[Gofre]

Please, not the scientific marvel of the Quran again! It's one of the most tediously overdone bad arguments in the history of ever.

[CosmicVengeance]

Do you think Thats the only fact ? there are loads which you have never heard about

[PandyAndy]

(Original post by CosmicVengeance)
Do you think Thats the only fact ? there are loads which you have never heard about

It's not a fact at all, let alone the only one. This isn't the thread for that though.

[mmmpie]

(Original post by CosmicVengeance)
Do you think Thats the only fact ? there are loads which you have never heard about

If you're going to enumerate some, please go with ones which we really haven't heard about and which are true (these two categories would overlap quite a lot).

[CosmicVengeance]

(Original post by mmmpie)
If you're going to enumerate some, please go with ones which we really haven't heard about and which are true (these two categories would overlap quite a lot).

Ever heard of "The thoery of probability" ?

[mmmpie]

(Original post by CosmicVengeance)
Ever heard of "The thoery of probability" ?

Yes, what about it? You're going to tell me that there's a discourse on probability theory in the Quran?

[CosmicVengeance]

(Original post by mmmpie)
Yes, what about it? You're going to tell me that there's a discourse on probability theory in the Quran?

Watch this its only 10 minutes, tell me what you think http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gL42ljZcTSQ

[Xotol]

(Original post by mmmpie)
Yes, what about it? You're going to tell me that there's a discourse on probability theory in the Quran?

Yeah, it's right next to the surat fully detailing fluid hydrodynamics and before the one about relativity.

[mmmpie]

(Original post by CosmicVengeance)
Watch this its only 10 minutes, tell me what you think http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gL42ljZcTSQ

If it's that great, you can give me a précis.

(Original post by Xotol)
Yeah, it's right next to the surat fully detailing fluid hydrodynamics and before the one about relativity.

To be honest, anything which couldn't plausibly have been known at that time would have done, even if it was dressed up in metaphor. I mean, how difficult would it have been to say "the lightest gas has atoms shaped like the moon going around the earth" or something like that.

[King Amukee]

Consider this : An archaeologist digs deep into the desert sand and finds a piece of an old clay pot. After his investigations, this archaeologist can tell us, from this little old piece of dusty clay, so much about the civilisation that existed thousands of years ago that produced it; he can tell usabout the types of ovens, temperatues, and dyes that they worked with, the raw materials that they used, and thus assess the level of their artistic skill and technological ability, etc. All this from a small piece of clay lying in the desert.

Did this archaeologist ever see the civilisation that produced this pot ?

How does he know that it ever existed ?

He knows because he saw that the piece of clay was produced by someone who designed it, and shaped it, and had the intelligence to be able to heat it and produce the pot, and not only that, they also had the ability to colour it and make it look beautiful.
Design ==> Designer.

To the archaeologist the existence and intricacy of the piece of pottery is conclusive proof of the existence, intelligence and ability of the people who made it.

[mmmpie]

(Original post by King Amukee)
Consider this : An archaeologist digs deep into the desert sand and finds a piece of an old clay pot. After his investigations, this archaeologist can tell us, from this little old piece of dusty clay, so much about the civilisation that existed thousands of years ago that produced it; he can tell usabout the types of ovens, temperatues, and dyes that they worked with, the raw materials that they used, and thus assess the level of their artistic skill and technological ability, etc. All this from a small piece of clay lying in the desert.

Did this archaeologist ever see the civilisation that produced this pot ?

How does he know that it ever existed ?

He knows because he saw that the piece of clay was produced by someone who designed it, and shaped it, and had the intelligence to be able to heat it and produce the pot, and not only that, they also had the ability to colour it and make it look beautiful.
Design ==> Designer.

To the archaeologist the existence and intricacy of the piece of pottery is conclusive proof of the existence, intelligence and ability of the people who made it.

Except that we know inductively that pots are made by somebody. Our experience of the world tells us this fact about pots.

We do not know the equivalent piece of information about universes, galaxies, planets, ecosystems, or metabolic pathways; to give just a few examples.

[CosmicVengeance]

(Original post by mmmpie)
If it's that great, you can give me a précis.



To be honest, anything which couldn't plausibly have been known at that time would have done, even if it was dressed up in metaphor. I mean, how difficult would it have been to say "the lightest gas has atoms shaped like the moon going around the earth" or something like that.

How hard can it be? The prophet Muhammed (Pbuh) was an illiterate man who could neither read or write, your telling me someone who could neither read or write, with a load of scientific facts just known recently made up all these facts, also theres nothing in the Quran which can be proven Wrong,if so bring your evidence, Obviously God revealed the Quran to Muhammad (pbuh), or if your denying it your saying an Illterate man knew more about science then modern scientists, what are the chances ?

[King Amukee]

(Original post by mmmpie)
Except that we know inductively that pots are made by somebody. Our experience of the world tells us this fact about pots.

We do not know the equivalent piece of information about universes, galaxies, planets, ecosystems, or metabolic pathways; to give just a few examples.

and so we didn't know you couldn't travel quicker than the speed of light thanks to e=mc2; how much more may we discover in the years to come?

[CosmicVengeance]

(Original post by mmmpie)
Except that we know inductively that pots are made by somebody. Our experience of the world tells us this fact about pots.

We do not know the equivalent piece of information about universes, galaxies, planets, ecosystems, or metabolic pathways; to give just a few examples.

Answer this, How can you prove God doesnt Exist when the evidence is all around you wherever you look, your telling me things magically just appear out of nothing, like the time i created fireballs and shot them into the air.

[mmmpie]

(Original post by CosmicVengeance)
How hard can it be? The prophet Muhammed (Pbuh) was an illiterate man who could neither read or write, your telling me someone who could neither read or write, with a load of scientific facts just known recently made up all these facts, also theres nothing in the Quran which can be proven Wrong,if so bring your evidence, Obviously God revealed the Quran to Muhammad (pbuh), or if your denying it your saying an Illterate man knew more about science then modern scientists, what are the chances ?

I know that it's traditionally said that Muhammad was illiterate, but since he was a merchant that's never seemed entirely plausible to me. Anyway, it doesn't really matter.

In any case, the Quran's scientific claims include the Earth being a prolate spheroid - it's an oblate spheroid, and the fact that it was some sort of spheroid was widely known a thousand years before Muhammad was born. So that's provably wrong for starters. There's more: bees do not eat fruit [16:68], the sun does not set in a muddy spring at the Earth's westernmost point (incidentally contradicting the ostrich egg) [18:86-90], when listing the numbers of legs animals have species with six limbs are omitted in spite of being the most common number [24:45], all the things which were created by pairs presumably excludes all the (majority of) species which don't have two sexes [51:49], semen does not issue forth from "between the loins and the ribs" [86:5-7], humans are made neither from gushing fluids [86:6] nor from clots [96:1-2], and the stars do not appear to be missiles being thrown at devils [67:5] nor are they likely to fall to Earth [81:2].

I think that's a representative selection of "proving wrong" to be going on with. Doesn't seem like the illiterate man knew much about modern science to me.

[mmmpie]

(Original post by King Amukee)
and so we didn't know you couldn't travel quicker than the speed of light thanks to e=mc2; how much more may we discover in the years to come?

We will discover a lot, I'm sure. I'm not sure what you're getting at with the reference to E=mc^2.

(Original post by CosmicVengeance)
Answer this, How can you prove God doesnt Exist when the evidence is all around you wherever you look, your telling me things magically just appear out of nothing, like the time i created fireballs and shot them into the air.

I don't need to prove that god doesn't exist, I believe that's the case but I claim to know only that's very, very unlikely. The evidence unfortunately is not all around me, there is no phenomenon up to and including the existence of the universe itself for which there is not a natural explanation at least as plausible as god.

[Gofre]

(Original post by CosmicVengeance)
Answer this, How can you prove God doesnt Exist when the evidence is all around you wherever you look, your telling me things magically just appear out of nothing, like the time i created fireballs and shot them into the air.

We're not claiming that he doesn't exist, only that there's no evidence that he does. Without evidence, we don't believe, simple.

[Hypocrism]

(Original post by CosmicVengeance)
Answer this, How can you prove God doesnt Exist when the evidence is all around you wherever you look, your telling me things magically just appear out of nothing, like the time i created fireballs and shot them into the air.

Oh sweet merciful atheistic gods, please let him come to my room and spice up my life with a bit of casual fireball throwing.

But seriously, I will pay good money to see you, or anyone, create fireballs supernaturally. Very good money. I'll make it worth your while.

Do you see the point of my post? You claim things appear out of nothing, when you've never seen anything appearing out of nothing and you have no evidence that anything has ever appeared out of nothing. This makes your claim a false claim.

[Hypocrism]

(Original post by mmmpie)
I know that it's traditionally said that Muhammad was illiterate, but since he was a merchant that's never seemed entirely plausible to me. Anyway, it doesn't really matter.

In any case, the Quran's scientific claims include the Earth being a prolate spheroid - it's an oblate spheroid, and the fact that it was some sort of spheroid was widely known a thousand years before Muhammad was born. So that's provably wrong for starters. There's more: bees do not eat fruit [16:68], the sun does not set in a muddy spring at the Earth's westernmost point (incidentally contradicting the ostrich egg) [18:86-90], when listing the numbers of legs animals have species with six limbs are omitted in spite of being the most common number [24:45], all the things which were created by pairs presumably excludes all the (majority of) species which don't have two sexes [51:49], semen does not issue forth from "between the loins and the ribs" [86:5-7], humans are made neither from gushing fluids [86:6] nor from clots [96:1-2], and the stars do not appear to be missiles being thrown at devils [67:5] nor are they likely to fall to Earth [81:2].

I think that's a representative selection of "proving wrong" to be going on with. Doesn't seem like the illiterate man knew much about modern science to me.

Such a good post. Huge, huge rep deserved.

[Hypocrism]

(Original post by King Amukee)
Consider this : An archaeologist digs deep into the desert sand and finds a piece of an old clay pot. After his investigations, this archaeologist can tell us, from this little old piece of dusty clay, so much about the civilisation that existed thousands of years ago that produced it; he can tell usabout the types of ovens, temperatues, and dyes that they worked with, the raw materials that they used, and thus assess the level of their artistic skill and technological ability, etc. All this from a small piece of clay lying in the desert.

Did this archaeologist ever see the civilisation that produced this pot ?

How does he know that it ever existed ?

He knows because he saw that the piece of clay was produced by someone who designed it, and shaped it, and had the intelligence to be able to heat it and produce the pot, and not only that, they also had the ability to colour it and make it look beautiful.
Design ==> Designer.

To the archaeologist the existence and intricacy of the piece of pottery is conclusive proof of the existence, intelligence and ability of the people who made it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punakaiki

This rock formation is intricate, beautiful, and old.
Was it created by somebody?
No. We know the geological forces that caused its formation from our scientific knowledge.

The problem with your post was that it assumed that that something detailed, intricate or complex can only arise by design. Such a thing is not true- clouds are not designed, and they are hugely complex. Limestone caves are not designed, but they are extremely intricate. And let me tell you, our nervous system was not designed, and it is so complex we have only a minuscule understanding of it today.

Let me tell you something else. The universe was not designed, nor was our galaxy, or our solar system; neither was our beautiful earth, or our fragile human form. What seems complex and irreducible can be built up in tiny steps that are favoured due to their ability to propagate. In this way many small, likely occurrences build up slowly to one complex result that is unimaginably unlikely. To me, propagation is the most fundamental concept in our universe. Entropy propagates; matter propagates; disease propagates; genes propagate; memes propagate. Things that are stable in their environment, able to replicate accurately, and last for a long time will, by definition, be common, and will become suited to their environment at the expense of less propagation-prone entities. We are not created: we are evolved, and reducing this beautiful inevitability of nature to the simple work of design is, to me, "blasphemy".