Jump to content
Islamic Forum
vishah

Congratulating An Atheist

Recommended Posts

Hi Andalusi

 

No I didn’t forget the other factors that you mention, that the letters had to be in the right order for instance I just used the example you gave of 1:6236 as the odds.  I understand that the odds are actually significantly longer than that but then you are ignoring the fact that that’s the odds of just that specific combination but what about every other word in the English language which you may find significance too if you search the quran for it.  You can’t just selectively pick the single word with long odds and say wow and ignore all the other words that could have been in there but weren’t.  Any given person winning the lotto is very improbable but millions of people enter every week and many people win every week even though the odds are long.  You can’t just count the hits without also accounting for the misses if you wish to honestly assess just how improbable this is.  What you are doing is using a selective bias to support your claim not a statistical improbability.

 

Before it would be worthwhile to prove that other books contain the same numbers of occurrences of men and women for example we’d first have to show that the quran did and I mean really did.  This is, of course, not the case.  If you count the only rajul and Imra’a then you do indeed get 24 occurrences.  Sounds like a nice figure but you only get it by ignoring other forms of those words.  Mar for example can refer to human being but it is used several times in the quran to refer specifically to a single man but these instances are not counted.  If counting them gave a ‘magic answer’ then I’m sure they would be counted as that is how this game is played.  One version of this story has the count as 23 which is also claimed to be a miracle because we have 23 chromosomes from each parent.  It’s amazing what hidden meanings you can find if you only look.  In this instance 24 is the correct number but you only get it by ignoring Mar which is the masculine of Imra’a yet Imra’a is counted but not it’s male equivalent.  Logically that’s suspicious.

 

In the end if you break down any book by words then group the words together in the correct groupings you’ll find ‘amazing coincidences’ like this.  Do or don’t include any sub group (plural/singular etc) till you find something that looks amazing then publish it as a miracle and you have support for your preconceptions but not proof of anything.

 

I’m not sure how it’s different to say that an image will be transmitted in a second over 2000km and that the speed of transmission of an image is 2000km/h while linking that to television.  Look at it rationally and that is exactly what you claimed the passage said.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds

Hi Andalusi

 

This is where you have to be careful where you hang your hat Andalusi.  Physics is an ever improving field, the figure I gave for the Proton – Electron mass ration was the latest one published in 2010, it’s accurate to around .4 parts per billion unlike the older, less accurate figure that you claim agrees with the quran.  As I said I’m not really sure it’s a miracle to get the figure wrong even if it was believed for a time to be correct.  Just saying it’s not true doesn’t really help your case when the best in the business, the physicists who actually do the experiments, have worked out the answer.  The most recent experiment along these lines was concluded in 2013 when Bagdonaite et al showed that the proton – electron mass ration was time invariant to less than 10-7 and that was based on the figure I’ve given above not the older figure you quote.  http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6115/46.short

 

Yes I can find plenty of references to the older, less accurate figure, on the web too if I want to search but that does not change the fact that the latest measurement is accurate to better than 0.4 parts per billion and that it disagrees with the figure you pulled from the quran.  Maybe look up physics journals on the web not mathematics or high school physics tutorial sites which are often well out of date.  Yes Ehow is in the same category.  Go to the source, ask the physicists what they think and you’ll avoid such errors in the future.

 

I’m not sure how anything you have said affects what I said about Mendel.  He finalized his theory in 1864, spoke about it at a couple of public meetings in 1865 and first published it in 1866.  That gave you a few years to pic but nowhere in there did he mention DNA because it would not be discovered till much later.  He studied heredity not DNA and I’m sure he’d be amazed to see what we have discovered since.  The field is not today called DNA though we have discovered a molecule which we call DNA which is one of the primary carriers of the heritable traits he was studying.  Not all life contains DNA though it does all contain one of that group of molecules at least all life that we’ve examined so far.

 

As I said before you will find a huge number of such amazing coincidences in any book you care to pull apart to this extent, word counting then human selection or word searching and then human selection or the bible code style letter picking methods then human selection can produce amazing results from any significantly long and complex a text.  Try your methods on moby and see what you can find.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Andalusi

 

No I didn’t forget the other factors that you mention, that the letters had to be in the right order for instance I just used the example you gave of 1:6236 as the odds.  I understand that the odds are actually significantly longer than that but then you are ignoring the fact that that’s the odds of just that specific combination but what about every other word in the English language which you may find significance too if you search the quran for it.  You can’t just selectively pick the single word with long odds and say wow and ignore all the other words that could have been in there but weren’t.  Any given person winning the lotto is very improbable but millions of people enter every week and many people win every week even though the odds are long.  You can’t just count the hits without also accounting for the misses if you wish to honestly assess just how improbable this is.  What you are doing is using a selective bias to support your claim not a statistical improbability.

 

Before it would be worthwhile to prove that other books contain the same numbers of occurrences of men and women for example we’d first have to show that the quran did and I mean really did.  This is, of course, not the case.  If you count the only rajul and Imra’a then you do indeed get 24 occurrences.  Sounds like a nice figure but you only get it by ignoring other forms of those words.  Mar for example can refer to human being but it is used several times in the quran to refer specifically to a single man but these instances are not counted.  If counting them gave a ‘magic answer’ then I’m sure they would be counted as that is how this game is played.  One version of this story has the count as 23 which is also claimed to be a miracle because we have 23 chromosomes from each parent.  It’s amazing what hidden meanings you can find if you only look.  In this instance 24 is the correct number but you only get it by ignoring Mar which is the masculine of Imra’a yet Imra’a is counted but not it’s male equivalent.  Logically that’s suspicious.

 

In the end if you break down any book by words then group the words together in the correct groupings you’ll find ‘amazing coincidences’ like this.  Do or don’t include any sub group (plural/singular etc) till you find something that looks amazing then publish it as a miracle and you have support for your preconceptions but not proof of anything.

 

I’m not sure how it’s different to say that an image will be transmitted in a second over 2000km and that the speed of transmission of an image is 2000km/h while linking that to television.  Look at it rationally and that is exactly what you claimed the passage said.

 

Russell

 

 

 

 

 

we’d first have to show that the quran did and I mean really did.  This is, of course, not the case.  If you count the only rajul and Imra’a then you do indeed get 24 occurrences.  Sounds like a nice figure but you only get it by ignoring other forms of those words.  Mar for example can refer to human being but it is used several times in the quran to refer specifically to a single man but these instances are not counted.  If counting them gave a ‘magic answer’ then I’m sure they would be counted as that is how this game is played.  One version of this story has the count as 23 which is also claimed to be a miracle because we have 23 chromosomes from each parent.  It’s amazing what hidden meanings you can find if you only look.  In this instance 24 is the correct number but you only get it by ignoring Mar which is the masculine of Imra’a yet Imra’a is counted but not it’s male equivalent.  Logically that’s suspicious.

 

mar is different word from rajul. same it is imraat or Nisaa 

 

Word Rajul = Man mentioned in the Quran 24 times

Word

Im'ra-at = Woman/wife mentioned in the Quran 24

times

 

Man 24 times

2zrkz1x.jpg

 

Woman 24 times

u8qpe.jpg

 

 

 

In the end if you break down any book by words then group the words together in the correct groupings you’ll find ‘amazing coincidences’ like this.  

 

 

show me only one example from other books

 

that they repeat opposite words like quran do

 

angels -88 times

devils- 88 times

 

this world -115

next world- 115

 

cold-4 times

heat-4 times

 

and so on. show me one example from other books.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Andalusi

 

I think we could go on forever here with word counting tricks.  The trouble is there is just too much room for playing and even if the case were indeed made it proves nothing except that by deeply examining a given text you’ll find coincidences.  You have to do more than appeal to peoples common sense here and provide a statistical analysis of your claim if you want it to be accepted.

 

So a couple of examples of how this is done again for those following along.

 

Man – women match if you only count singular forms and if you ignore other words which have the same meaning as used in the quran.

Angel-Devil for this one to work you have to count singular, dual and plural forms.

Benefit-corrupt only works if you include all words with the same root.

For day you have to include only the singular without suffixes.

 

As you can see there’s a method for every occasion which dramatically increasing the chances that you’ll manage to dig out coincidences in your word counts.  Sorry but that sounds rather dishonest to me.  It’s certainly a productive way of producing amazing sounding results but as for evidence of anything significant no sorry.  Now I’m not suggesting that Andalusi used all of these methods but these are the methods commonly used by muslim apologists to obtain these ‘miracles’.

 

Yes mar is a different word from rajul but it is used to convey the exact same meaning a number of times in the quran but is not counted. I agreed already that if you count just these specifically selected words you do indeed get the same figures but to do so you have to ignore other words that mean the same thing.  For other word coincidences as shown above, you have specifically to include other forms to get the counts that prove the ‘miracle’ so you have to pick your method for each case and that’s dishonest.

 

Yes I know you want me to produce the same sort of evidence from another book but I’m not aware of anyone who’s ever had the patience to dig through another book in the sort of detail required.  I certainly don’t but that’s not actually required, you are the one making the extraordinary claim so you have to provide the evidence here.  Can you?  You need to show not just that there are some word count coincidences but show statistically that such counts are extremely improbable and do not occur in other books, you need to do that analysis if you want your claims to be accepted.  I doubt you’ll have the patience required and I’ve never found anyone else who has despite all the claims being made by muslims here and elsewhere.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Andalusi

 

This is where you have to be careful where you hang your hat Andalusi.  Physics is an ever improving field, the figure I gave for the Proton – Electron mass ration was the latest one published in 2010, it’s accurate to around .4 parts per billion unlike the older, less accurate figure that you claim agrees with the quran.  As I said I’m not really sure it’s a miracle to get the figure wrong even if it was believed for a time to be correct.  Just saying it’s not true doesn’t really help your case when the best in the business, the physicists who actually do the experiments, have worked out the answer.  The most recent experiment along these lines was concluded in 2013 when Bagdonaite et al showed that the proton – electron mass ration was time invariant to less than 10-7 and that was based on the figure I’ve given above not the older figure you quote.  http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6115/46.short

 

Yes I can find plenty of references to the older, less accurate figure, on the web too if I want to search but that does not change the fact that the latest measurement is accurate to better than 0.4 parts per billion and that it disagrees with the figure you pulled from the quran.  Maybe look up physics journals on the web not mathematics or high school physics tutorial sites which are often well out of date.  Yes Ehow is in the same category.  Go to the source, ask the physicists what they think and you’ll avoid such errors in the future.

 

I’m not sure how anything you have said affects what I said about Mendel.  He finalized his theory in 1864, spoke about it at a couple of public meetings in 1865 and first published it in 1866.  That gave you a few years to pic but nowhere in there did he mention DNA because it would not be discovered till much later.  He studied heredity not DNA and I’m sure he’d be amazed to see what we have discovered since.  The field is not today called DNA though we have discovered a molecule which we call DNA which is one of the primary carriers of the heritable traits he was studying.  Not all life contains DNA though it does all contain one of that group of molecules at least all life that we’ve examined so far.

 

As I said before you will find a huge number of such amazing coincidences in any book you care to pull apart to this extent, word counting then human selection or word searching and then human selection or the bible code style letter picking methods then human selection can produce amazing results from any significantly long and complex a text.  Try your methods on moby and see what you can find.

 

Russell

 

 

 

Physics is an ever improving field, the figure I gave for the Proton – Electron mass ration was the latest one published in 2010,

 

show me evidence for that, i want clearly see that it is 1836 and not 1837.

 

so all those site above is wrong and you are correct ?? if so show me evidence.

 

 

 

I’m not sure how anything you have said affects what I said about Mendel.  He finalized his theory in 1864, spoke about it at a couple of public meetings in 1865 and first published it in 1866.

 

you just dont want to answer the question

 

why every site put year 1865 as begining year of DNA, and not 1864 or 1866? i posted evidence from different sites, why are you ignoreing this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Andalusi

 

I think we could go on forever here with word counting tricks.  The trouble is there is just too much room for playing and even if the case were indeed made it proves nothing except that by deeply examining a given text you’ll find coincidences.  You have to do more than appeal to peoples common sense here and provide a statistical analysis of your claim if you want it to be accepted.

 

So a couple of examples of how this is done again for those following along.

 

Man – women match if you only count singular forms and if you ignore other words which have the same meaning as used in the quran.

Angel-Devil for this one to work you have to count singular, dual and plural forms.

Benefit-corrupt only works if you include all words with the same root.

For day you have to include only the singular without suffixes.

 

As you can see there’s a method for every occasion which dramatically increasing the chances that you’ll manage to dig out coincidences in your word counts.  Sorry but that sounds rather dishonest to me.  It’s certainly a productive way of producing amazing sounding results but as for evidence of anything significant no sorry.  Now I’m not suggesting that Andalusi used all of these methods but these are the methods commonly used by muslim apologists to obtain these ‘miracles’.

 

Yes mar is a different word from rajul but it is used to convey the exact same meaning a number of times in the quran but is not counted. I agreed already that if you count just these specifically selected words you do indeed get the same figures but to do so you have to ignore other words that mean the same thing.  For other word coincidences as shown above, you have specifically to include other forms to get the counts that prove the ‘miracle’ so you have to pick your method for each case and that’s dishonest.

 

Yes I know you want me to produce the same sort of evidence from another book but I’m not aware of anyone who’s ever had the patience to dig through another book in the sort of detail required.  I certainly don’t but that’s not actually required, you are the one making the extraordinary claim so you have to provide the evidence here.  Can you?  You need to show not just that there are some word count coincidences but show statistically that such counts are extremely improbable and do not occur in other books, you need to do that analysis if you want your claims to be accepted.  I doubt you’ll have the patience required and I’ve never found anyone else who has despite all the claims being made by muslims here and elsewhere.

 

Russell

 

 

Man – women match if you only count singular forms and if you ignore other words which have the same meaning as used in the quran.

 

but what if God choosed that he repeat only singular form here and not other forms.

 

the point is that Man shall be counted in singular and woman also, it would not be OK if we coun men in singualr and plural and woman in only plural, that would not be logical counting and not ok.

 

i cant see the problem if we aply same counting method on both words. 

 

 

Angel-Devil for this one to work you have to count singular, dual and plural forms.

 

 

what si wrong here, same counting on both words.

 

 

Benefit-corrupt only works if you include all words with the same root.

 

what is wrong here, same counting method on both words

 

 

For day you have to include only the singular without suffixes.

 

 

365 ................ ywm, .................... day

5 ................ ywm-kum ............. your day

5 ................ ywm-hum ............. their day

3 ................ ywm-ayn .............. two days

27 ................ ayyaam ................ days

70 ................ ywm-ezen ............ that day

-----------------------------------------------------

475 (19x25)

 

tell me now why should we put in same basket singulr word day in simple form wich is mentioned 365 times with word day wich is not simple for beacuse YWVKUM=your day or YWMHUM=their day is not two words,

 

tell me if there was a word called Goergesday why would you count this word with simple form word day? absolutely not

 

the fact is word day in singular form i simple for is mentioned 365 times. what aboout this , is this also coincidence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Andalusi

 

Yes god may have chosen to only repeat the singular forms for one word and other combinations for other words but unless he tells you that you are left with a picture that looks an awful lot like playing the figures to get the results they want.  By using multiple methods you increase your chances of finding coincidences unless the book specifically limits the choices you use and of course it does not, the people doing the counting simply pick the method that gives the most ‘wow amazing’ answer from among a list of methods they have available.

 

You say man shall be counted in singular and woman also but you actually ignore a number of cases in which the singular of man, using another word but the same meaning, is mentioned in the quran so even here have to be selective.  You aren’t actually talking about the singular of man but the singular of a specific word for man.  Yet another rule you have to choose from to produce the results you want.

 

Yes I gathered that you could not see the problem here but that is your bias talking, you really want these ‘miracles’ to be there, the fact is that they are only there when you apply specific human chosen rules to a given word combination.  For man – woman it’s two specific words, not the singular of man because you ignore a number of instances in which that is being referred to by a different word for example.  If you include all references to the singular of man the figures don’t add up.  The miracle only appears if you choose your methods very specifically even for this example.

 

Again for days firstly the figure give is wrong, there are actually 365.25 days per year plus or minus a few seconds but we’ll forgive that for the moment, on the calendar your number would be correct for three years out of four, but again you have shown how you manipulate the data in this.  There are many different versions of day and again you have chosen one specific one but if the number did not fit correctly you could have included some of the others and invented a justification if that would fit your purpose better, you have done so above switching from singular only of a single word while ignoring other words with the same meaning to counting duels etc all to fiddle the numbers till they look special.

 

Is it just a coincidence that these numbers pop out when you apply these methods to this book, in all probability yes, the chances that they appear through chance alone are actually fairly high, not for these specific examples but for any ‘miraculous’ finds in a text, any text, if you examine it in the way you have examined the quran.  I’m not aware of anyone who has the patience to go through moby di-ck to find similar ‘miracles’ though it’s there for anyone to do so if they want to.

 

Add all that to the fact that some of the numerical ‘miracles’ of the quran that you have been quoting have been proven to be wrong by recent science and the book starts to look less amazing, would you really accept someone as a god if they got things wrong?

 

What about logical fallacies, if someone committed logical fallacies would you accept that they were god if they told you so?  For example I’ve been told that the quran claims that men and women are 100% equal but it clearly then goes on to explain so many ways in which they are not.  Yes there are plenty more but that’s a glaring example.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You say man shall be counted in singular and woman also but you actually ignore a number of cases in which the singular of man, using another word but the same meaning, is mentioned in the quran so even here have to be selective.  You aren’t actually talking about the singular of man but the singular of a specific word for man.  Yet another rule you have to choose from to produce the results you want.

 

let say we have words male and man, if we only count singular words man and woman and they are mentioned both same number of times, and you ask why did you not count word male also or female.

 

 

 

Again for days firstly the figure give is wrong, there are actually 365.25 days per year plus or minus a few seconds but we’ll forgive that for the moment, on the calendar your number would be correct for three years out of four, but again you have shown how you manipulate the data in this.  There are many different versions of day and again you have chosen one specific one but if the number did not fit correctly you could have included some of the others and invented a justification if that would fit your purpose better, you have done so above switching from singular only of a single word while ignoring other words with the same meaning to counting duels etc all to fiddle the numbers till they look special.

 

 

this proves to me a verse from quran wre God says

 

2:6 As for those who disbelieve, it makes no difference whether you warn them or not: they will not believe.

 

it is realy shameful from you to say it is not 365 but 365.25 days

 

now i want you to show me how would count words in decimals? this 0.25 how can you make it from a word?

 

 

 

There are many different versions of day and again you have chosen one specific one but if the number did not fit correctly you could have included some of the others

 

like what?

 

this 365 times is only used for singular word day in simple form. you jsut dont know what you are talking about.

 

and if we chosed to count all word both in plural and different version so word day there will be 475 times totally and that is also a miracle, why beacuse sun revolve around its own axis 475 times in a metonic cycle.

 

 

Again for days firstly the figure give is wrong, there are actually 365.25 days per year plus or minus a few seconds

 

 

but this is really shameful from you to bring this up since there is no chance to break word day into decimals 0.25.

 

you problem is , you just dont want to believe no matter what proof i bring to you, just like God said in the quran.

 

 

Is it just a coincidence that these numbers pop out when you apply these methods to this book, in all probability yes, the chances that they appear through chance alone are actually fairly high,

 

 

not true, bring the evidence that number pop up in other books also. cant you see that you dont bring any evidence for your claims.

 

 

 

Add all that to the fact that some of the numerical ‘miracles’ of the quran that you have been quoting have been proven to be wrong by recent science and the book starts to look less amazing, would you really accept someone as a god if they got things wrong?

 

 

absolutely not, you have not proved wrong anything from the quran so far.

 

 

For example I’ve been told that the quran claims that men and women are 100% equal but it clearly then goes on to explain so many ways in which they are not.  Yes there are plenty more but that’s a glaring example

 

 

what do you mean equal, first they are not equal, man have penis woman have vagina, men are stronger  physically than women, women are better than men in some stuff sometimes men are better than women. so no they are not equal.

 

But we are all equal to God and our duties towards God are same, woman shall get equal reward for her deeds just like a man in the paradise, in that point we are equal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Andalusi

 

Firstly, as I explained last time, I’m not suggesting that the numbers you pull out of the quran are not correct, from what I’ve seen many of them are, what I’m suggesting is that, by using multiple methods to obtain those figures you dramatically increase the chances that you will find such coincidences.  You can count all words in the quran then add up as many groupings as you can make a logical case for then look to see if any of the appear amazing.  From the thousands of word counts you are bound to find something that looks interesting.  If all of the counts were found using one specific method, the same method all the time, then you would have a much stronger case but that’s not what has been done.  The method swapping used is not stated which is dishonest which also does not help your credibility.  Yes a couple of the examples given are simply the singular of both which is what I would suggest should be the method chosen but many others are not.

 

In my country we have a colloquial word for man, bloke, if I counted all occurrences of the word man but ignored the word bloke, which has virtually exactly the same meaning, then I would not have counted all references to man in the text.  That appears to be what has been done in your word counting.  Sure you have counted all the instances of the word ‘man’ but you have ignored another word with exactly the same meaning, maybe more than one but I’m only aware of one.  Male is not the same word as man, we have male dogs, male birds etc but we don’t have man birds or man dogs and we don’t have bloke birds or bloke dogs.  Bloke means male human only.

 

I’m sorry if you find it shameful that I point out the truth but it remains the truth none the less.  I understand that it’s difficult to express a .25 in word counts but that does not mean that the figure given is correct.

 

Yum (day) appears in many forms, alyum, yamun, yawman, yawmin, yawmikum, yawmihum, biyawmin, biyawmihim, and many more!  Which ones are you including?  How easy would it be to exclude some to get whatever counts you wanted?  You can see this method being used for other counts in which more variants have to be used to get the specific counts you want.

 

Another interesting finding we come to if we wish to count words in the quran is that mohammed is named four times.  He is referred to in other ways at times but his name only appears four times.  Did you know that the word khanzeer is also mentioned four times? Or that the word kazzab is mentioned four times.  Should we see a link between mohammed and the words liar and pig because each appears in the quran four times?  If one word count coincidence is a miracle why not all the other word count coincidences?  Or are these counts just a coincidence without meaning when you don’t like the implications people would draw from them?  Why do you get to select some while ignoring others that may give a message you don’t like?

 

Your next claim that the total count of days of all forms, 475, is a miracle because that is the number of times that the sun revolves in a metonic cycle is interesting.  The metonic cycle is around 19 years or 6940 days plus or minus a few fractions of a day.  The sun’s spin is variable depending on latitude because it is not a solid body but rather a ball of gas so it doesn’t revolve as one object as the earth does but has spinning currents of different speeds at different latitudes.  If we take the equatorial figure, the most obvious one, which is 24.47 days and divide it into the number of days in the metonic cycle we get 283.612 which is somewhat short of your 475 claim.  Yes some of your figures may be correct though the selection method is dubious but, as we’ve seen before in the proton electron ratio some of your figures are just plain wrong.  This one is more wrong that most I’ve seen so far!

 

Actually I believe many things for which there is good evidence but you’ve failed to provide that.  Sure the number of ‘days’ may be correct if you pick the exact right counting method but you then show that you have so many methods available to choose from and you show that many of the figures you supply are fitted to the evidence to prove the quran rather than giving us any information then we find out that many of these figures are dubious or wrong and it doesn’t give me any confidence in the picture you are painting.

 

You are correct that I’ve never bothered to sit down and count the words in Moby Di-ck for example to show you these sorts of miracles but, as I explained last time, I’m not the one making extraordinary claims here so the burden of proof here necessarily lies with you.  How many thousands of hours have people spent finding these numerical coincidences in the quran?  I challenged you to provide the necessary evidence, a proof that the coincidences you are presenting is statistically significant.  Can you do it?  Without that these are just interesting observations and nothing more.  The quran explicitly states that the figure 365 is wrong as it bases its calendar on lunar cycles yet you claim that it carries the ‘correct’ figure hidden away in a most unlikely way.  Does that make any sense?  To spell out a falsehood then hide the truth away where people will only be able to find it many hundreds of years after the fact with the help of technology never even imagined that long ago?

 

No I guess I have not proven anything wrong from the quran in this thread.  I proved that the figure you claimed to pull from the quran for the proton – electron ratio was wrong but that was your figure not the qurans at least not explicitly.  The solar orbit figure you claimed above miraculously fell from the quran was also wrong but again this figure did not come from the quran did it, you were fitting figures to whatever numbers you could find in there and claiming yet another miracle.  Maybe what you have served to do is show us just how hard people will try to stuff whatever evidence they can pull from their holy books into any data that may seem relevant to build credibility in a world that really likes to see the evidence before it will accept improbable claims.  You certainly are straining at the seams trying to do that from all appearances.

 

I agree with you that men and women are not physically equal but I believe in rights they must be exactly equal and that’s where I strongly disagree with the quran and with Islam.  But people here have told me that the quran claims that men and women are equal in rights yet I’m well aware that it goes on to explain many ways in which they are not.  Maybe those here don’t understand the quran but on the face of it that makes the quran seem illogical.

 

I’ll leave the speculation on how god will treat men and women to you, I can’t say I wish to psychoanalyse someone who’s existence I see no reason to believe in in the first place.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yum (day) appears in many forms, alyum, yamun, yawman, yawmin, yawmikum, yawmihum, biyawmin, biyawmihim, and many more!  Which ones are you including?  How easy would it be to exclude some to get whatever counts you wanted?  You can see this method being used for other counts in which more variants have to be used to get the specific counts you want.

 

do you even know what are those forms??? i dont think you know what those words mean at all and you post it here

 

 

 

 Which ones are you including?  

 

 

 

only simple form of the day in singular

 

this al yaum means the day, 

 

 

365 ................ ywm, .................... day

5 ................ ywm-kum ............. your day

5 ................ ywm-hum ............. their day

3 ................ ywm-ayn .............. two days

27 ................ ayyaam ................ days

70 ................ ywm-ezen ............ that day

-----------------------------------------------------

475 (19x25)

 

365 ................ ywm, .................... day  is 

 

al yaum, means the day. so alyum, yamun, yawman, yawmin, ARE SIMPLE FORM of the word day in singular, and this  bi-yawmin mean "in- the day".

 

while yawmikum your day, not simple form of the day,  yawmihum means their day neighter this is a simple form.

 

 

 

I’m sorry if you find it shameful that I point out the truth but it remains the truth none the less.  I understand that it’s difficult to express a .25 in word counts but that does not mean that the figure given is correct.

 

 

you know very well that there is no possibility to make word 0.25 , you can only count it like this 1,2,3,4,5,.......365 BUT NOT DECIMALS.

 

SO HOW COULD YOU SAY SOMETHING LIKE THIS , it is not 365 but 365.25 trying to portray that quranic counting is not correct beacuse it has not involved 0.25 wich is not possibile.

 

this is reallly shameful and terrible from you, this only proves to me that you are here only to make fun of yourself. after this 0.25 i dont consider you as serious person.

 

 

 

 

Your next claim that the total count of days of all forms, 475, is a miracle because that is the number of times that the sun revolves in a metonic cycle is interesting.  The metonic cycle is around 19 years or 6940 days plus or minus a few fractions of a day.  The sun’s spin is variable depending on latitude because it is not a solid body but rather a ball of gas so it doesn’t revolve as one object as the earth does but has spinning currents of different speeds at different latitudes.  If we take the equatorial figure, the most obvious one, which is 24.47 days and divide it into the number of days in the metonic cycle we get 283.612 which is somewhat short of your 475 claim.  Yes some of your figures may be correct though the selection method is dubious but, as we’ve seen before in the proton electron ratio some of your figures are just plain wrong.  This one is more wrong that most I’ve seen so far!

 

let see who is wrong now

 

 

http://www.thebigger.com/physics/universe/explain-solar-system-in-detail/

For a complete rotation around its axis sun needs 25 days.

 

in other words, in 19 sun rotations around its own axis there will be 475 days, 25x19=475

 

 

 

 I challenged you to provide the necessary evidence, a proof that the coincidences you are presenting is statistically significant.  Can you do it?  Without that these are just interesting observations and nothing more.

 

as i said if God used singular word A then opposite word must be counted also in singular, NOT IN BOTH SINGULAR OR PLURAL. but if we count word plural and singular then we have to count opposite word in plural and singular.

 

 

 I believe in rights they must be exactly equal and that’s where I strongly disagree with the quran and with Islam.

 

of course women and men have equal rights in Islam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Andalusi

 

I’m not a speaker of Arabic so I can give you the dictionary definitions of those forms and that’s all but that’s hardly the point, the point is that there are many forms, you have chosen a single one for your desired result for this count and different combinations for other counts giving you many ways to achieve your ends.  Sometimes the simple singular gives you a result that looks good, sometimes not so you choose another combination then justify that.  Picking methods is the issue here as it lets you manipulate the data to find the result you want.

 

I raised another ‘miracle’ in which mohammeds name appears the same number of times as some derogatory terms yet you ignored this finding and I’m sure we could find many more similar ‘miracles’ hidden in there.  On what basis do you choose just the coincidences that paint a good picture of the quran while ignoring those that paint a bad one?

 

As I said if you wish to complain that my pointing out that your figure was inaccurate in that you did not include the quarter of a day which really is in there then that’s up to you.  It remains a fact that the actual figure is very specifically 365.25.  Yes I already said that I understand that it’s difficult to portray a quarter in text so I said I’d let you off on that while still pointing out that the figure was inaccurate.  Nothing has changed here.

 

Maybe you have misworded your claim of the sun orbiting 475 times in a metonic cycle but in English that is what you claimed.

 

Me•ton•ic cycle (m -t n  k)

n.

A period of 235 lunar months, or about 19 years in the Julian calendar, at the end of which the phases of the moon recur in the same order and on the same days as in the preceding cycle.

 

So the Metonic cycle refers to around 19 years on earth or to be exact 6940 days plus or minus a fraction of a day.  As I pointed out the sun does not orbit 475 times in that period but rather 238.612.. times.

 

Now, ignoring what a metonic cycle was you then claim that if you count 19 revolutions of the sun you get 475 days on earth.  A metonic cycle is not referring to solar rotations so this is invalid but let’s consider it for a moment.  The estimate you used of 25 days per rotation is inaccurate, the actual rotational rate of the sun at its equator is 24.47 days which, if we multiply it by 19 gives us 464.93, lets round up to 465 days which is not the 475 figure we were looking for so even worked out this way we don’t get the ‘miraculous’ figure you were claiming and you only get to that figure by ignoring what a metonic cycle is because the cycle is actually a relationship between the orbits of the earth and the moon and is not related to 19 revolutions of the sun.

 

Yes I understood that you chose the same method for both words being counted but you still get to choose from many methods all giving different results before deciding which result looks most interesting and you get to ignore other words with the exact same meaning when that does not give an interesting count.

 

What strikes me as most amazing here is the lengths some muslems will go to to dig out ‘miracles’.  You’ve quoted the electron – proton ratio as a miracle but, as modern physics has shown the figure you gave was wrong, now you are quoting the metonic cycle as a miracle but again the figure given was wrong and in this case the method was also flawed.  Digging into word counts you choose from many methods to find ‘miracles’ but the fact that you need multiple methods shows the flaw in this idea, you can choose methods to get the results you want, sometimes it’s simple, singular counting, sometimes it’s all words from the same roots etc.

 

You say that men and women have the same rights in Islam but that’s certainly not the way it has been explained to me by others here. 

 

In a marriage if the husband and wife can’t agree how do they settle it?

If a woman wants to marry four men can she?

If a woman wants to travel to the other side of the world unescorted can she?

If a woman does not want to wear the burka or similar in public can she?

If a woman wants to work in heavy industry with men only can she?

In court if a man and a woman stand up and disagree with each other, given exactly equal supporting evidence who will be believed?

 

Sorry but other’s here have explained that in all of the cases above women and men are not equal.  Do you disagree?  Do you disagree with even one of these cases that the woman and the man have different rights?

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am relative new to Islam and the Qur'an but could you direct me to any sura that might indicate that we, as humans, have any 'rights' at all.  As far as I am aware the only 'right' we have is to worship Allah.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Johnford

 

As an atheist I’m probably not the one to ask this question of.  I believe we must all have equal rights regardless of race, colour, creed, sex or sexual orientation.  That certainly would include the right to worship someone or something if you want to so long as you don’t try to impose that on someone else.  I believe that we all have the right to do anything at all unless there’s a specific reason to prevent us.  We could not all rule the world for some very simple logical reasons for example and we can’t give up eating because we’d die so there are limits placed on us by logic and by nature.  We also can’t decide to fly because physics too limits us but no human has the right to impose a limit on us unless there is a good rational reason to do so and such limits must be placed equally on all and must be based on the idea of improving the long term sum of human happiness.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure I can fly ... just need to catch a plane ... so I'm not sure of your thesis other than you think a certain way and apparently I have to accept that your thinking is somehow rational.

 

What are 'rights'?  Who decides?  How do you enforce 'right's?  Do I have 'right' not to accept a 'right'?  Get's complicated ... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Now back to your argument which basically boils down to, the quran

mentions science only rarely to prove that it’s from god because it

accurately describes things that would not be known for some time.  What

then are we to think of the quran when we learn that much of that

‘scientific knowledge’ is actually false?  We were not created from wet

earth or clay, we do not resemble a leach during our development and

sperm do not come from behind our bladder. The proof you claim from the

quran is actually a bunch of errors and mistakes.  Wouldn’t the authors

have been better to keep quiet about things they did not know rather

than including so many factual errors?

 

Russell

 

I was not looking to make this in to some biological lesson- I am pretty certain a proper search on this forum will help bring up previous debates on Qur'an and Embryology etc.

Also, please do look at what a leech looks like as it does resemble early part of embryo- you will find under male reproductive system that the sperm does run under the bladder- a simple google will show you.

 

 

This video may help/

 

Anyway- personally this is not the path I choose when discussing anything with an atheist, jumping on to religious scriptures and comparing has its own time and place.

 

For me, it is more a point to discuss the origins of life, the rational views held by theists v those held by atheists. Again, so much of that has already been discussed on this forum and a search may be all you need.

 

Peace

 

Edited by The Doc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Johnford

 

True you can catch a plane but you are not flying any more than the unfortunate fish caught by an eagle is flying, you are both merely passengers the plane or the bird is doing the flying.  But we are talking semantics here and that’s rarely productive.

 

No I won’t try to force anyone to accept what I say, I’ll explain it to you then it’s up to you.  If you try to force your views on someone else then maybe force is necessary but so long as you are open to talking and don’t try to force your views on anyone then that’s fine by me.  One of the points of my world view is that everyone should be free to do anything they want so long as it doesn’t imping on other people’s happiness more than necessary.  You are free to live a muslim lifestyle, to wear a burka to keep yourself a virgin till marriage even to accept arranged marriages if that is what you want.  I would have a problem if you were forced to accept an arranged marriage that you did not want or if you tried to force such a marriage on someone else against their wills.

 

Me rational?  Well I’d never expect you to accept that on faith but I’m happy to explain my thinking so you can judge yourself.  I’ve been doing that here for some time.  From the muslim side the reverse of that seems to boil down to “you just have to believe” or “god did it” so there’s no real rationality there.

 

Yes it does indeed get complicated and I’ve answered the questions you ask here before so I’ll just give a very brief run through.  Happiness is a physical state of a physical system, it’s a state of our brains which are lumps of flesh which carry our state of being in electrical/chemical signals.  Today we can measure many brain states with fMRI scanners, love for example can be detected clearly in a living brain.  Happiness too can be measured though less accurately at this point.  One day we may be able to build a machine to scan a brain quickly and easily and say how happy it is, today we have to rely on other measures such as questionnaires or other forms of social research to work out if people are happy but that too is really secondary, the primary idea I am presenting is that morality should be judged by human happiness.  A law is moral if it promotes human happiness, a moral edict is good if it promotes human happiness and both are immoral if they reduce human happiness.  Not just short term happiness but the long term sum of human happiness.

 

What I’m proposing is that we should replace the idea of trying to please any of the thousands of contradictory god ideas humans have invented over the years with the idea that we should be the measure of morality, that morality should be focused only on making people happy.

 

Rights are given by society as a whole based on the moral code that that society comes up with.  The decisions made on what is moral is largely a scientific one though people obviously have in input in deciding what ideas to try out but testing will tell if the idea is good or not.  Does the idea make people happier?  The rules of a society are enforced by its police force with power given by all the people.  No if you want to be part of a society you can’t just decide not to accept those rules, sociopaths for example would choose to live by their own rules but their lifestyle would not be compatible with a good society so society must stop them with force if necessary.

 

Of course everyone should have the right to leave if they don’t like the way a society works so sociopaths should be free to move to another place and live under another set of rules if that is what makes them happy and if that society will accept them.  I can’t see any society being happy to accept sociopaths but who knows.  Yes sociopaths are an extreme example, your particular proclivity may be something far more benign but it must still be judged by its effect on society.

 

To me it seems clear that people are happiest if they are free but freedom is incompatible with society and with the life we must live as constrained physical beings but within those bounds we should have as few restrictions as possible.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Doc

 

I’ve not searched this forum for previous discussions on this topic so I can’t say that I know what was said.  The picture presented certainly does give a resemblance but that resemblance disappears when you look from other angles and is even more dubious when you consider what we are looking at, one is the top of the head and the brain matter and the other is the open mouth with the teeth hidden or not yet developed as I suspect that that was possibly a very undeveloped leech as a grown and active leech does not look like that.  But before we get into that discussion we need to discuss translations, some have translated ‘alaqah’ as ‘leech’ but others have translated it as ’sucking blood’, ‘suspended thing’ or even ‘blood clot’ so the idea that this word means leech is at least open to interpretation but it suits your purposes so I can see why you cling to this version.  Obviously many of the translations of this word are clearly wrong so they have been discounted by those keen to prove the divine origin of the quran but that does not prove that the authors of this work did not have those meanings in mind when they ‘penned’ them.

 

Yes sperm does indeed run under the bladder but it does not come from somewhere near the spine which was the claim made in the quran so it’s wrong.

 

Yes I’ve seen the video before.

 

Interesting that you characterise the theistic view of the origin of life as rational as opposed to those who spend their lives rationally working out the relationships and even details of the origins of life and the relationships between organisms in the sciences but I guess you are welcome to your opinion.  The problem is that, when presented with the evidence from science religious people go through some of the most amazing convolutions trying to deny what is clearly obvious to any rational person, the shared genetic defect in all the great apes Vitamin C production gene complex for example.  Such evidence has been presented here and there are no rational theistic answers to this and such evidence has been clearly ruled even in courts of law as proof of plagiarism or copying because no other mechanism could be imagined that could produce this pattern yet religious people still deny this clear evidence without answer or rationality.

 

Still if you want to consider your position rational I guess you are welcome to your opinion.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

To me it seems clear that people are happiest if they are free but freedom is incompatible with society and with the life we must live as constrained physical beings but within those bounds we should have as few restrictions as possible.



What is 'freedom'? ... free from what exactly? ... If freedom and society are 'incompatible' then it seems you have answered your own questions ... we are NOT free.

I agree.

Which means we essential have no 'rights' other than those bestowed on us by society ... which is has little to do with 'freedom'.

So if we are to remain 'unfree' then in what way can one express one's freedom ... only as far as society will tolerate.

So rather than surrendering myself to the vagaries of populistic opinion makers I have surrendered to Allah ... it seems a much safer bet ... No? Edited by johnford

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Johnford

 

Yes I think we are agreed that true freedom does not exist.  I pointed out last time that we are restricted by physics for example so there are many things that we might decide we wanted to do that we simply can’t.  To live in a society there is another level of restriction but this one should be as light as possible.  People have conflicting desires so no matter what someone is going to lose out.  For this reason we need a way of deciding who gets to do what.  As I pointed out we can’t all rule the world but it goes further, we can’t all buy the third car on the left at the sales yard and we can’t all have the third chicken in the row at the supermarket or the most desirable girl at the dance.  It occurs at every level of society.  Laws and moral codes are needed to resolve these sorts of conflicting desires.

 

As I explained last time such laws and moral codes should be framed to maximize human happiness not to try to please one of the thousands of god ideas that we humans have invented so far.  Most of these ideas must boil down to very old men painting pictures of how they think society should work framed in the very out dated social ideas that they grew up with.

 

Now if we choose to live away from society, in the wilderness or on an island for example, we won’t be restricted by a society but we give up a lot doing so still the choice is ours, to live within a society with the benefits we can gain from that but also with the restrictions necessary to make that work or we can live the life of a hermit and shake of most of those restrictions.

 

As I said before the restrictions a society places on anyone should be as light as possible, the minimum number of restrictions necessary to allow the society to function and, again as I said before, the driver should be human happiness.  What rules are necessary to maximize long term human happiness for all those in that society?

 

I don’t believe our freedom should ever be about what the society will tolerate.  If what we choose to do does not impinge on other members of our society then that society should have nothing to say about it.  If I want to practice weird rituals over a pink rock in my bedroom trying to summon Satan for example my society should not care (unless I could actually succeed in this endeavour).  If I wanted to build a tower to heaven in my yard then that has implications for my neighbours so again my society could reasonably have something to say about that, I’d be doing everything from blocking out the sun from their yards to creating an eyesore to the possibility that it would collapse on them, all of that is reasonably grounds for the society around me to intervene.

 

Your final sentence ignores the drivers that I have suggested for a society, the long term sum of human happiness, and it ignores the fact that you don’t actually know what, if anything, Allah may want.  Sure you have an old book that claims to come from him but we have created many such before.  The most you can truly say about that is that it was written by people a long time ago, people who were completely ignorant of what our society would look like and how it would work today.  Do you really want to base your life on such an out dated view of this world?

 

Next it seems clear that the quran paints a very unreasonable picture of human society, a very male centric view of the world despite claims to the contrary and it imposes many restrictions on its members that don’t appear to give any benefit to its adherents though I can see an upside to some of its ideas from a purely male perspective.  Is that reasonable however?  That, as a male, I should get more out of the system than the women I share my life with?

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Next it seems clear that the quran paints a very unreasonable picture of human society ...

 

... as I have indicated elsewhere ... of course the Qur'an 'paints a very unreasonable picture' for you  ... because that is exactly what it is designed to do ... it confronts humanity and its concepts of what 'should' be reasonable ... 

 

Just because you don't like what the Qur'an says does not therefore make the Qur'an 'unreasonable'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Johnford

 

Obviously I disagree but maybe those here who’ve been explaining the quran to me are not doing a very good job.  I’ve challenged them, for example, to show me what’s wrong with homosexuality apart from ‘god does not like it’ but none can though many have tried.  I’ve challenged quite a few other ideas from sexual inequality to physics and in the end the answers boil down to ‘god does not like it’ or ‘you just have to have faith’ or similar.  Sorry but it’s all coming out as a very illogical mess as it’s being explained to me here.

 

And it’s not about me liking or not liking what the quran says, I don’t like it but that’s beside the point, what I’ve challenged those here to do is to justify what it says or more importantly what they believe, with evidence and reason, that is what you need to do here if you want to convince rational people that this idea makes some form of sense.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You ask for rationality and reason and fail to appreciate metaphor ... when metaphor becomes logical it is not longer metaphor but junk.

 

You deal in junk.

 

You enjoy rationalizing ... good luck ... but all that has been tried before by more skilled theoreticians than you or I and has largely got nowhere ... the philosophers have just run out of puff trying to explain that which is beyond explaining.  

 

Do your read poetry?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Andalusi

 

I’m not a speaker of Arabic so I can give you the dictionary definitions of those forms and that’s all but that’s hardly the point, the point is that there are many forms, you have chosen a single one for your desired result for this count and different combinations for other counts giving you many ways to achieve your ends.  Sometimes the simple singular gives you a result that looks good, sometimes not so you choose another combination then justify that.  Picking methods is the issue here as it lets you manipulate the data to find the result you want.

 

I raised another ‘miracle’ in which mohammeds name appears the same number of times as some derogatory terms yet you ignored this finding and I’m sure we could find many more similar ‘miracles’ hidden in there.  On what basis do you choose just the coincidences that paint a good picture of the quran while ignoring those that paint a bad one?

 

As I said if you wish to complain that my pointing out that your figure was inaccurate in that you did not include the quarter of a day which really is in there then that’s up to you.  It remains a fact that the actual figure is very specifically 365.25.  Yes I already said that I understand that it’s difficult to portray a quarter in text so I said I’d let you off on that while still pointing out that the figure was inaccurate.  Nothing has changed here.

 

Maybe you have misworded your claim of the sun orbiting 475 times in a metonic cycle but in English that is what you claimed.

 

Me•ton•ic cycle (m -t n  k)

n.

A period of 235 lunar months, or about 19 years in the Julian calendar, at the end of which the phases of the moon recur in the same order and on the same days as in the preceding cycle.

 

So the Metonic cycle refers to around 19 years on earth or to be exact 6940 days plus or minus a fraction of a day.  As I pointed out the sun does not orbit 475 times in that period but rather 238.612.. times.

 

Now, ignoring what a metonic cycle was you then claim that if you count 19 revolutions of the sun you get 475 days on earth.  A metonic cycle is not referring to solar rotations so this is invalid but let’s consider it for a moment.  The estimate you used of 25 days per rotation is inaccurate, the actual rotational rate of the sun at its equator is 24.47 days which, if we multiply it by 19 gives us 464.93, lets round up to 465 days which is not the 475 figure we were looking for so even worked out this way we don’t get the ‘miraculous’ figure you were claiming and you only get to that figure by ignoring what a metonic cycle is because the cycle is actually a relationship between the orbits of the earth and the moon and is not related to 19 revolutions of the sun.

 

Yes I understood that you chose the same method for both words being counted but you still get to choose from many methods all giving different results before deciding which result looks most interesting and you get to ignore other words with the exact same meaning when that does not give an interesting count.

 

What strikes me as most amazing here is the lengths some muslems will go to to dig out ‘miracles’.  You’ve quoted the electron – proton ratio as a miracle but, as modern physics has shown the figure you gave was wrong, now you are quoting the metonic cycle as a miracle but again the figure given was wrong and in this case the method was also flawed.  Digging into word counts you choose from many methods to find ‘miracles’ but the fact that you need multiple methods shows the flaw in this idea, you can choose methods to get the results you want, sometimes it’s simple, singular counting, sometimes it’s all words from the same roots etc.

 

You say that men and women have the same rights in Islam but that’s certainly not the way it has been explained to me by others here. 

 

In a marriage if the husband and wife can’t agree how do they settle it?

If a woman wants to marry four men can she?

If a woman wants to travel to the other side of the world unescorted can she?

If a woman does not want to wear the burka or similar in public can she?

If a woman wants to work in heavy industry with men only can she?

In court if a man and a woman stand up and disagree with each other, given exactly equal supporting evidence who will be believed?

 

Sorry but other’s here have explained that in all of the cases above women and men are not equal.  Do you disagree?  Do you disagree with even one of these cases that the woman and the man have different rights?

 

Russell

 

 

 

 

I’m not a speaker of Arabic so I can give you the dictionary definitions of those forms and that’s all but that’s hardly the point, the point is that there are many forms,

 

 

then why are you arguing against me if you are not in the match and cant read arabic??? i can, yo ucant if yo uare honest person you should ask me for exaplanations not that you tell me that i count wrong.

 

 

 

Sometimes the simple singular gives you a result that looks good, sometimes not so you choose another combination then justify that.  

 

yo udont have much options there

 

eighter you count both words in singular , or both in singular or plural, or only plural

 

3 options, not much really, just give me only 1 example from other books wich follow same pattern as Quran in repetition of the words, does not matter if it is singular, plural or both.

 

 

I raised another ‘miracle’ in which mohammeds name appears the same number of times as some derogatory terms yet you ignored this finding and I’m sure we could find many more similar ‘miracles’ hidden in there.  On what basis do you choose just the coincidences that paint a good picture of the quran while ignoring those that paint a bad one?

 

that is just stupid, you cant count like that, beacuse tehre is no connection between muhammed and pig, eighter you count similar words like wine and drunkness, or talk and tounge , or opposite words like angels and devils and so on.

 

and 3 options is when the verse connect 2 words, like God said in the quran if satan gives yo uevil idea seek refuge to God.

 

So satan Iblis is mentioned 11 times and seeking refuge also 11 times.

 

is there any connection between muhammed and pig , NO. that is why your argument is totally wrong.

 

 

 

  You’ve quoted the electron – proton ratio as a miracle but, as modern physics has shown the figure you gave was wrong, 

 

 

i dont know if you are a blind person or what??? how many evidence i posted where it clearly said that proton 1837 times heavier than electron, and you have not posted even one evidence of opposite.

 

so who is correct, me who posted 3 or 4 different site wich clearly said 1837 times and you did not post anything. so please dont make fun of yourself like you make fun of yourself with making 365.25 words  :no: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Johnford

 

Metaphor is a tool for understanding but rationality provides the actual insights.  We may use metaphor’s to explain difficult concepts to those who have trouble ‘getting it’ or a metaphor may lead us to an understanding that we may not have seen head on but it is always secondary to the real world evidence and logic that underlies our understanding.

 

Some believe that there is a mystical, metaphorical world out there that we can understand with mystical tools but I’ve seen no evidence for it and yes I wish to base my world view on evidence.

 

Philosophers have indeed argued themselves to a standstill on many questions because there appears to be no way to ground any of their theories absolutely which leaves us with an open question.  Is the world as it appears or is there some mystical otherness to it?  We can’t prove that what we see with our science isn’t just the ranting’s of a matrix like computer program for example but the world works as if that were not the case so I choose to believe that the world is as it appears to be.  If nothing else this approach works.  It has driven our abilities and our understanding throughout human history while the mystical alternatives have failed time and again.  For me that’s enough.

 

I don’t read enough poetry these days, life is too busy.  Hopefully once our house is complete life will slow down a bit, time with the kids, time for books and poetry but for now no.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Andalusi

 

There are many experts out there on Arabic language and many tools that let me count words in that language without needing to speak it, many of these disagree with you yet you want me to choose you as my expert despite the fact that your views contradict those of many other experts in the field?  Sorry but that does not seem rational to me.

 

Besides you’ve admitted to the protocol switching that I suggested you were using to achieve your specific results and you’ve shown that you are picking numbers out of the quran because they appear to match up to modern findings but then you’ve shown yourself incapable of explaining when those numbers have proven to be false (proton-electron ratio, solar rotations etc)

 

LOL yes well muhammad and pig etc was an example of the sorts of combinations you could pull from the book with a word counting key, you don’t have to like it but that information is in there and the relationship is as valid as your satan iblis and seeking shelter example.  You may not see a relationship between these words, or more probably you don’t like the connection, but that does not mean that others won’t and it does not mean that this finding isn’t exactly as valid as yours.  You can’t decide that just because you don’t like a word combination that the counting key supporting that combination has no meaning while when it finds word combinations that you do like that it is valid.  You need better grounds than that.

 

I gave you the latest figure for the electron-proton ratio in this post (http://www.gawaher.com/topic/730030-congratulating-an-atheist/page-3?do=findComment&comment=1280940) which was 1836.15267245(75).  Do you want me to cite the scientific paper in which it was published?  You gave the older less accurate figure which did indeed correspond to the figure you pulled from the quran but you quoted it from out of date high school level sources not from an up to date scientific paper because all such will give the figure I have quoted.  Sorry but just because it’s on the net does not make it true you need to go to the actual scientists if you want to know what we really know.

 

OK here’s the earliest peer reviewed paper I’ve found so far in which the electron-proton mass ration was scientifically determined.

 

Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 3598–3601 (1995)

Determination of the Electron's Atomic Mass and the Proton/Electron Mass Ratio via Penning Trap Mass Spectroscopy

 

Read the paper yourself if you like but the result they found was 1836.1526665(40) for the electron proton mass ratio which is very close to the figure I gave and that was 18 years ago.  Yes it’s been refined a bit since then but the variation was very tiny and did not affect my arguments here.  The figure you gave was demonstrated to be false at least 18 years ago yet you can still find it in high school level texts online but you can’t base your arguments on out of date, low level websites.  As I said you need to go to the source, to the scientists who study this stuff and see what they find.

 

So bottom line is that science has shown that the figure you pulled from the quran was wrong over 18 years ago yet you still claim this is a miracle just because a few high school level sites still show the out of date figure?  I’m sorry but that’s not how science works, you have to keep up!

 

Now back to the fact that there are 365.25 days in a year, I did point that out didn’t I.  Now the figure I gave was correct and I correctly pointed out that the figure you pulled from the quran was actually wrong but, as I said at the time, it’s hard to represent 0.25 in words so I’d let you off but your figure is still an approximation only.  Remember you are trying to prove a most improbable claim here, approximations don’t really help your case especially when mixed with outright false hoods as in the electron – proton mass ratio.  Remember that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence not approximations.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×