Why Islam does not clash with modern science, or does it?

[Abdelrahman]

Peace be unto all of you! Believers and Non-Believers alike!

As a Muslim, we put huge regard on scripture not clashing with modern science. We believe that if God created the scripture then it should not contain errors in it when referencing the natural world and what we've come to understand about it.

"Then do they not reflect upon the Qur'an? If it had been from [any] other than Allah, they would have found within it much contradiction." - The Holy Quran (4:82)

Many Christian/Atheist debates exist out there, but I am saddened to see that no atheists debate Muslim scholars who read and write Arabic fluently. When debates are organized between people who don't understand arabic or science it goes no where.

Arabic is my mother tongue. I also speak English at home so I'd say im fluent in both. I am a science university graduate and I love the topic of religion and science.

In Islam, we don't have 'blind faith'. I am not allowed to believe something blindly, I must have reasons. Real reasons. That is why we believe God allowed the prophets to perform miracles - so as to give people a sign. And since we believe the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) to be the last prophet, his sign and lasting miracle is the Qur'an. The Qur'an is meant to be a 'sign' to the end of time and I invite all members to reflect on its verses.

I am looking to debate someone on whether or not Islamic scriptural references to the natural world clash with modern scientific understanding!

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 20 by Abdelrahman]

I recommend you confirm your sources, double check your numbers, use the calculators I've put up here to count the words yourself. If you want a list of references from me for any word count I'll gladly walk you through them. It is not cherry picking, and it is not some wild interpretation.

I am an atheist. I don't believe the bible has any divine input any more than the Qur'an does, because I don't believe that gods of any kind exist. There has certainly never been any physical evidence to demonstrate that a particular god exists, or any supernatural entity of any kind for that matter, so I see no reason to believe that they do exist. Allah is just another human-invented god being described in a human-written book, and is no more real than the thousands of other gods humans have invented (in my view). Until one of these god beings makes itself known in some way, I'll stick with the simple position that they are imaginary.

I have no interest in wasting time trying to justify the silly "numerical miracles" in the Qur'an or any other similar book. These are nothing but word games played by people who think the Qur'an is divinely inspired and need to find some way to try to support that idea. If you could take a step backwards and first demonstrate that the god of the Qur'an actually exists, then it might make sense to ponder whether or not the various word and number games have any validity. Without a divine being to provide divine input, it hardly seems worth debating whether or not this imaginary entity influenced a guy sitting in a cave 1400 years ago taking notes from an imaginary angel.

Like the bible, the Qur'an is a good work of fiction for the time it was written. But it is not a science book and has no useful scientific purpose or function. It does, however, have a function as a religious book as you and many others have demonstrated. Why not leave it at that and use it for that purpose? What is the point of pretending it is some kind of scientifically accurate text? How does that benefit anyone or convince more people to flock to that religion (which I'd assume is the primary reason for proselytizing in the first place).

[Abdelrahman]

I am an atheist. I don't believe the bible has any divine input any more than the Qur'an does, because I don't believe that gods of any kind exist. There has certainly never been any physical evidence to demonstrate that a particular god exists, or any supernatural entity of any kind for that matter, so I see no reason to believe that they do exist. Allah is just another human-invented god being described in a human-written book, and is no more real than the thousands of other gods humans have invented (in my view). Until one of these god beings makes itself known in some way, I'll stick with the simple position that they are imaginary.

I have no interest in wasting time trying to justify the silly "numerical miracles" in the Qur'an or any other similar book. These are nothing but word games played by people who think the Qur'an is divinely inspired and need to find some way to try to support that idea. If you could take a step backwards and first demonstrate that the god of the Qur'an actually exists, then it might make sense to ponder whether or not the various word and number games have any validity. Without a divine being to provide divine input, it hardly seems worth debating whether or not this imaginary entity influenced a guy sitting in a cave 1400 years ago taking notes from an imaginary angel.

What you fail to understand, is that most of the evidence for God's existence is the text itself. We do not have a Prophet of God living today to show you some miracles, which would be very convenient. Well, don't fret, cause God is the Most Just and has left us with a timeless miracle. This is the claim made by Muslims. That is what we are told in the text itself, God says:

"Those (Literally: that). are the Éayat (Verses, signs) of the evident Book." - The Holy Qur'an [26:2]

So that's why all these statements about nature decades ahead of its time is meant to be a 'sign' to us. God knew we would not have Prophets around as He sent the last one 1400 years ago, but for all the generations to come after, they need a miracle too right? Or are we supposed to believe in the miracles of the past with no proof? That doesn't sound very Just. Life is a test. God isn't going to step out in front of you and show Himself. At Moses's (pbuh) time, seeing the sea split in half was a 'sign' to those people. People had to think and reflect off what they've seen and arrive at the conclusion of God...obviously many didn't. They did not have the knowledge of Physics we have today and seeing such a thing today would no doubt prove divine intervention. Seeing someone bring someone back from the dead today would be a medical miracle. We understand the significance of such miracles today, but back then, people still disbelieved. They all had their reasons.

When trying to debate Muslims, we put great emphasis on the Qur'an. Claiming it to be God's very words, we expect to find no contradictions and no errors when referencing the natural world, since the author is claiming to be the Creator of said things described.

When we honestly look at the verses contained in the Qur'an, it is beyond a doubt ahead of it's time when it references ideas about various parts of creation, including the natural world, space and our own bodies.

These mathematical patterns we are finding are beyond a doubt astonishing. Every single word and letter is accounted for. The Pprophet Muhammad (pbuh) never once said that words have patterns in the Qur'an i.e. that they appear a certain number of times equal to their opposites. Don't you think if he wrote it, he would've made everyone aware of such things. We are only discovering these things today. And the scientific statements are only being confirmed today with modern science. No man can write such a text, 1400 years ago talking about the origin of the Universe, the rotation of the planets, the description of where spring water comes from, descriptions of embryonic development and the list just keeps going on and on and on. In Islam, science proves God, it doesn't clash with religion.

We know our history and we know when we discovered certain concepts and when they were established as facts in science. There's no way one illiterate man 1400 years ago could've known these things. That's why all of the great scientists I've referenced are just as astonished. We do not call the Qur'an a book of science, but a book of 'signs'.

It does not say water is composed of H2O but it does describe the movement of water in such a way, that whomever wrote it, must've known about the true nature of the water cycle. Whomever wrote the verse about the universe expanding, did not outline a detailed scientific analysis, but whomever wrote it MUST'VE known about it.
Something we know for a fact we did not discover for another couple of hundred years. Then the text itself says:

"..Verily, in that are indeed signs for a people who reflect." - The Holy Qur'an [30:21]

The verse itself is saying that this is a 'sign' for you to reflect upon. You go reflect now. I showed you how Leonardo Da Vinci and Aristotle got the water cycle wrong, yet an illiterate bedouin from the desert got it right. Think about that. The verse about the common origin of the universe. How does a man from 1400 years ago guess such things, and not even reflect the views from his time? Just think about that. Are they guesses? If they are guesses then why isn't just one incorrect? If he copied from someone else then WHERE did he copy from? He does not reflect the views of the most advanced empires at the time. Who knew about the common origin of the universe and its expansion at that time? The Greeks? Come to me with your evidence. Come to me with your evidence or where he would've known such things. Every single point you've brought up I've refuted and you have not responded to any of them.

What you have done instead is copy and paste from wikiislam, and I've already proved how they lie about Arabic translations. I'm as ready as you are to debate man, I've given you all the answers and now all you are doing is running away. I thought this was a debate website so why are you running when it gets tough?

Go confirm your views. You claimed we cherry pick, prove it. Otherwise I'm going to safely conclude that Islam won this debate. I've already swiftly went through the claim that we cherry picked words for the 365 day count.. I've provided you with all the evidence. Now what are you going to do?

Like the bible, the Qur'an is a good work of fiction for the time it was written. But it is not a science book and has no useful scientific purpose or function. It does, however, have a function as a religious book as you and many others have demonstrated. Why not leave it at that and use it for that purpose? What is the point of pretending it is some kind of scientifically accurate text? How does that benefit anyone or convince more people to flock to that religion (which I'd assume is the primary reason for proselytizing in the first place).

Because as I have shown, the Qur'an's claim is that it is a divinely written text. That is our proof of God in today's world. If the natural world and the cause of the big bang isn't enough of a sign for you, then look to what we are claiming.

So long Atheists don't respond to our claims and keep running away, we will only increase in faith as no one has come to disprove our claim. ALL of the signs I have mentioned you have not given me one iota of evidence to the contrary. That these things were known at the time, or that these things were guess work. That he (pbuh) must've copied from somewhere... nothing. Simply stating it is a fiction without an explanation for how one could've even guessed all these things is not how debating works.

Either come with evidence or run away. I beg you to not run. Leave the Christians alone and come debate the Muslims, please. Atheists have not done a good enough job at refuting our claims...instead resorting to lying about translations and copying and pasting without confirming for themselves. Muslims agree that the Bible is man made...it is obvious that parts of the Bible are not inspired by God and thus part of their concept of God must also be man-made - but some parts that have been preserved from the original Gospel and those parts are not man made. I cannot tell you which parts are from the original Gospel are in the Bible today, we don't even know who wrote what or if any of the Bible today even contains parts of the original Gospel.

I urge you DrNoGods...debate me properly. Take all the time you need. I'll be here. Muslims are dying at the chance to debate Atheists but they spend too much time with Christianity and they completely forget about us. It's easy to debate Christians, come debate someone who's a challenge We believe in Jesus (pbuh) too after all, and we claim he's a great Prophet of God.

[mms20102]

[Replying to post 4 by DrNoGods]

again, the statement that "the heavens and the Earth were once a connected entity" is too vague to base a scientific analysis on.

Maybe you don't know about the rules of preserving Islamic history wish goes through many filters to get to the historic facts happened in that past, but you might check on them.

The Idea of presenting the Quranic verses is not because it is a normal human-written text, and I have pointed out before the Idea behind why the enemies of Muhammed couldn't say that he made it up, and the best to recall is the story of Al-Mugheirah when he said: " I know all the poems of humans and Jinn and I can say it's not a human-made text, etc... ". So saying that the Quran is just a normal text is a random claim.

Looking at the verse أَوَلَمْ يَرَ الَّذ�ينَ كَ�َر�وا أَنَّ السَّمَاوَات� وَالْأَرْضَ كَانَتَا رَتْقًا �َ�َتَقْنَاه�مَا ۖ وَجَعَلْنَا م�نَ الْمَاء� ك�لَّ شَيْء� حَي�ّ ۖ أَ�َلَا ي�ؤْم�ن�ونَ (30).Explanation by early scholars -who lived at the age of prophet Muhammed- and in particular Ibn Abbas the cousin of prophet Muhammed said that the Arabic word "رَتْقًا" means "they were stuck together" and the word "�َ�َتَقْنَاه�مَا" is the past of the Arabic noun "�تق" which can mean " Hernia" and that describes precisely that the breakup comes due to inner explosion and not just normal separation. Again the Arabic language is more rich and precise than the English language. That's why one word in Arabic can hold two meanings together like " �تق " which means separation due to inner pressure, or the word " علق " which holds more than one meaning " hanging firmly, clot and leech ". Conclusion, vague can be said to the English text and I agree, but it's different in Arabic.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 22 by Abdelrahman]

What you fail to understand, is that most of the evidence for God's existence is the text itself.

Then it is a circular argument. One of the rules of this section of the website is that religious writings can't be used as evidence to support a scientific claim:

"While posters may certainly take positions based on religious doctrine, the Bible or other religious writings are not to be considered evidence for scientific claims."

God knew we would not have Prophets around as He sent the last one 1400 years ago.

Another claim from the Qur'an I assume. How do you know Muhammad was the "last" prophet? There are other religions that would not agree with that. The Mormons claim that Joseph Smith was a prophet and he lived only 200 years ago. Who is to say that he was not a prophet and Muhammad was? This is all subjective interpretation, as most things in religion are.

Life is a test. God isn't going to step out in front of you and show Himself.

Why not? How do you know that life is a test? This is a common (and convenient) way to brush away the need for a particular god to demonstrate its existence. Religious people always have ready answers like this when there really is no answer. No god has ever been shown to exist in the real, physical world, and some are conveniently defined to avoid that problem altogether (eg. they are pure energy, or something similar).

When trying to debate Muslims, we put great emphasis on the Qur'an. Claiming it to be God's very words, we expect to find no contradictions and no errors when referencing the natural world, since the author is claiming to be the Creator of said things described.

But in a debate about the scientific validity of something claimed in a holy book, and with a rule that the holy book can't be used as evidence to support a scientific claim, what value is the above statement? You clearly believe the Qur'an is divinely inspired and is an error-free holy book. That drives your interpretation of everything it claims. I believe it is nothing but a man-made text without any divine input (ie. like any other holy book). Vague statements can always be interpreted to mean different things to different people, and religious books are full of vague statements that are interpreted subjectively by the reader ... as you are doing with the water cycle, origin of the universe, etc. The statements are simply too vague to conclude what you are concluding.

These mathematical patterns we are finding are beyond a doubt astonishing.

Why? Even if there were 365 mentions of the word "day" in the Qur'an, what significance does that have? Why is is relevant? Parlor tricks fool many people in the same way. Word games and number games are just that.

Don't you think if he wrote it, he would've made everyone aware of such things.

Again ... why? I expect that whoever did write the Qur'an had no idea that someone would come along later to count words selectively to try and come up with a meaning to something like there being 365 mentions of the word day. I expect you don't like the wikiIslam article because it shows that these kinds of things are tricks and nothing more, with no real meaning. People have done similar word counting tricks with the bible, and other books.

It does not say water is composed of H2O but it does describe the movement of water in such a way, that whomever wrote it, must've known about the true nature of the water cycle.

No ... you are interpreting it that way to try and demonstrate that it was ahead of its time and therefore must have divine input. Vague statements can have many interpretations, and if something was not known to humans 1400 years ago then it cannot be described in a 1400 year old book. Selective interpretation is what allows introduction of the idea of divine input, but there is no reason to believe in divine input when no divine being of any kind has even been shown to exist (or the supernatural in general). Mormons believe Joseph Smith was a prophet just as you believe that Muhammad was a prophet. The only position on divine beings and prophets that is consistent with all observations is that they don't exist. My first debates with religious people was about 35 years ago in my late 20s when I had regular lunches with a Hindu couple from India, and a Muslim from Iran. Most of those discussions were the Hindu's disagreeing with the Muslim ... both defending their religions and both convinced the other was wrong.

I showed you how Leonardo Da Vinci and Aristotle got the water cycle wrong, yet an illiterate bedouin from the desert got it right. Think about that. The verse about the common origin of the universe. How does a man from 1400 years ago guess such things, and not even reflect the views from his time? Just think about that. Are they guesses? If they are guesses then why isn't just one incorrect?

Again, it is your selective interpretation that makes you think that the Qur'an is right because a vague statement is twisted to mean whatever you want it to mean. That is how all of these claims about the Qur'an (or any holy book) work, and the more vague the statement the easier it is to interpret it any way you want.

I've already swiftly went through the claim that we cherry picked words for the 365 day count.. I've provided you with all the evidence. Now what are you going to do?

Nothing, because it is irrelevant how many times the word "day" is written in the Qur'an. What does that prove about anything? It is meaningless.

Because as I have shown, the Qur'an's claim is that it is a divinely written text. That is our proof of God in today's world.

Then it is no proof at all. Hindu's can make the exact same claim about their gods. Many religions are incompatible with others, and it is not possible that all of the gods claimed by all of the religions humans have invented can exist. So religious people have to make choices on which god they believe in (usually based on where they were born and the social environment they grew up in). I have no such restrictions because I accept the one position that is consistent with everything that can be observed about gods ... they don't exist.

Simply stating it is a fiction without an explanation for how one could've even guessed all these things is not how debating works.

But you can't use the Qur'an as evidence to support any of your claims. At least that is not how debating works in this section of this website. My main point is that you are selectively interpreting vague statements to suit your purpose and to support the claims you are making. This is the most common approach by all religious people who make claims about their holy books, and it is seen constantly. You are following that exact same approach.

Muslims agree that the Bible is man made...

Of course, and they claim that the Qur'an isn't because it is their holy book. Flip it around and debate the issue with a Christian and their holy book and they will defend it using the exact same tactics (selective interpretation of passages).

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 23 by mms20102]

Conclusion, vague can be said to the English text and I agree, but it's different in Arabic.

Are you saying that it is not possible to translate Arabic into English and maintain the original meaning? I would think that people who are fluent in both languages should be able to make appropriate translations, unless the original text is ambiguous so that the meaning is not perfectly clear. This seems to be the case for many of the passages, so that people are free to interpret them as they see fit (as we have seen in this thread).

[Abdelrahman]

Then it is a circular argument. One of the rules of this section of the website is that religious writings can't be used as evidence to support a scientific claim:

"While posters may certainly take positions based on religious doctrine, the Bible or other religious writings are not to be considered evidence for scientific claims."

How is it a circular argument. It's very simple, the proof of God is a text that is ahead of its times by decades - no man 1400 years ago could have produced such a text alone.

Circular reasoning is like saying God exists...why? because it says so in the Qur'an.. why should I believe the Qur'an? because the Qur'an is the inspired word of God. As you can see there is no escaping the 'loop'. No evidence is brought forth supporting any of the claims. I however am presenting you with all the evidence.

My argument is God exists... why? because the Qur'an is decades ahead of its time scientifically and tells us that this is proof for the existence of God.

Me claiming that the text contains scientific statements ahead of its time (by decades) is not a circular argument. Instead of trying to wrongly dismiss the argument as a circular argument why don't you actually tell us why the verses in question are too vague for you. Debate the actual evidence.

And you've misunderstood the rule on the website. It is saying that you cannot use Biblical or Qur'anic text to support a scientific claim. For example, If I say the mustard seed is the smallest seed in the world, and you're like prove it, I reference the Bible. Since the Bible is not a scientific text I cannot use it to support my 'scientific claim' that the smallest seed is the mustard seed. Do you understand it now?

I am not coming up with my own scientific theories here. What I bring up scientifically has already been established as fact. I am not supporting my own 'scientific claim' with the Qur'an I don't need to, the science has already been established. I can reference scientific papers if I have to proving the expansion of space - that is not the argument here. Do you now understand what the rule means?

Instead of trying to run from the debate why don't you actually address it? I've brought up verses like the one below:

"And you see the mountains, thinking them rigid, while they will pass as the passing of clouds. [It is] the work of Allah, who perfected all things. Indeed, He is Acquainted with that which you do." - The Holy Qur'an [27:88]

How is this statement vague to you? It very clearly says you think the mountains are rigid when in fact they will pass just like the clouds. Which word is vague? Passing? Rigid? Do you want me to define rigid and passing for you? I mean its ridiculous that you're trying to call that statement vague - its pretty clear. Instead of trying to run from the argument why don't you tell me what is vague?which word? what can the above sentence possibly mean besides what it is saying? Stick to the point and debate me properly man comon.

This statement is also very very clear:

"Have those who disbelieved not considered that the heavens and the earth were a joined entity, and We separated them and made from water every living thing? Then will they not believe?" [Quran 21:30]

It very very very clearly says that everything in space and earth were once a joined entity. Don't tell me the word 'heavens' is vague, just because in English heavens means paradise doesn't mean it means the same thing in Arabic. The word is referring to everything beyond Earth, above, space - this is not an interpretation - That is how the Arabic language is. I can reference so many verses where this is proven. So which word is vague for you. Let me remind you what the word vague means:

of uncertain, indefinite, or unclear character or meaning.

So what is unclear in meaning? If I say something was once a joined entity then it separated, what is unclear? What else can I possibly mean? Are you confused as to what joined entity means? It means when two things join and become one thing and it doesn't mean anything else. Don't you see that saying that everything was once a joined entity is in and of itself a statement decades ahead of its time. It is not describing for you the Big Bang in detail but it clearly indicates a common origin for the Universe. That statement in and of itself is decades ahead of its time, as simple as it is.

If it is vague, tell me what else it can mean? Tell me what I am selectively interpreting. If I say to you 'space above and earth were once a joined entity and separated' what else can I mean? Do I mean that maybe earth and space were once dating and they broke up? lol. Or maybe earth and space were conjoined twins and DrNoGods performed surgery on them? Like comon...be honest. No point in running.

Another claim from the Qur'an I assume. How do you know Muhammad was the "last" prophet? There are other religions that would not agree with that. The Mormons claim that Joseph Smith was a prophet and he lived only 200 years ago. Who is to say that he was not a prophet and Muhammad was? This is all subjective interpretation, as most things in religion are.

Joseph Smith was a known story teller, and performed no miracles to prove he was sent by the Creator. He came out without proof of Prophethood... just stories and claims.

Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), before claiming Prophethood (pbuh) wasn't a story teller - he was a man whom people would store their things with when they left town and that earned him the nickname - alameen- the trustworthy. That was his nickname in his youth - the Trustworthy. Obviously that's not proof alone of Prophethood but definitely a step above Joseph Smith. The Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) also predicted the future as I have shown. There are many many many statements made by the Prophet (pbuh) that have come to pass on the Muslim world. He predicted that

“That you see barefoot, unclothed Bedouin sheep-herders competing in the construction of tall buildings.�

40 years ago Dubai was just barefoot bedouins. Shephards before oil. Now they have the tallest building in the world and guess who is their competition? Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Other bedouins.

The Qur'an itself predicted a triumph of Rome over Persia when everyone thought Rome was about to lose it all. He (pbuh) predicted the Mongul invasion of Muslims lands that happened hundreds of years after his (pbuh) death:

“The Hour will not be established till you fight with the Khudh and the Kirman from among the non-Arabs. They will be of red faces, flat noses and small eyes; their faces will look like flat shields, and their shoes will be of hair.� - Sahih Muslim

He predicted that Islam would reach Damascus, Jerusalem, Iraq, Persia, Istanbul (Constantinople) and Cyprus, and that the religion of Islam would reach as far as the remotest corners of the world in the east and west. Happened.

He predicted that in the future people will be able to traverse great distances in small amounts of time. Happened. He predicted that:

"Prior to doomsday, people will discriminate when greeting others (greeting only some), trade will be given so much currency and preference that a wife will help her husband in it, parents and relatives will no longer be visited, false evidence and false testimony will replace the truth, and writing will gain prominence"

Writing was not common at his (pbuh) time. He was illiterate after all. Now there are libraries everywhere. He predicted that trade would increase so much that everyone would be involved (something not common at his (pbuh) time.

He (pbuh) said:

"A time will come upon people when everyone will eat from usury (interest), to the extent that those who refrain from it will be exposed to its 'dust'"

He predicted that EVERYONE will be exposed to interest. Something also not common at all at his time. Now we see interest everywhere...I cannot buy a house, car or use my credit card without exposing myself to interest. Imagine how hard it would be to avoid interest today.

I can keep going on and on and on.

Why not? How do you know that life is a test? This is a common (and convenient) way to brush away the need for a particular god to demonstrate its existence. Religious people always have ready answers like this when there really is no answer. No god has ever been shown to exist in the real, physical world, and some are conveniently defined to avoid that problem altogether (eg. they are pure energy, or something similar).

My proof lies in the above statements that are not only decades ahead of their time, they support previous religious groups. Islam is the only religion that recognizes all other religions as being from the same source but changed over time.We see the fingerprints of man in other texts. Either the text contains contradictions (far from omnipotent authorship) or statements about the natural world reflecting people's knowledge at the time. The Qur'an goes above and beyond what people knew at the time. We don't say were the only ones God loves or were the only ones He's contacted. Hinduism may very well have been from a Prophet but it has changed over time. This idea resonates better with me than to say we're the only ones God loves and Jesus (pbuh) never existed. I cannot show you that life is a test, but I can show you that 1400 years ago no man on Earth knew about the common origin of the universe. No man on Earth knew that mountains move slowly and will pass. No man on Earth knew that planets have their own rotation. No man knew for a fact that river water is solely from rain water. And beyond that, that all these statements came from the same man. Surely all these religions must have a common source? We all claim God sent it, and yet only Muslims acknowledge that surely everyone got a Prophet (pbuh) to warn them. Christians claim everything else is devil inspired. Jews don't believe Jesus (pbuh) existed and those who do consider him a liar but that is God's test on mankind. Are we going to become arrogant and say that God only loves us? No. God loves all and is testing us all.

But in a debate about the scientific validity of something claimed in a holy book, and with a rule that the holy book can't be used as evidence to support a scientific claim, what value is the above statement? You clearly believe the Qur'an is divinely inspired and is an error-free holy book. That drives your interpretation of everything it claims. I believe it is nothing but a man-made text without any divine input (ie. like any other holy book). Vague statements can always be interpreted to mean different things to different people, and religious books are full of vague statements that are interpreted subjectively by the reader ... as you are doing with the water cycle, origin of the universe, etc. The statements are simply too vague to conclude what you are concluding.

I already explained what the rule means. I'm not using the religious text to prove some scientific theory and evidencing the text itself. The science is already established science. What I am saying is how did a man 1400 years ago know this stuff?

And again, instead of running and claiming it as vague, tell me what is vague? Which words? What could they possibly mean besides what they are stating. Don't just claim it vague, explain yourself.

Why? Even if there were 365 mentions of the word "day" in the Qur'an, what significance does that have? Why is is relevant? Parlor tricks fool many people in the same way. Word games and number games are just that.

Can you write a book as an illiterate man, with statements about the natural world decades ahead of its time. predictions about the future, give deep spiritual advice and count every letter and word you are using throughout and yet keep it comprehensible. If you can, do it.

Make a prediction right now about the politics of the world, and state some things about nature hundreds of years before they are discovered as fact. Oh, and count the number of times you use the letters 'a' and 'b' throughout and make them equate to how many sentences you wrote, and tell people that that is a clue. Give me spiritual advice. Anything man.

You can say:

1)A.B. 2) America is going to invade Greenland in 3-5 years and 3) time is only a product of gravity.

How many times did I use the letters A and B in that sentence? Did I even count? Are my statements correct? Guess we'll see. Clearly, if he guessed, at least one statement would be wrong. Just one man. Yet none is wrong to this day.

Do you know how big the Qur'an is? Can you write a book like that counting words and letters? stating things about nature decades ahead of its time? Predicting the future hundreds of years ahead. You gotta make predictions that would take another 1000 years to fulfill. If you can do it.

Again ... why? I expect that whoever did write the Qur'an had no idea that someone would come along later to count words selectively to try and come up with a meaning to something like there being 365 mentions of the word day. I expect you don't like the wikiIslam article because it shows that these kinds of things are tricks and nothing more, with no real meaning. People have done similar word counting tricks with the bible, and other books.

Because If I wrote a book and I spent countless hours making sure that words appear exactly the same amount of times as their opposites... I would really want everyone to know. If I spent hours on hours in a cave writing this text meticulously counting every letter, I'd tell people: Guys count the words too! These patterns are proof of God! But it is clear that the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) never told his people to.

No ... you are interpreting it that way to try and demonstrate that it was ahead of its time and therefore must have divine input. Vague statements can have many interpretations, and if something was not known to humans 1400 years ago then it cannot be described in a 1400 year old book.

Which word is vague for you? Penetrate? Or maybe springs. I don't know I heard springs can mean hamburgers in Arabian cultures. What about penetrate? Google lists the definition as:

1) succeed in forcing a way into or through (a thing).
2) The random superfluous generation of Jelly on contact

You're right. I guess the statement that rain water penetrates the Earth and re-emerges as a spring is too vague. It can also mean that hamburgers will superfluously generate into Jelly. My apologies.

If you think its vague, tell us why. Don't keep hiding behind 'rules' you've misunderstood and 'vagueness' when you are being vague yourself. All I have done is paste evidence and intricate details and all you have done is call it vague, which is ironically enough vague. Tell us WHY its vague DrNoGods.

Nothing, because it is irrelevant how many times the word "day" is written in the Qur'an. What does that prove about anything? It is meaningless.

On its own nothing. Then you count the plural 'days' and its 30. Then you count month and its 12. Then you count angels/devils and theyre equal. Then you count paradise/hell and its equal. Action/reward, Justice/balance, This world/Next world...on and on. Then you count all the words I've shown you. The list is real real long. Don't forget to count letters too - oh and tell me something about science we're going to discover in 500 years. Pretty meaningful now right?

But you can't use the Qur'an as evidence to support any of your claims. At least that is not how debating works in this section of this website.

Here is an article from NASA on the scientific claim that space is expanding:

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/20 ... ubble-data

Happy now? I have not referenced the Qur'an as evidence that space is expanding, I've referenced NASA. You've misunderstood what is meant by that rule, now stop trying to hide. Tell us DrNoGods, which word is vague for you or unclear in meaning?

Of course, and they claim that the Qur'an isn't because it is their holy book. Flip it around and debate the issue with a Christian and their holy book and they will defend it using the exact same tactics (selective interpretation of passages).

Actually, Christians have done something remarkable with their holy text - they don't take it literally. If you take the Bible literally - then the mustard seed is the smallest in the world. Clearly representing mans understanding at the time of writing and NOT divine intervention. The Qur'an however, has no inconsistencies with science and I've yet to debate someone who will show me otherwise.

I beg you DrNoGods, debate me properly. Reference what is vague, detail by detail. Tell me what about those sentences is too vague for you? Explain yourself, we have an audience after all. You are entitled to your opinion but a debate requires reasoning and logic and proof for your statements. Explain to us, and everyone watching, WHY its vague. Everyone wants to know your point of view so explain it... don't keep running and hiding behind 'rules' you've misunderstood. You're taking all the fun out of debating by not debating me..your just giving us your opinion and no proof, no explanation...no nothing.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 26 by Abdelrahman]

"Have those who disbelieved not considered that the heavens and the earth were a joined entity, and We separated them and made from water every living thing? Then will they not believe?" [Quran 21:30]

Please explain exactly how the heavens and the earth were a joined entity. What does it mean? Also, how were they separated and how was every living thing specifically made from water?

[Abdelrahman]

I expect you don't like the wikiIslam article because it shows that these kinds of things are tricks and nothing more, with no real meaning. People have done similar word counting tricks with the bible, and other books.

Almost forgot to address this. You almost let this slip by me!

When I read this, I feel like you're not even trying at this point. Did you even read my message? I showed you how they lied about their definitions.

To everyone reading this, make sure you read my post where I address the wikiIislam article DrNoGods has referenced. They directly, either knowingly or not knowingly, lie about the translation of Arabic words. Anyone reading this can go to any Arabic dictionary online and see for themselves. 'nahar' means daytime and 'yawm' means day - but they wrongly claim that nahar means day and that we messed up our count. Thank God dictionaries exist and I've referenced the Cambridge dictionary website in my previous posts to prove their lie.

Instead of answering my post DrNoGods has conveniently ignored my answer and brought it up here again, as if I had not even said anything. Thank God this is all on record though and anyone can go read my posts!

Are you being honest with yourself or are you just trying to have fun? lol because I'm having fun showing everyone how dishonest some people can be, but by all means, keep ignoring the evidence I post. Don't you realize that people will read this? Do everyone a favor and be honest brother! It's a liberating feeling trust me.

and if something was not known to humans 1400 years ago then it cannot be described in a 1400 year old book.

Exactly! Eureka!! We have made progress!! Ha atleast you agree that if something was not known to us at the time, it should not be in the book! And if it is, then there is no logical explanation. The only answer, is what all the Prophets of God (pbuh) have been claiming this whole time, that God exists and He's behind revelation.

I look forward to some honest replying here DrNoGods!

[Abdelrahman]

Please explain exactly how the heavens and the earth were a joined entity. What does it mean? Also, how were they separated and how was every living thing specifically made from water?

Ah Brunumb! Thanks for the question but the answer is pretty simple here. The Qur'an isn't telling us how... All it's saying is that 'don't people reflect that the heavens and earth (i.e. all planets and everything beyond earth) were once connected and then separated. That's all it says. It doesn't say how or when, all it says is that they were connected and now they're seperated.

Remember this is a book of 'signs'. Now seriously think about the above statement. Really think. Can a man 1400 years ago, take a chance, and guess something like this?

As mms20102 has shown in a previous post, the very cousin of the Prophet (pbuh) explained what the word means. Joined entity means physically one body - stuck together. Highly recommend you read his/her answer, he/she gets into the details of the Arabic words used. Arabic is a very descriptive language and sometimes 3 English words are needed just to explain one Arabic word. Thanks mms20102 for the info!

We know now, thanks to modern equipment, how planets and the like came into existence. The big 'bang' is as much as a bang as my failed science project A better way to describe the big bang, as done by scientists, is that it was more like a very very very sudden expansion NOT an explosion. And people who study the origin of the planets will correctly attest that all the planets were at one point in time, a dense hot cloud. All the planets in our universe emerged out of a dense hot cloud that kept getting denser as time elapsed - forming stars and the planets. Heavier and heavier elements forming as time went on (interestingly the element Iron was not formed when Earth was being formed and the Qur'an hints at this by saying that Iron was literally 'sent down' to Earth - something we now know as scientific fact Iron came to Earth from space in asteroids but I digress).

The cloud began by forming atoms and quarks and sub atomic particles. As the cloud and gas grew denser, stars and planets started to form. Very interestingly, we also have the following verse describing this process:

"Then He directed Himself to the heaven while it was smoke and said to it and to the earth, "Come [into being], willingly or by compulsion." They said, "We have come willingly." - The Holy Qur'an [41:11]

The physical description given was that the heaven and earth were like a 'smoke' and then he made them come into existence. We now live in the 21st century. We have NASA. We have pictures for the formation of stars. Anyone can google these images. Stars form from hot opaque dense gas that becomes more and more dense until a star is born. We have images describing the entire process. Tell me honestly, when you look at those images of stars forming and the like, that it does not look like smoke. Hot gas almost looks like vapour in space, but its opaque and very dense. Hot opaque dense gas sound familiar? Looks like smoke too.

Now look at what I've said above. Does the Qur'an say how it happened? No, we are still figuring it out in the scientific community actually. All it says, was that things were once connected like a smoke, and out of it came the earth and the rest of space (the heavens). Go look at images of space and then tell me how does someone guess this stuff? They did not have telescopes that can see stars forming, and they definitely did not have the means to figure out that the planets and stars came from a 'connected entity'. I mean honestly, how do you guess that things were once all connected like a smoke and from it came the earth and all the planets and stars we see?

The statement itself, as simple as it may appear, is decades ahead of its time. And funny enough, the very same verse is asking the disbelievers in God..did you not consider this fact? It's literally asking the atheists out there, those who deny God's existence, did you not consider this sign? As if it knew that people would discover this one day and realize the significance of such a statement made 1400 years ago. God is directly talking to all the people that deny His existence...that look...here is a sign... Not only does it state something remarkable...it says guys....look here!!! something special here!! Something for those who disbelieve that maybe they might believe from it.

I mean, for an illiterate bedouin 1400 years ago. This is just astonishing. Coupled with ALL the other statements about nature AND the mathematical patterns we find, coupled with the fact that the same Prophet (pbuh) claims that Jesus (pbuh) also existed and so did Moses (pbuh) and Abraham (pbuh) and men have changed their religions (we see mans fingerprints in the Bible) and that God would not allow that to happen to the Qur'an. God specifically says in the Qur'an that He will preserve it to the end of time. One book. And it has not changed yet. Please offer me an explanation as to how a man could have known just that one simple fact?

As for the every living thing made of water fact...again...it does not tell us how God did it. We don't know HOW He made us. But when we study cells and see that most of a living cell is cytoplasm which is composed of 80% water. Then we look at humans that are about 70% water. Then we look at ALL living things and that they are composed of 50-90% water. If God says... every living thing is made of water...it does not take a genius to see how significant this claim is 1400 years ago. We don't know how God did it, but we see its evidence everywhere, I'm literally composed of water. 70% of me is water. And we have yet to find a living thing on this planet not made of water. Of all the species, and all the plants and insects. Everything. Millions and millions of species. How does one man make such a sweeping statement and not fall into error somewhere...just one place...any error...any where.. it's mind boggling.




[/quote]

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 29 by Abdelrahman]

All it's saying is that 'don't people reflect that the heavens and earth (i.e. all planets and everything beyond earth) were once connected and then separated. That's all it says. It doesn't say how or when, all it says is that they were connected and now they're seperated.

In that case it's nothing more than rhetoric. I would go as far as to say it is meaningless gibberish.