But I never said this would disprove god. I said your attempt to prove god does not work. And I showed why.
@Jeremias1111 Only day to day? Maybe I am not using the right words in all I say... Sense is a better word then. Science has to make sense. If it didn't you simply couldn't believe it. What you are now doing is putting faith in science but you said faith means it is not true before when I mentioned it in religion including proof as well. It is like the big bang theory. Science changes in different ages but even in the 1500's some would put their faith in science and not God.
I do not know about your academic background. But see the Theory of Relativity for example. It tells you that time passes more slowly when you travel nearly as fast as light. As a result a space traveller might have aged a year and meet his twin who already is an old man. Or Quantum Physics, where something can behave as a particle and a wave at the same time.
This contradicts common sense, but science can show it to be true.
You seem to think that it is a weakness that scientific knowledge changes. But this is its strength. Science checks its theories all the time. It refines those theories or in more extreme cases it overthrows these theories. By doing so it gets step by step closer to the truth.
Faith does not work that way. As a believer you put your faith into a sacred text. You do not question it and you are not allowed to improve it, because it is called divine revelation.
@Jeremias1111 I have ot heard of the second thing but I have about the first. That is a good point. In Islam i teaches that man wont even know 1% of the mysteries of the Universe though I think. The Universe is a complex thing but it can still be harnessed on some level by man. However we must be able to understand the beginning of the Universe logically and there must be clear signs othrwise how could we be judged fairly. OK, but in science sense is also used. e.g. in the question (cont.)
@Jeremias1111 I have ot heard of the second thing but I have about the first. That is a good point. In Islam i teaches that man wont even know 1% of the mysteries of the Universe though I think. The Universe is a complex thing but it can still be harnessed on some level by man. However we must be able to understand the beginning of the Universe logically and there must be clear signs othrwise how could we be judged fairly. OK, but in science sense is also used. e.g. in the question (cont.)
@Jeremias1111 (cont.) Which falls faster (I think in a vacuume) a bowling ball or feather it was worked out without using either but using sense and reasoning. I assume that is how the theory of relativity is also. I agree that even though it makes sense it takes a lot of workings out to realise it and seems impossible but it does not remove basic sense from many other scientific teachings. Finally, God is extremely complex but the idea is simple so weall can all be believers if we choose.
@Jeremias1111 (cont.) Which falls faster (I think in a vacuume) a bowling ball or feather it was worked out without using either but using sense and reasoning. I assume that is how the theory of relativity is also. I agree that even though it makes sense it takes a lot of workings out to realise it and seems impossible but it does not remove basic sense from many other scientific teachings. Finally, God is extremely complex but the idea is simple so weall can all be believers if we choose.
The Hadiths are just the collected ramblinhgs of the inventor of this cult of Mohammedism ie. Mohammed. For a grown man to have sex with an NINE YEAR old girl digusts me and many other people. But apparently the pedo aspect of Mohammedism is being kept alive by Mogammeden perverts in the UK who have just been sentenced and jailed for grooming and sexually abusing young girls, some only children!Mohammedism the religion of peace! Don't make me laugh!!
Wow. A lot of wasted time here: Allah does not exist. Muhammad wrote the Quran. There is no need to argue about what a 7th-century Arab tyrant wrote or didn't write.
@soyabmd Muhammad said the Quran was dictated by Allah, but there is no good evidence for this. The only reasonable conclusion is that Muhammad wrote the Quran himself. So, in a way, the sayings of Muhammad and the text of the Quran are the same thing - since they come from the same man.
@alexhong100 ....... AND U dont have to read he's comment if U don't want to....Oh btw, I just wiped my ass with some pages out of your Holy Quran, great toilet paper
@alexhong100 I'm not gay, but if I was - what's wrong with being gay? You call me a fag as though something was wrong with it. Only ignorant barbaric people think being gay is immoral.
@Vincentaneous I'm from the US, yea as far as I know they are barbaric lol. We all hate gay people. I am muslim, i'm here to ruin this video experience for you like all christians do lol
@Jeremias1111 why should i care, go talk to your, barbaric- quite silly christian brethren. lol. They claim that gay people will "burn in eternal fire".
@Jeremias1111 Ur name is The name of a messenger that is known in Christianity Islam and judisim. Any way. Ur nazi ancestors did kill all gays, surely u have a trace of this.
@Jeremias1111 who said it was a "witty insult"? it's a fact. who said you're gay? If you actually read what I said, you would find out that I didn't. I don't really need to update anything. you need to update your name. Your saying your atheist, but you carry a fully religious name.
@alexhong100 Christians who hate gay people are just as stupid as anyone else who hates gay people. And most of my friends are not Christians. Christianity is a goofy belief system and belongs in the same trash heap as every other religion.
It does not matter that Allah does not exist, the belief of Muslims that the quran is the word of god is a reality. And this makes the interpetation of the quran a relevant topic.
@Jeremias1111 They weren't discussing Muslim interpretation of the Quran in strictly historical or political terms. They were arguing about it as though they really believed this stuff. That is the wasted energy I was talking about. I studied ancient history - and I wrote papers on different ideas Greeks had about their gods - but I never passionately argued about what I believed Zeus or Poseidon really meant, as though they were real. There is a difference.
u are an idiot , Muhammad PBUH was only a messenger and he conveyed the message of god to people. Well it is useless to argue over this u , u will know about it on the day of judgement who Muhammad really is.
@Vincentaneous you truely are stupid the prophet mohammed pbuh couldnt read or write so it looks ur a parrot repeating what others say without actually researching what is actaully the truth
@abuzainah1 It is stupid to be certain about what you read in ancient books without any other kind of evidence. You only think Muhammad was illiterate because it is in a bunch of old books and old stories. That doesn't mean much. Nobody knows this kind of thing for sure. You can't trust the Quran or the Hadith to be 100% accurate.
@Vincentaneous no he was illiterate yhis is a fact because 99 pecent of the people were illiterate at the time and read the cretiuqes of the prophet muhammed by orientelses which r achedemic they testefy to the fact he could not read or write
Actually there is no consensus if Mohammed was illiterate or not. Some scholars assume that he must have somewhat been able to read and write for his job as a merchant.
It does not matter anyway since he did not need to read or write to create the quran.
@Jeremias1111 just because some people say that for his job he had to of known how to read or writie is stupid how many people america r illitatre certain people say over 50 percent bur they still can count money all that the prophet mohamme dwould of needed for his job and have you read the quraan and hadeeth if you have you woud no that the style of speach is like chawk and cheese and what evidence you got that he wrote the quraan none
I referred to your claim that even "orientelses" agree that Mohammed was illiterate. That claim of yours was wrong. As I said there is no academic consensus about this.
And as I also said: It does not really matter.
Actually there is pretty good evidence that Mohammed created the quran. I think you would agree that many people witnessed that he uttered the quranic verses?
But what evidence is there that Mohammed received the verses from someone else? It is just him saying so.
@Jeremias1111 the best poets of the time of the prohet pbuh who challenged him swore that the quraan was not poetry thats why i said go study and you will learn the difference between poetry and the quraan and learn the differnt types of poetry in arabic. you need to go study arabic to truely understand why there cant be any litriture in any language can be compared to the quraan it is unique and cant be produced by man because god knows the limits of man and produced a book which man cant
@Jeremias1111 it seems you r ignorant of the quraan why do muslims claim that the quraan is a miracle do you know i dont think so and u r right the quraan was recited by the pephet mohammed no written you as person have to go and study about the quraan before you post comments on what youv read on anti islamic sitese the quraan claims that is the speach of god be fair and give it its chancs take up the chalenge and produce a chapter like it read about the enemies of prohet and what they said
@Jeremias1111 continued they hated the propetmohammed much more than you can imagine yet they could not fault the quraan or the charecter of the prophet mohameed pbuh and then you come 1500 years later and make some stupid statements and think they mean enything
The quran does partially copy the style of ancient Arabic poetry. But Mohammed created a new style by combining poetry style with Arabic prose. This is well known by scholars and for sure it is not a miracle.
The surah-like-it challenge is not a serious challenge since the quran does not present any criteria by which we could assess if the challenge was met. It is just propaganda.
@Jeremias1111 if you knew anythin about arab poetry or pros you cant mix the two i dont know where you got that from and the challenge is serious the citria is the quraan any one who new anthing abut arabic would know that and if what youe saying is true than how come no one has ever said look iv made somthing like the quraan its like allah says in the quraan they say we could make somthing like it but have they
A lot of contemporaries of Mohammed were not at all impressed by the quran. So it is quite doubtful that the language of the quran is that overwhelming.
But after Islam took over in Arabia, it became quite dangerous to openly critizise the quran.
When it comes to the content, the quran is a mediocre book at best.
And finally:
You have not addressed any of the points I made properly.
@Jeremias1111 quitr doubful its overwhelming that proves your ignaronce of arabic name me one arab contempries who wasnt impressed by the quraan and after islamm took over the world it didnt stop anyone do rebuke the quraan if it achedemic it did if it was done sarcasticly because the quraan asks you to look at it and try to find a miistake this is my lsat comnment to you because you are arguing for the sake of argument not to get to the truth and you havent answerd my points read the comments
Respond to this video... last comment you said When it comes to the content, the quran is a mediocre book at best. i told you that the quraan is unique even in content now learn the quran has somthe called surah translated as chapter and ayah traslates as verse but in reality you cant call them any thin aprt frm surah and ayah becuse chapters bove forward in crhonolgy and verses have at least a sentence in quraan there are ayahs with 1 word and ayahs with entire pages so theses term
Respond to this video... cont terms r unique i cant explain any further on here because ill have to write to much but in short it doese have content order its just different to any other man written book. its been nice talking to you and least you had alot of manners i pray allah guides through your lack of understanding the best in islam r the ones who were best in ignoprance peace
What an odd behaviour to ask me a question and to flee from debate before I can give you an answer!
1. You claimed that the differences between hadith and quran show that Mohammed can not be the author of the quran. I objected and pointed out that both are different types of text and as poets do not talk poetry all the time, Mohammed did not talk quranic poetry all the time.
- You have not been able to show my objection to be wrong.
@Jeremias1111 Also you said Muhammad (pbuh) cannot talk "poetry" all the time in response to that guy. Well he had the angel Gabriel with him so he never answered a question wrong because God sent him the truth. The hadith are also very beautiful and are very important in Islam as a source of knowledge. As far as I am aware of he always spoke as someone inspired by God. If he made mistakes he wouldn't have gotten enough followers to help him against the pagans who tried to kill him.
@Jeremias1111 The challenge is not valid!? Basically no one has yet to produce a book that says it is better than the Qur'an or equal to the Qur'an that has even a tenth of the followers. Since it was made it's been about 1400 years! And if Muhammad (pbuh) was one of many soothsayers why didn't they meet the challenge and take his followers with a superior book. Also prophecies have come true! And are coming true.
I explicitly said why the challenge is not valid: "Without such criteria we can never know if the challenge was met or not." What about adressing that argument? If there is no criterion given, how then can you decide if book A or book B is "better"? You cannot.
3. It is not too difficult to think of people who were not impressed by the quran. He preached for 12 (!) years in Mekka and only gathered a small followership.
The quran itself tells us what his contemporaries believed he was (52:29): A soothsayer, well or a madman.
So apparently the quranic style is not that different from the style soothsayers used at that time.
@Jeremias1111 Jesus (pbuh) had a smaller following. Moses (pbuh) was made fun of by his people a lot and many rejected him, Muhammad (pbuh) was the final prophet. It all makes sense. You say he was just one soothsayer, and mention the size then, but the prophecies are slowly coming true and what about how many Muslims there are now! It explains what the corrupted Torah and Bible fail to explain and teaches monotheism. God has no sons or partners and is 1.
You did not understand my argument. I made the claim that there were many people in Mohammeds time who were not at all impressed by the quran. To back up that claim I pointed to the fact that only few people followed Mohammed although he had preached to the Meccans for 12 years.
- This is hardly understandable if the quran would truly be a linguistic miracle to every Arabic speaker who hears it.
4. I did not say that the content of the quran is mediocre to offend you. It is my assessment.
When you return to the debate we can go through some passages and see.
5. Regarding the style of the quran and its relation to ancient Arabic prose and poetry I suggest you read the lemma "Language of the quran" in the Encyclopaedia of the quran.
@Vincentaneous u know what's being wasted? ur life, ur intelligence and ur energy. and just so u know they could all be put to better use. read the Qu'ran man, read the word of GOD.
@Jeremias1111 Finally, Muhammad (pbuh) defied his culture to leave his tribe which was utterly unheard of in that time (a HUGE thing to do). He defeated the pagans who attacked him. He taught peace (I have a LOT of examples). He converted many Jews (Rabis etc.) who were waiting for a prophet to arrive in that land then (an that's why a lot were there). His name is MENTIONED IN THE TORAH IN THE ORIGINAL HEBREW! I also want to explain some of his teachings and more but I've ran out of space.
In his early years as a prophet Mohammeds followership was pretty small. But Mohammed gained followers en masse after he had gained power, after he had shown that it was better to be on his side than against him.
It seems as if not the quran but Mohammeds success made many people join him.
@jenngreyful I've read a lot of the Quran, about as much as I can stand. There is very little wisdom in there that one cannot find somewhere else - as in the Analects of Confucius, or the works of Plato. I understand it sounds divine in Arabic. However, I think The Odyssey sounds divine in ancient Greek. And I've read [lots of it] in the original Greek. So, how can you claim that the Quran is a better book if you don't know ancient Greek?
@Vincentaneous Well, if it's better why don't people believe in the Greek Gods? It may not make mistakes or contradictions in the Odyssey, I don't know it might. But the Odyssey is just a long story. The Qur'an however is God addressing mankind. You may look at it insincerely and say it is lies but it is a book that does not compromise and if studied proves to be entirely correct. Islam is perfected and it has so much wisdom. I mean, it is the foundation of modern day Arabic.
People do not believe in the Greek Gods in spite of the Odyssey being a fine piece of literature, because the style is no good reason to believe that a book is of divine origin or that all its contents are true.
I am sure you see that with regards to the Odyssey. Do you understand that the same is true for the quran?
@Jeremias1111 You say the book is not good enough proof and that is why they do not believe in it, well then why do people believe in Islam. If the same is true for the Qur'an why are people joining so often? I see the odyssey as a fairytale but Islam speaks the truth and unlike the odyssey I am sure, gives proofs. The style does not make the Qur'an true it just makes it beautiful. The signs and lack of contradictions are the real proof.
That many people join Islam is for sure an interesting fact to explain. I suggest we deal with that question later. For now it is sufficient to notice that people may have a variety of reasons for such an action.
OK, so you have mentioned several criteria which shall lead us to the conclusion that the quran is of divine origin.
1. We agree that the style does not make the quran divine since there are other beautiful books that you would not consider divine.
2. You claim that the lack of internal contradictions make is proof for the divine origin of the quran. But there are many books without contradictions. Moby Dick for example or Tom Sawyer did not seem to contain contradictions when I read them. Are you calling those divine as well?
@Jeremias1111 Yes we have but only in the sense that the style ALONE cannot prove it. It is still an extra proof when added to the other things in the Qur'an. With only the style I would not say it was from God. It is a mixture of faith and proof just as atheism is a mixture of cynicism and in many cases lack of proof.
It is hardly any proof, if the question has to be decided by other factors first.
And if you need faith to accept this as proof, then it becomes obvious what is really happening:
Because of your faith you are biased in favour of the claim that the quran is divine. And now you will accept "proofs" that seem to support your belief while any neutral observer will consider them insufficient.
@Jeremias1111 No, as I explained faith as in he opposite of cynicism. because God guides the sincere not the cynical. So faith is needed with proof is maybe not the best way of putting it. You need to be sincere is a better way of putting it but faith naturally comes with being a Muslim as you start to understand the numerous proofs.
What you describe here is known in psychological research as confirmation bias. People tend to accept data that supports their views and to dismiss data that contradicts their views.
To come to objective results one has to work against this biases, by using proper scientific methods for example.
You promote the opposite: You embrace your biases and claim that they are a pathway to truth.
@Jeremias1111 I was just going to mention that. Right now it seems as though whatever evidence we get just polarizes OUR views not just MY views so to prove who is right we must start off really simply... Firstly lets see which is more logical in simple theology. We both have to believe the universe had a start. Next we must admit something must have created it. Everything we know has a beginning so it couldn't be energy, matter, time ect. it must be different from the creation - God.
I do not see how our discussion will be enhanced if you bring up another topic that is not directly related to the points we discussed so far. I will address it, but I ask you to reply to the other points I made so far. I know you have found them by now.
One can approach the beginning of the universe either scientifically or -like you seem to suggest- by common sense. I think that your approach will not lead to sound results. You apply common sense to a situation that is far beyond our scope of experience. If you ever read about the Theory of relativity or Quantum Physics you will see what I mean.
Some examples:
1. According to Lawrence Krauss (Lecture on YouTube) the net mass/energy of the universe is zero. So mass and [cont.]
2. The beginning of the universe seems to be the beginning of time as well. So there was no time for any cause to bring the effect, the universe, into existence.
3. One might say that our experience tells us any beginning has to be caused. But we only know of things beginning to exist by the reformation of existing matter/energy. A beginning of the universe obviously is of a different kind and we do not know if it follows the same rules.
4. One might even say that a cause needs something to affect to create an effect - this argument is made by YouTube-user TheoreticalBullshit. If this is the case then the beginning of the universe can not be caused because there was nothing to affect.
5. When presenting "god" as a solution for the beginning of the universe you assert that something exists outside the universe and that this entity can affect the universe. Neither assertion has been shown valid so far.
@Jeremias1111 OK: 1. I don't really know what to do with the zero net mass/ energy argument. You might have to explain more because as far as I am aware that argument makes no sense and most would disagree. 2. I do not think that time has to have been created when the universe was but that it was created by God at some point and God is beyond time. 3. How is it of a different kind if it is made of all the things we know of? What is different is what created it. The universe must have a beginning
@Jeremias1111 ...because the components of the universe all show this quality, the creator however is obviously different. 4. How was there nothing to start it. We are in the universe so it may seem a bit confusing but the principle is simple - God is unique, God is better than creation and knows more, God is eternal he was the thing that started the universe. 5. What if there were prophets and a series of books with one final complete one that gives signs (not just science) as guidance.
@Jeremias1111 Also logic has lead to God existing from part 4. Cause and affect is a good argument and it's simple. The best arguments in my opinion are those that are simple and right in front of our eyes. You say there cannot be anything to create us to do with time, because there would have to be a start of time thus a cause of time would have no time to make an affect. (I think I wrote that right). So only an almighty all knowing eternal being (God) could be the cause.
1. I suggest you look for 'A Universe From Nothing' by Lawrence Krauss, AAI 2009. It is a very interesting lecture and Krauss for sure explains it better than I could. The basic idea though is that gravitational energy (the energy the galaxies hold because they are pulled apart from each other) has in physical terms a negative value and as it turns out this negative energy is equal to the mass of the universe.
2. As far as I know it is state of the art in physics that time started with the universe.
3. and 4.
Maybe you understand the difference with an example.
The beginning of a table is like this: a carpenter takes the wood, cuts it, shapes it and glues it and there is the table.
Literally every beginning of anything we know of happens like this. Something is affected (my point 4) and by being affected this thing (or things) turn into something new (my point 3).
We have never observed that nothing has been affected and thus something came into existence from nothing. As far as our experience tells us "causing" does not work like this.
But you claim that this is just what some supernatural being did.
So the flaw in your argument is like this: You first claim that the universe has to be caused and then you come up with a chain of events that does not match the criteria of a cause.
You say that if there was no time for a cause then it must have been god because he is allmighty and so he can cause without time.
You do not get the point of my argument. If you claim a cause-effect-event that does not happen in time, does not include anything affected and does not work by rearranging existing things then this is not a cause-effect-situation.
To make it clear: Can your god create a square circle or a married bachelor?
@Jeremias1111 2. You gave no proof and without it logically there is nothing forcing time to have started when the Universe did. Still it does not disprove God. 3 (I think) I made a mistake about cause and effect and was thinking of the cosmological argument. The point is God is unique in power and knowledge thus can create a world out of nothing because all power comes from him and he is eternal and unlike creation. I am gunna stop using numbers now... Also why does what is in this Universe
@Jeremias1111 You gave no proof and without it logically there is nothing forcing time to have started when the Universe did. Still it does not disprove God. 3 (I think) I made a mistake about cause and effect and was thinking of the cosmological argument. The point is God is unique in power and knowledge thus can create a world out of nothing because all power comes from him and he is eternal and unlike creation. I am gunna stop using numbers now... Also why does what is in this Universe
@num126 1) Truth is not a popularity contest: There are more Christians than Muslims. So, why don't you believe that Jesus was the son of God and the final prophet? 2) There are no contradictions in the Communist Manifesto, but that fact in itself doesn't make the book true. 3) The proofs of the Quran's divinity relies on a few passages about embryos and mountains and the earth being round and other little things. They are very weak proofs that can be explained away.
@Vincentaneous 1) I agree. 2) Communism cannot work, whereas true Islamic law can. 3) I think that is wrong seen as back in 600 ad it was not proof so why did so many convert. The truth is what we are born with.
That is odd: In (1) you agree that the popularity of a conviction does not show that it is true and in (3) you claim that the number of converts to Islam shows its truth.
@Jeremias1111 Hahaha. Oh yeah. Well look. I know that I am not going to disbelieve and that really you are not going to believe. I guess I have realised that I wont achieve anything this way. You can say I have no proof but to me there are more proofs in this world than people on Earth and as long as I know that I don't really think it matters. I am sorry if you were expecting more but I have computer problems and this is just too hard.
@Vincentaneous the earth being round was a theory put forth by a greek mathematician in egypt .. arabs were in much ocntact with greeks as the trade went through byzantium and hence they knew this ... it ws just luck .. in other koran passages the implication is that the earth is rounbd
@num126 Homer believed a goddess (one of the Muses) was speaking through him when he composed the Odyssey - he says so in the first sentence of the book. And, the ancient Greeks believed it was true. It was the foundation of their language. People in the future will think of the Quran the same way as the Odyssey: A book that people once believed in but learned later it was a myth. Have you read Confucius? Aristotle? Plato? If not, then how would you know the Quran is superior?
Help Muslims clear this matter up & stop muddying what is clear in their religion. The Quran, which is the primary source, doesnt accept the death penalty. The Qur'an is accepted by all Muslims, the hadith are controversial & needs much analysis. Just keep it clear: S. A. Rahman, a former Chief Justice of Pakistan, says: that there is no indication of a death penalty for apostasy in the Qur'an. If U were Muslim you'd probably support the death penalty- stop it! The Quran is Truth, look to it!!!!
In this video I report what was and is the position on this matter of scholars of Islam and especially of scholars on Islamic law. The majority opinion among those throughout the history of Islam was that the penalty for apostasy is death.
I also report on minority opinions in this matter. You might share those and I appreciate that. I would encourage you to propagate that view among your fellow Muslims.
@Jeremias1111 Take a position based on Quran & your own Reasoning. If the Qur'an does not say kill the Apostate (who does not fight against Islam) then surely anyone claiming that Muhammed killed such people must be mistaken. There is something inconsistent here that you do not address. It is as clear as the sun on a cloudless day. The Qur'an does not compel and that is our ultimate source. The 'minority' view, as you call it, is correct. Take a stance and stop hiding behind opinions of others.
Islamic law is based on the interpretation of the quran and the hadith. But interpreting a text is not doing mathematics. The result will never be 100% unambiguous.
That all four Sunni schools of Islamic law agree on the death penalty and that this has been majority opinion throughout the history of Islam indicates to me that your opinion is far from being "as clear as the sun on a cloudless day".
What motif would unite the majority of scholars of Islamic law throughout the history of Islam to demand the death penalty for apostasy when it is that obvious, and it seems that you think: even undeniable that this is not in line with the quran?
I abstain from claiming that this or that is true Islamic law. I am neither familiar with the methodology used by the ulema nor do I consider the quran a valid source for laws anyway.
@Jeremias1111 Those who read Quran, as we should, and then accept the hadiths that correspond to it, as we should , rejecting those that contradict it, as we should, can see that it is as clear as the sun on a cloudless day. I will answer clearly to my Lord on the Day when I am asked to explain my belief that there is no compulsion in religion. I will answer "it is because You clearly said it in Your Book!" This is the clear answer. All else is a mist created out of confusion. How will U answer?
Lol, how will I answer? "Oh, the quran is your book? Really? I could not find it convincing, sorry!"
So how do you explain that all four law schools of Sunni Islam agree that apostasy is to be punished by death when that point is as clear as you claim?
How do You explain that the majority of Islamic scholars held this view during the history of Islam?
@Jeremias1111 Y LOL when U admit 2 minority views. Q clear: apostates R judged by God so let them swap & change. Also Q says adultery punished by whip, but if denied then again God Judges them. Q says homosexual 2 be exiled etc. Most scholars may say kill the lot of them. Yet, even U admit to a valid minority view who agree with Q. R U saying Majority is always right? The minority will reply on DAY of questioning "I spoke what My Lord taught!" Its for the Majority to explain themselves - not I!
I asked you to defend your claim that the quran is completely clear in its objection to the death penalty for apostasy. I asked you how you can bring that claim in line with the fact that the majority of scholars throughout the history iof Islam and all four Sunni schools of Islamic law assess the death penalty as the correct punishment.
You have not been able to defend your claim or to make it plausible at least.
@Jeremias1111 Ur joking! U an expert in Q really need verse numbers for "No force in religion" & "they change & revert & change" & "God will judge them"? Theres no verse saying kill apostates & U know it. So Y must I defend the non-existent? Its Q that should inform Islamic Law as final criteria. I have defended my claim but all U say is the majority disagree - well then ask them to show the verse. I've given U Q's words. If I'm wrong then defend U claim by quoting Q & not mans words. Be honest!
I did not ask for any verse numbers. I asked you to show that the quran is as clear on this as you claim and to provide at least an idea on why the vast majority of scholars seems to deviate from your view.
You quote "there is no compulsion in religion". As you might know this verse refers according to hadiths to a very specific situation in Medina. With reference to the historical context of the revelation there are different views regarding its meaning.
I believe the prevalent interpretation is that the verse prohibits the conversion to Islam by force (at least of the people of the books), while it has no bearing regarding the punishment for leaving Islam.
@Jeremias1111 U claim U want Muslims to accept my view: apostates shouldnt be killed but when given clear Q proof U say its ABROGATED? Well wheres Ur proof from Q? Y not insist proof form the Majority instead of me? U reveal Ur BIAS! Y quote hadith when Q is so clear? U even admit hadith needs 2 be seen in context of events & thru Q. No Compulsion may arguably be suspended in war but U've no evidence Q abrogated it at all? IF ITS NOT IN Q ITS NOT PROOF! Ask Ur allies, the Majority, to find it.
@Jeremias1111 Y muddy whats clear as sun on cloudless day? Open Ur eyes to the hate U defend! U know Q says U arnt compelled to believe so if U swap & change God will deal with U not man! U know this but U choose 2 attack Muslims who say it. U prefer to quote those who diverge from Q. Stop arguing with the Muslims who take the Q as their guide. Go & make videos on why some Muslims R so obviously disregarding the Q. Stop allying Urself to haters. Stop Ur attack on those spreading peace & true Q..
@Jeremias1111 U ignore my answer & dare call it drivel? Ur 2 much! Pay attention now: UR allied 2 those prefering Hadith 2 Q! Hadith is read in reverence 2 Q. Its illogical of U 2 ask peaceful Muslims taking Q as best guide why other Muslims prefer hadiths opposing Q. All Muslims agree Q is Superior & only Q can abrogate Q. To claim hadith abrogates Q isnt only controversial its wrong so if U want to convince us give us Q? By calling this drivel U & Ur allies reject basics of Islam: More 2 come:
@Jeremias1111 Now U see Q has priority over Hadith U'll see that Muslims who dont say kill apostates hav the right. We who follow Q cant see why some Muslims claim apostates should be killed. Hadith arent rejected unless contradicted by Q. Q is deciding word. If U say real Muslims must kill apostates becoz of hadiths U've found then U err for Q says appostates dont get killed. Stop asking followers of Q to explain beliefs of those who prefer other sources to Q We want QURAN! More to come:
@Jeremias1111 U choose 2 call words of Q & Muslims who repeat those words & dont preach violence "DRIVEL." In Ur view quoting Quran, & taking Q as Supreme source is "DRIVEL." U pour scorn on Muslims trying to convince U not to ally Urself to those saying: "kill apostates" for their evidence is contrary to Q: they dont follow the Book they claim to adhere to. We ask U to question them on their violent unQuranic approach rather than those among us who do take our religion from Q. Y is that Drivel?
This has been flagged as spam show
MOHAMMAD - A MERCY TO MANKIND....??
Muhammad sent him with an army against the Fazarah settlement. He met them in Qura and inflicted casualties on them and took Umm Qirfah prisoner. He also took one of Umm’s daughters and Abdallah bin Mas’adah prisoner. Zyad bin Harithah ordered Qays to kill Umm, and he killed her cruelly. He tied each of her legs with a rope and tied the ropes to two camels, and they split her in two.
Tabari Vol.8:Page.96
urheadonastick 2 weeks ago
(cont.) and cosmological argument. Hmmm. There must be more but this is the foundation. I know it is long and not too organised but the bottom line is it is actually logical and simple. The logic about 1 God is obvious without the Qur'an really but the Qur'an is the final proof which perfects religion and proves Islam. I am sorry I am not as organised as you and I do not ask you to discuss everything but just a few things about it that you don't agree with it and why. We both share the BOP.
num126 5 months ago
@num126
1. Please use the reply button so that I can see what you are responding to. Otherwise it will all get mixed up.
2. Common sense is based on our day-to-day experiences. This is why it does not work when we are confronted with something that is beyond our experiences. And the beginning of the universe is far beyond our experiences.
Jeremias1111 5 months ago
3. You have neither shown by logical proof nor scientific evidence that a creator exists nor that he has any of the attributes that you assert.
Because of this I have no reason to believe your assertion.
4. What is BOP?
Jeremias1111 5 months ago
@Jeremias1111 (cont.) Which falls faster (I think in a vacuume) a bowling ball or feather it was worked out without using either but using sense and reasoning. I assume that is how the theory of relativity is also. I agree that even though it makes sense it takes a lot of workings out to realise it and seems impossible but it does not remove basic sense from many other scientific teachings. Finally, God is extremely complex but the idea is simple so weall can all be believers if we choose.
num126 5 months ago
@Jeremias1111 I am sorry I wrote so much of the same thing. It wasn't showing up on my computer. i am having computer issues... BOP = Burden of Proof. We cannot just refute the opponents arguements we need to give our own good proof. Also to answer something else... Science always chaning isn't a weakness but it does make it unreliable but Islam is the religion of Adam (pbuh) and the only changes are based upon the individual ages untill it was finally perfected with the Glorious Qur'an.
num126 5 months ago
@num126
The fall of a bowling ball and a feather in a vacuum, that you bring up, is another good example to show that our common sense fails in unusual situation. Of course reason allows us to figure out gravity, Quantum Physics and what else - but then we have to use proper scientific methods so that our common sense does not get into the way.
Jeremias1111 5 months ago
You say the idea of a good is a simple one. I do not agree.
The Islamic idea of a god that you adhere to makes a lot of unproven claims about that being:
It exists outside time, it exists outside space - we do not know if that is even possible.
It can influence events in space and time although it is outside - how does that work?
It is allpowerfull - what does that even mean? Is it able to do something selfcontradicting like creating a square circle?
Jeremias1111 5 months ago
You see, just when one tries to understand what "Allah" means, he will notice that this being is far from being simple.
And without a workable idea of what "Allah" is it is hardly possible to say it exists or it does not.
Jeremias1111 5 months ago
@Jeremias1111 Does God make sense to you then?
num126 5 months ago
@num126
Please have in mind that there are many different ideas of what a god is throughout history and in different cultures. Not all of those are in conflict with logic and science in the same way.
For example it is hardly possible to dismiss the idea of a deist god - a god, who does not take part in the ongoings of this universe and is not interested in human affairs. But such a god would obviously not be important for us. Still - I see no reason to believe that a deistic god exists.
Jeremias1111 5 months ago
When it comes to the Islamic concept of a god I find it self-contradicting. Also I see no reason to believe that the quran was not written by humans.
Jeremias1111 5 months ago
@Jeremias1111 OK then, give one reason why that God you say that would make sense would make more sense. How could it make sense for God not to care.
num126 5 months ago
@num126
I do not say that a deistic god makes more sense than the Islamic idea of a god or the Greek for that matter.
I said a deistic god is hard to disprove. A deistic god does not take part in the ongoings of the universe. Because of this we would not expect evidence for its existence. It does not make a difference in this world if such a god exists. So how would we know?
Still I do not see a reason to believe that such a god exists.
Jeremias1111 5 months ago
@Jeremias1111 OK, I am sure you have many a thing to say about this but we have come to a stage where I feel I must mention the Glorious Qur'an as a proof for a God who has sent a message. I ask you why is that not proof?
num126 5 months ago
@num126
I have read it and I found not one statement in it that a person from the seventh century could not have made. Because of this I see no reason to believe that the quran has any kind of supernatural author.
Jeremias1111 5 months ago
@Jeremias1111 OK. What about where it says the heavens are expanding and says the earth and heavens are one and split apart (big bang theory), explains stories in the Bible and Torah in a way that makes sense like with Yusuf (pbuh). Where it says that he was known to have not advanced on potimers wife because then rape would have been punishable by the death penalty many know. Or how it says iron was sent down by God from the heavens, we now know it couldn't have formed in this solar system.
num126 5 months ago
@num126
I know about those miracle claims and I have looked into a bunch of them. None that I encountered so far was convincing.
See the iron-miracle for example. The quran also says that prophets were sent down, the quran, even cows. We know the meaning of the phrase "sent down": Allah gave those to mankind.
In none of this cases you would take the phrase literally as prophets or cows descending from space, so why in the case of iron?
Jeremias1111 5 months ago
Those miracle claims seem to be driven by the desire for miracles and not by proper analysis of the quranic verses.
Such miracles are then created by taking metaphors literally (see above), by choosing the "miracleous" over other possible or even the likely translation (alaqa as leech instead of clot of blood) and even by inventing translations (the egg-shaped earth).
Jeremias1111 5 months ago
@Jeremias1111 The Hour (of Doomsday) has drawn near and the Moon has split. (Surat al-Qamar, 1)
The word “Moon” appears in the first verse of Surat al-Qamar. There are 1390 verses from that verse to the end of the Qur’an. The year 1390 in the Islamic calendar corresponds to 1969 AD, the date of the lunar landings. “inshakka,” meaning “split,” is used. It is derived from the word "shakka" meaning “to plow, dig up, to turn the soil..." Apollo 11 took lunar dust back to Earth.
num126 5 months ago
@Jeremias1111 Number of times the word "Moon" appears in the Qur’an = 27
Time it takes the Moon to travel round the Earth (in days) = 27
Number of times the word “land” appears in the Qur’an = 13
Number of times the word “sea” appears in the Qur’an = 32
Proportion of dry land to sea covering the Earth = 13/45 = 29%
Proportion of sea to dry land on Earth = 32/45 = 71%
The word “day (yavm)" appears 365 times in the Qur’an. It takes the Earth 365 days to orbit the Sun.
num126 5 months ago
@Jeremias1111 “man” + “woman” both appear 23 times in the Qur’an.
23rd chromosome is the element that determines an individuals gender.
Surat an-Nahl, or “Bee,” is the 16th Surah.
The bee has 16 chromosomes.
19:57 of Qur’an says “raising to a high place.”
"Sputnik 1," the first unmanned satellite, launched 1957
Surah, "an-Najm," means “Star.” The stars comprising Sirius approach one another in their courses once every 49.9 years. It's indicated in verses 49 and 9 of Surat an-Najm.
num126 5 months ago
@num126
Excuse me, but what are you intending to do here? I respond to one of your miracle claims and you throw ten other at me? Having a discussion does not work that way.
For one: Do you have a response to my remarks regarding the iron-miracle? Do you agree that there is no good reason to claim a miracle there?
Second: Is there any miracle claim that you have looked into, that you have checked and that you consider the strongest case for a scientific miracle in the quran?
Jeremias1111 5 months ago
@Jeremias1111 I agree it is not good enough for YOU. So I will give you one good one. I just discovered myself a miracle that shocked me. The pharaoh of Moses (pbuh) says to someone he calls Haman to build a tower to look at the God of Moses (pbuh). The Christians said Haman was 1000 or so years later but with the help of the Rosetta stone using hieroglyphics have proven Haman was a title for someone in charge of I think stone or a quarry of stone. Basically how would he have known that.
num126 5 months ago
@num126
It is not good enough for ME? So it is good enough for you. Why would you accept the miracle of the iron, I really would like to know. Why do you think that "sent down" is meant literally here when it is meant metaphorically in all the other cases?
Regarding Haman you say that you just discovered it. So I think you haven't had the time to check and confirm that miracle claim. Please tell me, when you have done, that so that we can discuss it in depth.
Jeremias1111 5 months ago
@Jeremias1111 In Ranke's dictionary of Egyptian personal names, which was prepared based on the entire collection of inscriptions, Haman is said to be the head of stone quarry workers. Now in the Qur'an (Al-Qasas 28:38). There, now you can check if you like.
The iron miracle is good enough for me but then that might be because it is one of many.
num126 5 months ago
@num126
I asked you to check that miracle yourself before we discuss it. Apparently you are not willing to do that. So I point you to a video, that responds to that "miracle" in great detail: watch?v=aZWOoi-PNko
Regarding the iron miracle I asked you specifically: "Why do you think that "sent down" is meant literally here when it is meant metaphorically in all the other cases?" - Would you please answer that question?
Jeremias1111 5 months ago
@Jeremias1111 I watched that video and you have a point so I will change which miracle is the best for you based on lack of evidence, so instead how come Yusuf (Joseph) peace be upon him called the leader king and not pharoah? Because Jews were in charge at the time and so the leader was not pharaoh. How could it have been copying from the Bible when the Bible called him pharaoh? About iron, well it couldn't have formed in this solar system so Allah (swt) sent it down to us.
num126 5 months ago
@num126
You will not find a shred of historical evidence that supports your claim that the Jews have been in charge in Egypt.
Now will you please stop pulling one miracle claim after the other out of your hat and stay with the ones brought up so far?
You still did not answer my question: "Why do you think that "sent down" is meant literally here when it is meant metaphorically in all the other cases?" What in the surah indicates that "sent down" is not meant in the same way as anywhere else?
Jeremias1111 5 months ago
@Jeremias1111 Think what you want of my evidence but as for iron, it was sent down in the sense that it could not have naturally have come about without God (swt.) That is how I see it. You see it could not have been from this solar system.
num126 5 months ago
@num126
"Think what you want of my evidence"? You have not shown any evidence that the Jews ruled in Egypt at the time of Joseph and I guarantee that you will not be able to. So go ahead - show what you have!
Regarding the iron you do not get it. I ask you to show from the text that "sent down" is meant literally here and not metapgorically as in the case of the prophets the cows and the quran. Is there any indication for that you do you just like to understand it that way?
Jeremias1111 5 months ago
And by the way: It is not even correct.
This solar system developed from the remnants of an exploded star. This included iron, oxygen, silicium - every element you can find on earth. These elements have not been "sent down" but the earth (as the other plantes and even the sun) formed as an agglomeration in the dust and gas cloud that once had been that star.
But this does not really matter, because you are not able to show that the quran means "sent down" literally anyway.
Jeremias1111 5 months ago
(cont.) and also something out of nothing and do more. He also knows, records and has power over everything. He is so unique he has NO son, and NO partners (thus no trinity) and is NOT everywhere. (first part over). Secondly God records everything and will judge us for it. Also he has sent us prophets, messengers and books and created the angels, jinns (spirits), humans. (second part over) Finally, proof is the Glorious Qur'an. All the signs in the world mentioned in it.The teleological (cont.)
num126 5 months ago
How can common sense not work. It is the foundation of science... unless you think logic is not the foundation of science. Look, this is my point about God. I am sorry if I repeat. I do not believe you can answer this. This is very logical and seen as God gave us a mind to understand it it should be understandable... God is the creator... We are the creation. The creator is better than the creation. The creator is not similar to the creation i.e. the creator can create time (cont.)
num126 5 months ago
Effect what is outside the Universe, thus why do we look for cause and effect when that is within our Universe and our only possiblility when God is greater than that and not in this Universe. I tried to give an example but it is not easy to do. Maybe later on I wil think of one.
num126 5 months ago
You gave no proof and without it logically there is nothing forcing time to have started when the Universe did. Still it does not disprove God. 3 (I think) I made a mistake about cause and effect and was thinking of the cosmological argument. The point is God is unique in power and knowledge thus can create a world out of nothing because all power comes from him and he is eternal and unlike creation. I am gunna stop using numbers now... Also why does what is in this Universe
num126 5 months ago
You gave no proof and without it logically there is nothing forcing time to have started when the Universe did. Still it does not disprove God. 3 (I think) I made a mistake about cause and effect and was thinking of the cosmological argument. The point is God is unique in power and knowledge thus can create a world out of nothing because all power comes from him and he is eternal and unlike creation. I am gunna stop using numbers now... Also why does what is in this Universe
num126 5 months ago
@num126
- Please read the discussion so far. You claimed that the universe must have had a cause and therefore a god who did that must exist.
- I pointed out that you apply common sense here and that this will not work. I even showed why the idea of causality will not work with the beginning of the universe.
- You now claim that this does not disprove god.
But I never said this would disprove god. I said your attempt to prove god does not work. And I showed why.
Jeremias1111 5 months ago
@Jeremias1111 Only day to day? Maybe I am not using the right words in all I say... Sense is a better word then. Science has to make sense. If it didn't you simply couldn't believe it. What you are now doing is putting faith in science but you said faith means it is not true before when I mentioned it in religion including proof as well. It is like the big bang theory. Science changes in different ages but even in the 1500's some would put their faith in science and not God.
num126 5 months ago
@num126
I do not know about your academic background. But see the Theory of Relativity for example. It tells you that time passes more slowly when you travel nearly as fast as light. As a result a space traveller might have aged a year and meet his twin who already is an old man. Or Quantum Physics, where something can behave as a particle and a wave at the same time.
This contradicts common sense, but science can show it to be true.
Jeremias1111 5 months ago
You seem to think that it is a weakness that scientific knowledge changes. But this is its strength. Science checks its theories all the time. It refines those theories or in more extreme cases it overthrows these theories. By doing so it gets step by step closer to the truth.
Faith does not work that way. As a believer you put your faith into a sacred text. You do not question it and you are not allowed to improve it, because it is called divine revelation.
Jeremias1111 5 months ago
@Jeremias1111 I have ot heard of the second thing but I have about the first. That is a good point. In Islam i teaches that man wont even know 1% of the mysteries of the Universe though I think. The Universe is a complex thing but it can still be harnessed on some level by man. However we must be able to understand the beginning of the Universe logically and there must be clear signs othrwise how could we be judged fairly. OK, but in science sense is also used. e.g. in the question (cont.)
num126 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Jeremias1111 I have ot heard of the second thing but I have about the first. That is a good point. In Islam i teaches that man wont even know 1% of the mysteries of the Universe though I think. The Universe is a complex thing but it can still be harnessed on some level by man. However we must be able to understand the beginning of the Universe logically and there must be clear signs othrwise how could we be judged fairly. OK, but in science sense is also used. e.g. in the question (cont.)
num126 5 months ago
@Jeremias1111 (cont.) Which falls faster (I think in a vacuume) a bowling ball or feather it was worked out without using either but using sense and reasoning. I assume that is how the theory of relativity is also. I agree that even though it makes sense it takes a lot of workings out to realise it and seems impossible but it does not remove basic sense from many other scientific teachings. Finally, God is extremely complex but the idea is simple so weall can all be believers if we choose.
num126 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Jeremias1111 (cont.) Which falls faster (I think in a vacuume) a bowling ball or feather it was worked out without using either but using sense and reasoning. I assume that is how the theory of relativity is also. I agree that even though it makes sense it takes a lot of workings out to realise it and seems impossible but it does not remove basic sense from many other scientific teachings. Finally, God is extremely complex but the idea is simple so weall can all be believers if we choose.
num126 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
....... I just wiped my ass with some pages out of your Holy Quran, great toilet paper
foroyskirbilforarir 10 months ago 6
@foroyskirbilforarir
My holy Quran? You are an idiot.
Jeremias1111 10 months ago
@Jeremias1111 ....... Hello Achmed... Yea, your Holy Qur'an, the Primates Holy Book, you know, "way to peace" etc.
foroyskirbilforarir 10 months ago
@foroyskirbilforarir ....... Ps, when i say "you-your" I refer to primates like yourself
foroyskirbilforarir 10 months ago
@foroyskirbilforarir
Wow, what a moron you are. Even now you dont get it. Go away.
Jeremias1111 10 months ago
@Jeremias1111 ....... hello Achmed #2
foroyskirbilforarir 10 months ago
@Jeremias1111 ....... Achmed, are U there?
foroyskirbilforarir 10 months ago
@foroyskirbilforarir
No Achmed here.
Jeremias1111 10 months ago
@Jeremias1111 ....... hey Achmed =)
foroyskirbilforarir 10 months ago
@Jeremias1111 ....... Achmed TheTickingBomb
foroyskirbilforarir 10 months ago
@foroyskirbilforarir
You either leave until you have anything sensible to say or I block you. You will no longer spam my channel.
Jeremias1111 10 months ago
Islam is the mad cow disease of humanity.
urheadonastick 10 months ago
The Hadiths are just the collected ramblinhgs of the inventor of this cult of Mohammedism ie. Mohammed. For a grown man to have sex with an NINE YEAR old girl digusts me and many other people. But apparently the pedo aspect of Mohammedism is being kept alive by Mogammeden perverts in the UK who have just been sentenced and jailed for grooming and sexually abusing young girls, some only children!Mohammedism the religion of peace! Don't make me laugh!!
trackieben 1 year ago
Wow. A lot of wasted time here: Allah does not exist. Muhammad wrote the Quran. There is no need to argue about what a 7th-century Arab tyrant wrote or didn't write.
Vincentaneous 1 year ago 10
@Vincentaneous great COMMENT.
BOGZASV8MA 1 year ago
@Vincentaneous saying of muhammed(s) and quran is very different.No match founded between those.
soyabmd 11 months ago
@soyabmd Muhammad said the Quran was dictated by Allah, but there is no good evidence for this. The only reasonable conclusion is that Muhammad wrote the Quran himself. So, in a way, the sayings of Muhammad and the text of the Quran are the same thing - since they come from the same man.
Vincentaneous 10 months ago
@Vincentaneous hey hey hey u forgot to add that ur a bitch
alexhong100 10 months ago
@Vincentaneous u dont have to watch this if u dont want to fag
alexhong100 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@alexhong100 ....... AND U dont have to read he's comment if U don't want to....Oh btw, I just wiped my ass with some pages out of your Holy Quran, great toilet paper
foroyskirbilforarir 10 months ago 3
@alexhong100 I'm not gay, but if I was - what's wrong with being gay? You call me a fag as though something was wrong with it. Only ignorant barbaric people think being gay is immoral.
Vincentaneous 10 months ago
@Vincentaneous I'm from the US, yea as far as I know they are barbaric lol. We all hate gay people. I am muslim, i'm here to ruin this video experience for you like all christians do lol
alexhong100 10 months ago
Hating people for no good reason is indeed barbaric - and quite silly as well.
Jeremias1111 10 months ago
@Jeremias1111 why should i care, go talk to your, barbaric- quite silly christian brethren. lol. They claim that gay people will "burn in eternal fire".
alexhong100 10 months ago
@alexhong100
I am not a christian, so why do you believe you would hit me when you attack them?
Jeremias1111 10 months ago
@Jeremias1111 Ur name is The name of a messenger that is known in Christianity Islam and judisim. Any way. Ur nazi ancestors did kill all gays, surely u have a trace of this.
alexhong100 10 months ago
@alexhong100
I guess in your world this was a witty insult. In mine it is not.
I neither care what you say about my ancestors nor if you call me a bit or totally gay.
Maybe you should update your misbehaviour to the twentyfirst century.
Jeremias1111 10 months ago
@Jeremias1111 who said it was a "witty insult"? it's a fact. who said you're gay? If you actually read what I said, you would find out that I didn't. I don't really need to update anything. you need to update your name. Your saying your atheist, but you carry a fully religious name.
alexhong100 10 months ago
@alexhong100
You are trolling. It is silly. Stop it.
Jeremias1111 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@alexhong100 ....... I just wiped my ass with some pages out of the Qur'an, it's ok toilet paper
foroyskirbilforarir 10 months ago
@alexhong100 Christians who hate gay people are just as stupid as anyone else who hates gay people. And most of my friends are not Christians. Christianity is a goofy belief system and belongs in the same trash heap as every other religion.
Vincentaneous 10 months ago
@Vincentaneous
I do not agree to your comment.
It does not matter that Allah does not exist, the belief of Muslims that the quran is the word of god is a reality. And this makes the interpetation of the quran a relevant topic.
Jeremias1111 10 months ago
@Jeremias1111 They weren't discussing Muslim interpretation of the Quran in strictly historical or political terms. They were arguing about it as though they really believed this stuff. That is the wasted energy I was talking about. I studied ancient history - and I wrote papers on different ideas Greeks had about their gods - but I never passionately argued about what I believed Zeus or Poseidon really meant, as though they were real. There is a difference.
Vincentaneous 10 months ago
u are an idiot , Muhammad PBUH was only a messenger and he conveyed the message of god to people. Well it is useless to argue over this u , u will know about it on the day of judgement who Muhammad really is.
contumacy11 9 months ago
@contumacy11
So you are sure that I will be judged one day - and if I do not repent I will be tormented in hell forever, right?
And instead of trying to convince me to save me from that horrible fate, you just post a smug comment...
What a despicable behaviour!
Jeremias1111 9 months ago
whatever babes
contumacy11 9 months ago
@Vincentaneous you truely are stupid the prophet mohammed pbuh couldnt read or write so it looks ur a parrot repeating what others say without actually researching what is actaully the truth
abuzainah1 9 months ago
@abuzainah1
It seems as if you want to base an argument on the claim that Mohammed was illiterate. Please elaborate: What is your point?
Jeremias1111 9 months ago
@abuzainah1 It is stupid to be certain about what you read in ancient books without any other kind of evidence. You only think Muhammad was illiterate because it is in a bunch of old books and old stories. That doesn't mean much. Nobody knows this kind of thing for sure. You can't trust the Quran or the Hadith to be 100% accurate.
Vincentaneous 9 months ago
@Vincentaneous no he was illiterate yhis is a fact because 99 pecent of the people were illiterate at the time and read the cretiuqes of the prophet muhammed by orientelses which r achedemic they testefy to the fact he could not read or write
abuzainah1 9 months ago
@abuzainah1
Actually there is no consensus if Mohammed was illiterate or not. Some scholars assume that he must have somewhat been able to read and write for his job as a merchant.
It does not matter anyway since he did not need to read or write to create the quran.
Jeremias1111 9 months ago
@Jeremias1111 just because some people say that for his job he had to of known how to read or writie is stupid how many people america r illitatre certain people say over 50 percent bur they still can count money all that the prophet mohamme dwould of needed for his job and have you read the quraan and hadeeth if you have you woud no that the style of speach is like chawk and cheese and what evidence you got that he wrote the quraan none
abuzainah1 9 months ago
@abuzainah1
I referred to your claim that even "orientelses" agree that Mohammed was illiterate. That claim of yours was wrong. As I said there is no academic consensus about this.
And as I also said: It does not really matter.
Actually there is pretty good evidence that Mohammed created the quran. I think you would agree that many people witnessed that he uttered the quranic verses?
But what evidence is there that Mohammed received the verses from someone else? It is just him saying so.
Jeremias1111 9 months ago
[cont.]
That the literary style of the quran and the hadiths is different does not really come as a surprise, does it?
No poet talks in verses all the time.
The hadiths show Mohammed talking and acting in everyday life.
Jeremias1111 9 months ago
@Jeremias1111 the best poets of the time of the prohet pbuh who challenged him swore that the quraan was not poetry thats why i said go study and you will learn the difference between poetry and the quraan and learn the differnt types of poetry in arabic. you need to go study arabic to truely understand why there cant be any litriture in any language can be compared to the quraan it is unique and cant be produced by man because god knows the limits of man and produced a book which man cant
abuzainah1 9 months ago
@Jeremias1111 it seems you r ignorant of the quraan why do muslims claim that the quraan is a miracle do you know i dont think so and u r right the quraan was recited by the pephet mohammed no written you as person have to go and study about the quraan before you post comments on what youv read on anti islamic sitese the quraan claims that is the speach of god be fair and give it its chancs take up the chalenge and produce a chapter like it read about the enemies of prohet and what they said
abuzainah1 9 months ago
@Jeremias1111 continued they hated the propetmohammed much more than you can imagine yet they could not fault the quraan or the charecter of the prophet mohameed pbuh and then you come 1500 years later and make some stupid statements and think they mean enything
abuzainah1 9 months ago
@abuzainah1
The quran does partially copy the style of ancient Arabic poetry. But Mohammed created a new style by combining poetry style with Arabic prose. This is well known by scholars and for sure it is not a miracle.
The surah-like-it challenge is not a serious challenge since the quran does not present any criteria by which we could assess if the challenge was met. It is just propaganda.
Jeremias1111 9 months ago
@Jeremias1111 if you knew anythin about arab poetry or pros you cant mix the two i dont know where you got that from and the challenge is serious the citria is the quraan any one who new anthing abut arabic would know that and if what youe saying is true than how come no one has ever said look iv made somthing like the quraan its like allah says in the quraan they say we could make somthing like it but have they
abuzainah1 9 months ago
@abuzainah1
A lot of contemporaries of Mohammed were not at all impressed by the quran. So it is quite doubtful that the language of the quran is that overwhelming.
But after Islam took over in Arabia, it became quite dangerous to openly critizise the quran.
When it comes to the content, the quran is a mediocre book at best.
And finally:
You have not addressed any of the points I made properly.
Jeremias1111 9 months ago
@Jeremias1111 quitr doubful its overwhelming that proves your ignaronce of arabic name me one arab contempries who wasnt impressed by the quraan and after islamm took over the world it didnt stop anyone do rebuke the quraan if it achedemic it did if it was done sarcasticly because the quraan asks you to look at it and try to find a miistake this is my lsat comnment to you because you are arguing for the sake of argument not to get to the truth and you havent answerd my points read the comments
abuzainah1 9 months ago
Respond to this video... last comment you said When it comes to the content, the quran is a mediocre book at best. i told you that the quraan is unique even in content now learn the quran has somthe called surah translated as chapter and ayah traslates as verse but in reality you cant call them any thin aprt frm surah and ayah becuse chapters bove forward in crhonolgy and verses have at least a sentence in quraan there are ayahs with 1 word and ayahs with entire pages so theses term
abuzainah1 9 months ago
Respond to this video... cont terms r unique i cant explain any further on here because ill have to write to much but in short it doese have content order its just different to any other man written book. its been nice talking to you and least you had alot of manners i pray allah guides through your lack of understanding the best in islam r the ones who were best in ignoprance peace
abuzainah1 9 months ago
@abuzainah1
What an odd behaviour to ask me a question and to flee from debate before I can give you an answer!
1. You claimed that the differences between hadith and quran show that Mohammed can not be the author of the quran. I objected and pointed out that both are different types of text and as poets do not talk poetry all the time, Mohammed did not talk quranic poetry all the time.
- You have not been able to show my objection to be wrong.
Jeremias1111 8 months ago
@Jeremias1111 Also you said Muhammad (pbuh) cannot talk "poetry" all the time in response to that guy. Well he had the angel Gabriel with him so he never answered a question wrong because God sent him the truth. The hadith are also very beautiful and are very important in Islam as a source of knowledge. As far as I am aware of he always spoke as someone inspired by God. If he made mistakes he wouldn't have gotten enough followers to help him against the pagans who tried to kill him.
num126 5 months ago
@num126
This is the first time I hear the claim of divine authorship not only for the quran but for literally everything Mohammed was saying.
Can you show that this view is shared by Islamic scholars, please?
Jeremias1111 5 months ago
@abuzainah1
2. As I pointed out the surah-like-it challenge is not serious since the quran does not mention any criteria that such a s-l-i would have to meet.
Without such criteria we can never know if the challenge was met or not.
- In your response you have not been able to show my argument to be flawed. You just assert that the challenge is serious.
Jeremias1111 8 months ago
@Jeremias1111 The challenge is not valid!? Basically no one has yet to produce a book that says it is better than the Qur'an or equal to the Qur'an that has even a tenth of the followers. Since it was made it's been about 1400 years! And if Muhammad (pbuh) was one of many soothsayers why didn't they meet the challenge and take his followers with a superior book. Also prophecies have come true! And are coming true.
num126 5 months ago
@num126
I explicitly said why the challenge is not valid: "Without such criteria we can never know if the challenge was met or not." What about adressing that argument? If there is no criterion given, how then can you decide if book A or book B is "better"? You cannot.
Jeremias1111 5 months ago
@abuzainah1
3. It is not too difficult to think of people who were not impressed by the quran. He preached for 12 (!) years in Mekka and only gathered a small followership.
The quran itself tells us what his contemporaries believed he was (52:29): A soothsayer, well or a madman.
So apparently the quranic style is not that different from the style soothsayers used at that time.
Jeremias1111 8 months ago
@Jeremias1111 Jesus (pbuh) had a smaller following. Moses (pbuh) was made fun of by his people a lot and many rejected him, Muhammad (pbuh) was the final prophet. It all makes sense. You say he was just one soothsayer, and mention the size then, but the prophecies are slowly coming true and what about how many Muslims there are now! It explains what the corrupted Torah and Bible fail to explain and teaches monotheism. God has no sons or partners and is 1.
num126 5 months ago
@num126
You did not understand my argument. I made the claim that there were many people in Mohammeds time who were not at all impressed by the quran. To back up that claim I pointed to the fact that only few people followed Mohammed although he had preached to the Meccans for 12 years.
- This is hardly understandable if the quran would truly be a linguistic miracle to every Arabic speaker who hears it.
Jeremias1111 5 months ago
@abuzainah1
4. I did not say that the content of the quran is mediocre to offend you. It is my assessment.
When you return to the debate we can go through some passages and see.
5. Regarding the style of the quran and its relation to ancient Arabic prose and poetry I suggest you read the lemma "Language of the quran" in the Encyclopaedia of the quran.
Jeremias1111 8 months ago
@Vincentaneous u know what's being wasted? ur life, ur intelligence and ur energy. and just so u know they could all be put to better use. read the Qu'ran man, read the word of GOD.
jenngreyful 5 months ago
@jenngreyful
I do not know if he did, but I have read the quran. I found it to be a mediocre text. Now what?
Jeremias1111 5 months ago
@Jeremias1111 Finally, Muhammad (pbuh) defied his culture to leave his tribe which was utterly unheard of in that time (a HUGE thing to do). He defeated the pagans who attacked him. He taught peace (I have a LOT of examples). He converted many Jews (Rabis etc.) who were waiting for a prophet to arrive in that land then (an that's why a lot were there). His name is MENTIONED IN THE TORAH IN THE ORIGINAL HEBREW! I also want to explain some of his teachings and more but I've ran out of space.
num126 5 months ago
@num126
In his early years as a prophet Mohammeds followership was pretty small. But Mohammed gained followers en masse after he had gained power, after he had shown that it was better to be on his side than against him.
It seems as if not the quran but Mohammeds success made many people join him.
Jeremias1111 5 months ago
@jenngreyful I've read a lot of the Quran, about as much as I can stand. There is very little wisdom in there that one cannot find somewhere else - as in the Analects of Confucius, or the works of Plato. I understand it sounds divine in Arabic. However, I think The Odyssey sounds divine in ancient Greek. And I've read [lots of it] in the original Greek. So, how can you claim that the Quran is a better book if you don't know ancient Greek?
Vincentaneous 5 months ago
@Vincentaneous Well, if it's better why don't people believe in the Greek Gods? It may not make mistakes or contradictions in the Odyssey, I don't know it might. But the Odyssey is just a long story. The Qur'an however is God addressing mankind. You may look at it insincerely and say it is lies but it is a book that does not compromise and if studied proves to be entirely correct. Islam is perfected and it has so much wisdom. I mean, it is the foundation of modern day Arabic.
num126 5 months ago
@num126
People do not believe in the Greek Gods in spite of the Odyssey being a fine piece of literature, because the style is no good reason to believe that a book is of divine origin or that all its contents are true.
I am sure you see that with regards to the Odyssey. Do you understand that the same is true for the quran?
Jeremias1111 5 months ago
@Jeremias1111 You say the book is not good enough proof and that is why they do not believe in it, well then why do people believe in Islam. If the same is true for the Qur'an why are people joining so often? I see the odyssey as a fairytale but Islam speaks the truth and unlike the odyssey I am sure, gives proofs. The style does not make the Qur'an true it just makes it beautiful. The signs and lack of contradictions are the real proof.
num126 5 months ago
@num126
That many people join Islam is for sure an interesting fact to explain. I suggest we deal with that question later. For now it is sufficient to notice that people may have a variety of reasons for such an action.
OK, so you have mentioned several criteria which shall lead us to the conclusion that the quran is of divine origin.
1. We agree that the style does not make the quran divine since there are other beautiful books that you would not consider divine.
Jeremias1111 5 months ago
2. You claim that the lack of internal contradictions make is proof for the divine origin of the quran. But there are many books without contradictions. Moby Dick for example or Tom Sawyer did not seem to contain contradictions when I read them. Are you calling those divine as well?
3. Then you mention "signs". What would that be?
Jeremias1111 5 months ago
@Jeremias1111 Yes we have but only in the sense that the style ALONE cannot prove it. It is still an extra proof when added to the other things in the Qur'an. With only the style I would not say it was from God. It is a mixture of faith and proof just as atheism is a mixture of cynicism and in many cases lack of proof.
num126 5 months ago
@num126
It is hardly any proof, if the question has to be decided by other factors first.
And if you need faith to accept this as proof, then it becomes obvious what is really happening:
Because of your faith you are biased in favour of the claim that the quran is divine. And now you will accept "proofs" that seem to support your belief while any neutral observer will consider them insufficient.
Jeremias1111 5 months ago
@Jeremias1111 No, as I explained faith as in he opposite of cynicism. because God guides the sincere not the cynical. So faith is needed with proof is maybe not the best way of putting it. You need to be sincere is a better way of putting it but faith naturally comes with being a Muslim as you start to understand the numerous proofs.
num126 5 months ago
@num126
What you describe here is known in psychological research as confirmation bias. People tend to accept data that supports their views and to dismiss data that contradicts their views.
To come to objective results one has to work against this biases, by using proper scientific methods for example.
You promote the opposite: You embrace your biases and claim that they are a pathway to truth.
You are mistaken.
Jeremias1111 5 months ago
@Jeremias1111 I was just going to mention that. Right now it seems as though whatever evidence we get just polarizes OUR views not just MY views so to prove who is right we must start off really simply... Firstly lets see which is more logical in simple theology. We both have to believe the universe had a start. Next we must admit something must have created it. Everything we know has a beginning so it couldn't be energy, matter, time ect. it must be different from the creation - God.
num126 5 months ago
@num126
I do not see how our discussion will be enhanced if you bring up another topic that is not directly related to the points we discussed so far. I will address it, but I ask you to reply to the other points I made so far. I know you have found them by now.
Jeremias1111 5 months ago
@num126
#1
One can approach the beginning of the universe either scientifically or -like you seem to suggest- by common sense. I think that your approach will not lead to sound results. You apply common sense to a situation that is far beyond our scope of experience. If you ever read about the Theory of relativity or Quantum Physics you will see what I mean.
Some examples:
1. According to Lawrence Krauss (Lecture on YouTube) the net mass/energy of the universe is zero. So mass and [cont.]
Jeremias1111 5 months ago
#2
energy of the universe have never been created.
2. The beginning of the universe seems to be the beginning of time as well. So there was no time for any cause to bring the effect, the universe, into existence.
3. One might say that our experience tells us any beginning has to be caused. But we only know of things beginning to exist by the reformation of existing matter/energy. A beginning of the universe obviously is of a different kind and we do not know if it follows the same rules.
Jeremias1111 5 months ago
4. One might even say that a cause needs something to affect to create an effect - this argument is made by YouTube-user TheoreticalBullshit. If this is the case then the beginning of the universe can not be caused because there was nothing to affect.
5. When presenting "god" as a solution for the beginning of the universe you assert that something exists outside the universe and that this entity can affect the universe. Neither assertion has been shown valid so far.
Jeremias1111 5 months ago
@Jeremias1111 OK: 1. I don't really know what to do with the zero net mass/ energy argument. You might have to explain more because as far as I am aware that argument makes no sense and most would disagree. 2. I do not think that time has to have been created when the universe was but that it was created by God at some point and God is beyond time. 3. How is it of a different kind if it is made of all the things we know of? What is different is what created it. The universe must have a beginning
num126 5 months ago
@Jeremias1111 ...because the components of the universe all show this quality, the creator however is obviously different. 4. How was there nothing to start it. We are in the universe so it may seem a bit confusing but the principle is simple - God is unique, God is better than creation and knows more, God is eternal he was the thing that started the universe. 5. What if there were prophets and a series of books with one final complete one that gives signs (not just science) as guidance.
num126 5 months ago
@Jeremias1111 Also logic has lead to God existing from part 4. Cause and affect is a good argument and it's simple. The best arguments in my opinion are those that are simple and right in front of our eyes. You say there cannot be anything to create us to do with time, because there would have to be a start of time thus a cause of time would have no time to make an affect. (I think I wrote that right). So only an almighty all knowing eternal being (God) could be the cause.
num126 5 months ago
@num126
1. I suggest you look for 'A Universe From Nothing' by Lawrence Krauss, AAI 2009. It is a very interesting lecture and Krauss for sure explains it better than I could. The basic idea though is that gravitational energy (the energy the galaxies hold because they are pulled apart from each other) has in physical terms a negative value and as it turns out this negative energy is equal to the mass of the universe.
Jeremias1111 5 months ago
2. As far as I know it is state of the art in physics that time started with the universe.
3. and 4.
Maybe you understand the difference with an example.
The beginning of a table is like this: a carpenter takes the wood, cuts it, shapes it and glues it and there is the table.
Literally every beginning of anything we know of happens like this. Something is affected (my point 4) and by being affected this thing (or things) turn into something new (my point 3).
Jeremias1111 5 months ago
3. and 4. [cont.]
We have never observed that nothing has been affected and thus something came into existence from nothing. As far as our experience tells us "causing" does not work like this.
But you claim that this is just what some supernatural being did.
So the flaw in your argument is like this: You first claim that the universe has to be caused and then you come up with a chain of events that does not match the criteria of a cause.
Jeremias1111 5 months ago
your 4. (not mine)
You say that if there was no time for a cause then it must have been god because he is allmighty and so he can cause without time.
You do not get the point of my argument. If you claim a cause-effect-event that does not happen in time, does not include anything affected and does not work by rearranging existing things then this is not a cause-effect-situation.
To make it clear: Can your god create a square circle or a married bachelor?
Jeremias1111 5 months ago
@Jeremias1111 2. You gave no proof and without it logically there is nothing forcing time to have started when the Universe did. Still it does not disprove God. 3 (I think) I made a mistake about cause and effect and was thinking of the cosmological argument. The point is God is unique in power and knowledge thus can create a world out of nothing because all power comes from him and he is eternal and unlike creation. I am gunna stop using numbers now... Also why does what is in this Universe
num126 5 months ago
@Jeremias1111 You gave no proof and without it logically there is nothing forcing time to have started when the Universe did. Still it does not disprove God. 3 (I think) I made a mistake about cause and effect and was thinking of the cosmological argument. The point is God is unique in power and knowledge thus can create a world out of nothing because all power comes from him and he is eternal and unlike creation. I am gunna stop using numbers now... Also why does what is in this Universe
num126 5 months ago
@num126 1) Truth is not a popularity contest: There are more Christians than Muslims. So, why don't you believe that Jesus was the son of God and the final prophet? 2) There are no contradictions in the Communist Manifesto, but that fact in itself doesn't make the book true. 3) The proofs of the Quran's divinity relies on a few passages about embryos and mountains and the earth being round and other little things. They are very weak proofs that can be explained away.
Vincentaneous 5 months ago
@Vincentaneous 1) I agree. 2) Communism cannot work, whereas true Islamic law can. 3) I think that is wrong seen as back in 600 ad it was not proof so why did so many convert. The truth is what we are born with.
num126 5 months ago
@num126
That is odd: In (1) you agree that the popularity of a conviction does not show that it is true and in (3) you claim that the number of converts to Islam shows its truth.
You spot the contradiction?
Jeremias1111 5 months ago
@Jeremias1111 Hahaha. Oh yeah. Well look. I know that I am not going to disbelieve and that really you are not going to believe. I guess I have realised that I wont achieve anything this way. You can say I have no proof but to me there are more proofs in this world than people on Earth and as long as I know that I don't really think it matters. I am sorry if you were expecting more but I have computer problems and this is just too hard.
num126 4 months ago
@num126
If you look more deeply into the other six Billion miracles you might find that many of them are not rock solid but as weak as the "sent down iron".
After all: You do not want your religion be propagated by false claims, do you?
Jeremias1111 4 months ago
@Vincentaneous the earth being round was a theory put forth by a greek mathematician in egypt .. arabs were in much ocntact with greeks as the trade went through byzantium and hence they knew this ... it ws just luck .. in other koran passages the implication is that the earth is rounbd
oriocoookie 3 months ago
@num126 Homer believed a goddess (one of the Muses) was speaking through him when he composed the Odyssey - he says so in the first sentence of the book. And, the ancient Greeks believed it was true. It was the foundation of their language. People in the future will think of the Quran the same way as the Odyssey: A book that people once believed in but learned later it was a myth. Have you read Confucius? Aristotle? Plato? If not, then how would you know the Quran is superior?
Vincentaneous 5 months ago
Help Muslims clear this matter up & stop muddying what is clear in their religion. The Quran, which is the primary source, doesnt accept the death penalty. The Qur'an is accepted by all Muslims, the hadith are controversial & needs much analysis. Just keep it clear: S. A. Rahman, a former Chief Justice of Pakistan, says: that there is no indication of a death penalty for apostasy in the Qur'an. If U were Muslim you'd probably support the death penalty- stop it! The Quran is Truth, look to it!!!!
eatingeatingeating 1 year ago
@eatingeatingeating
In this video I report what was and is the position on this matter of scholars of Islam and especially of scholars on Islamic law. The majority opinion among those throughout the history of Islam was that the penalty for apostasy is death.
I also report on minority opinions in this matter. You might share those and I appreciate that. I would encourage you to propagate that view among your fellow Muslims.
Jeremias1111 1 year ago
@Jeremias1111 Take a position based on Quran & your own Reasoning. If the Qur'an does not say kill the Apostate (who does not fight against Islam) then surely anyone claiming that Muhammed killed such people must be mistaken. There is something inconsistent here that you do not address. It is as clear as the sun on a cloudless day. The Qur'an does not compel and that is our ultimate source. The 'minority' view, as you call it, is correct. Take a stance and stop hiding behind opinions of others.
eatingeatingeating 1 year ago
@eatingeatingeating
Islamic law is based on the interpretation of the quran and the hadith. But interpreting a text is not doing mathematics. The result will never be 100% unambiguous.
That all four Sunni schools of Islamic law agree on the death penalty and that this has been majority opinion throughout the history of Islam indicates to me that your opinion is far from being "as clear as the sun on a cloudless day".
Jeremias1111 1 year ago
[cont.]
I wonder how you would explain this:
What motif would unite the majority of scholars of Islamic law throughout the history of Islam to demand the death penalty for apostasy when it is that obvious, and it seems that you think: even undeniable that this is not in line with the quran?
I abstain from claiming that this or that is true Islamic law. I am neither familiar with the methodology used by the ulema nor do I consider the quran a valid source for laws anyway.
Jeremias1111 1 year ago
@Jeremias1111 Those who read Quran, as we should, and then accept the hadiths that correspond to it, as we should , rejecting those that contradict it, as we should, can see that it is as clear as the sun on a cloudless day. I will answer clearly to my Lord on the Day when I am asked to explain my belief that there is no compulsion in religion. I will answer "it is because You clearly said it in Your Book!" This is the clear answer. All else is a mist created out of confusion. How will U answer?
eatingeatingeating 1 year ago
@eatingeatingeating
Lol, how will I answer? "Oh, the quran is your book? Really? I could not find it convincing, sorry!"
So how do you explain that all four law schools of Sunni Islam agree that apostasy is to be punished by death when that point is as clear as you claim?
How do You explain that the majority of Islamic scholars held this view during the history of Islam?
Jeremias1111 1 year ago
@Jeremias1111 Y LOL when U admit 2 minority views. Q clear: apostates R judged by God so let them swap & change. Also Q says adultery punished by whip, but if denied then again God Judges them. Q says homosexual 2 be exiled etc. Most scholars may say kill the lot of them. Yet, even U admit to a valid minority view who agree with Q. R U saying Majority is always right? The minority will reply on DAY of questioning "I spoke what My Lord taught!" Its for the Majority to explain themselves - not I!
eatingeatingeating 1 year ago
@eatingeatingeating
I asked you to defend your claim that the quran is completely clear in its objection to the death penalty for apostasy. I asked you how you can bring that claim in line with the fact that the majority of scholars throughout the history iof Islam and all four Sunni schools of Islamic law assess the death penalty as the correct punishment.
You have not been able to defend your claim or to make it plausible at least.
Jeremias1111 1 year ago
@Jeremias1111 Ur joking! U an expert in Q really need verse numbers for "No force in religion" & "they change & revert & change" & "God will judge them"? Theres no verse saying kill apostates & U know it. So Y must I defend the non-existent? Its Q that should inform Islamic Law as final criteria. I have defended my claim but all U say is the majority disagree - well then ask them to show the verse. I've given U Q's words. If I'm wrong then defend U claim by quoting Q & not mans words. Be honest!
eatingeatingeating 1 year ago
@eatingeatingeating
I did not ask for any verse numbers. I asked you to show that the quran is as clear on this as you claim and to provide at least an idea on why the vast majority of scholars seems to deviate from your view.
You quote "there is no compulsion in religion". As you might know this verse refers according to hadiths to a very specific situation in Medina. With reference to the historical context of the revelation there are different views regarding its meaning.
Jeremias1111 1 year ago
[cont.]
I believe the prevalent interpretation is that the verse prohibits the conversion to Islam by force (at least of the people of the books), while it has no bearing regarding the punishment for leaving Islam.
Jeremias1111 1 year ago
@Jeremias1111 U claim U want Muslims to accept my view: apostates shouldnt be killed but when given clear Q proof U say its ABROGATED? Well wheres Ur proof from Q? Y not insist proof form the Majority instead of me? U reveal Ur BIAS! Y quote hadith when Q is so clear? U even admit hadith needs 2 be seen in context of events & thru Q. No Compulsion may arguably be suspended in war but U've no evidence Q abrogated it at all? IF ITS NOT IN Q ITS NOT PROOF! Ask Ur allies, the Majority, to find it.
eatingeatingeating 1 year ago
@eatingeatingeating
Your comment suffers from serious misunderstandings of my position.
I do not say the verse "there is no compulsion in religion" is abrogated.
I do not say that the quran is clearly demanding the death penalty for apostasy.
I did not say that the majority opinion in this matter is the correct one.
I did not demand from you to show on basis of the quran that there is no death penalty for apostasy.
So stop making up stuff, please.
Jeremias1111 1 year ago
@Jeremias1111 Y muddy whats clear as sun on cloudless day? Open Ur eyes to the hate U defend! U know Q says U arnt compelled to believe so if U swap & change God will deal with U not man! U know this but U choose 2 attack Muslims who say it. U prefer to quote those who diverge from Q. Stop arguing with the Muslims who take the Q as their guide. Go & make videos on why some Muslims R so obviously disregarding the Q. Stop allying Urself to haters. Stop Ur attack on those spreading peace & true Q..
eatingeatingeating 1 year ago
@eatingeatingeating
I would appreciate if you stopped posting drivel and addressed the points I made. Is there any hope that you will do this?
Jeremias1111 1 year ago
@Jeremias1111 U ignore my answer & dare call it drivel? Ur 2 much! Pay attention now: UR allied 2 those prefering Hadith 2 Q! Hadith is read in reverence 2 Q. Its illogical of U 2 ask peaceful Muslims taking Q as best guide why other Muslims prefer hadiths opposing Q. All Muslims agree Q is Superior & only Q can abrogate Q. To claim hadith abrogates Q isnt only controversial its wrong so if U want to convince us give us Q? By calling this drivel U & Ur allies reject basics of Islam: More 2 come:
eatingeatingeating 1 year ago
@eatingeatingeating
Sure I call it drivel.
You do not answer to any point I make. Instead you invent a position and claim it to be mine.
In consequence you let me watch you talking to yourself.
Jeremias1111 1 year ago
@Jeremias1111 Now U see Q has priority over Hadith U'll see that Muslims who dont say kill apostates hav the right. We who follow Q cant see why some Muslims claim apostates should be killed. Hadith arent rejected unless contradicted by Q. Q is deciding word. If U say real Muslims must kill apostates becoz of hadiths U've found then U err for Q says appostates dont get killed. Stop asking followers of Q to explain beliefs of those who prefer other sources to Q We want QURAN! More to come:
eatingeatingeating 1 year ago
@Jeremias1111 U choose 2 call words of Q & Muslims who repeat those words & dont preach violence "DRIVEL." In Ur view quoting Quran, & taking Q as Supreme source is "DRIVEL." U pour scorn on Muslims trying to convince U not to ally Urself to those saying: "kill apostates" for their evidence is contrary to Q: they dont follow the Book they claim to adhere to. We ask U to question them on their violent unQuranic approach rather than those among us who do take our religion from Q. Y is that Drivel?
eatingeatingeating 1 year ago
@eatingeatingeating
In a way this is fascinating.
I tell you that my position has nothing to do with the one you assign to me, but you just go on and on and on...
Jeremias1111 1 year ago