Jump to content
Islamic Forum
vishah

Congratulating An Atheist

Recommended Posts

Hi Andalusi

 

You seem to have missed the discussion point I raised on sexual equality.  Was that on purpose?

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds

 

... I choose to believe that the world is as it appears to be.

 

... and that is why you struggle with the Qur'an ... the world is less than real ... it is a construct ... we 'construct' the world just as an engineer 'constructs' a bridge.    

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older less accurate figure which did indeed correspond to the figure you pulled from the quran but you quoted it from out of date high school level sources not from an up to date scientific paper because all such will give the figure I have quoted.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

 

 

show me the site wich clearly say that all proton-electron ratios are 1836.1526665(40) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Johnford

 

I don’t think you could characterize what I do as struggling with the quran.  I came here to find out about it and about those who believe in it.  I find many of the arguments they use in support of their beliefs unfounded.  Andalusi’s arguments, for example, that he can pull scientifically accurate numbers from the quran is an example.  When you examine it the claim falls flat, some of the figures are indeed reasonably accurate but some are just plain wrong and those incorrect figures speak to me of data matching, he’s digging through all the millions of numbers that we get from science to see if he can find any coincidences and when he does he screams ‘miracle’.  It’s a psychologically interesting thing to see people doing that sort of thing especially the denial that goes along with it when you point it out to them.

 

Others have argued that the quran is not a book of science and so does not make scientific claims.  I understand that it’s not a science book but any book must make statements, even indirectly, that are scientifically testable.  Even commenting on sunrises is a scientifically explorable statement. 

 

As for the matrix like idea that reality is not what it appears that is untestable and I would suggest very suspect but I for one can’t rule it out completely.  Still, true or otherwise, the world works best if you act as if what you see is really what you get so that’s how I choose to deal with this world.  I’ve read so many ideas such as “we construct the world…” and none of them seem to hold water?  Does it mean, for example, that we can each create our own world or do all of our ‘creations’ have to fit together into just one single shared world?  If we create the world then where did god come from or is he the boss of the matrix over which we have no control?

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Andalusi

 

According to all the evidence we have the proton and electron mass’ is unchangeable so it’s always the same, certainly the reactions we can observe 13 plus billion years ago show the same signatures suggesting that nothing has changed in at least that long though we can’t measure those old events to the same degree of accuracy as we can those objects in our labs.  If you want to understand what we know about proton mass and electron mass just read that article, it’ll explain the details to you.  One of the things we’ve found from physics is that all electrons and all protons are absolutely indistinguishable.  They might as well be the same particle.  They all have exactly the same values for mass and all of their other characteristics; nothing has ever been found that can distinguish any of these particles from any other apart from obvious stuff like their location.  That’s one of the foundational findings of physics and has been known for a very long time now.

 

Anyway start by reading that article I cited as it will give you a great deal of information on how we measure those particle masses and how we know that they are all the same everywhere and always.

 

Sorry if the article is a bit technical but that’s the nature of the beast here.  If you want to really understand what we know you have to dig into the technical side of this from the scientists themselves rather than second hand sources.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Andalusi

 

According to all the evidence we have the proton and electron mass’ is unchangeable so it’s always the same, certainly the reactions we can observe 13 plus billion years ago show the same signatures suggesting that nothing has changed in at least that long though we can’t measure those old events to the same degree of accuracy as we can those objects in our labs.  If you want to understand what we know about proton mass and electron mass just read that article, it’ll explain the details to you.  One of the things we’ve found from physics is that all electrons and all protons are absolutely indistinguishable.  They might as well be the same particle.  They all have exactly the same values for mass and all of their other characteristics; nothing has ever been found that can distinguish any of these particles from any other apart from obvious stuff like their location.  That’s one of the foundational findings of physics and has been known for a very long time now.

 

Anyway start by reading that article I cited as it will give you a great deal of information on how we measure those particle masses and how we know that they are all the same everywhere and always.

 

Sorry if the article is a bit technical but that’s the nature of the beast here.  If you want to really understand what we know you have to dig into the technical side of this from the scientists themselves rather than second hand sources.

 

Russell

 

 

rkuikp.jpg

 

 

 

from site United states nuclear regulatory comision

Electron

An elementary particle with a negative charge and a mass 1/1837 that of a proton. Electrons surround the positively charged nucleus of an atom, and determine its chemical properties.

 

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/glossary/full-text.html

 

 

also

 

Beta particle

 

A charged particle (with a mass equal to 1/1837 that of a proton) that is emitted from the nucleus of a radioactive element during radioactive decay (or disintegration) of an unstable atom. A negatively charged beta particle is identical to an electron, while a positively charged beta particle is called a positron. Large amounts of beta radiation may cause skin burns, and beta emitters are harmful if they enter the body. Beta particles may be stopped by thin sheets of metal or plastic. For additional detail, see Radiation Basics.

 

 

from Lawrence Berkeley national laboratory

http://www.lbl.gov/abc/wallchart/glossary/glossary.html

electron: An elementary particle with a unit electrical charge and a mass 1/1837 that of the proton. Electrons surround an atom’s positively charged nucleus and determine that atom’s chemical properties.

Edited by andalusi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Still, true or otherwise, the world works best if you act as if what you see is really what you get so that’s how I choose to deal with this world.

 

Indeed, that is one way ... but from where I stand I see lots of people struggling with the 'world as it is' which seems to indicate something might be wrong.

 

As far as science is concerned I think the observations of Professor Brian Cox, a physicist who is involved with colliding particles, that as a scientist he cannot say there is no God.     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rusell let me ask you another question here

 

do you know that chemical elements with their names and atomic numbers and chemical numbers in the only element chapter called Iron in the Quran?

 

 

Amazing , amazing and totally amazing, is this not proof that this book is from God

20hrl9h.jpg


 

 


 

30vdde8.jpg


 

o7t4wn.jpg

At
zkh1tt.jpg

Bi
16is8r7.jpg

F
vgidcm.jpg

Ga
wrc93q.jpg

K
sfe9vl.jpg

Kr
2qxqrua.jpg

Li
afdnrd.jpg


 

3094yll.jpg

Mg
2ns16q0.jpg
explain this if you can

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Na
11rqjvo.jpg
 

 


 

 


 

25a6zcn.jpg


 


 


 

Ni
2m83w5x.jpg

Nb
9uut93.jpg

N
2r76kn6.jpg

O
nx9z6q.jpg


 


 


 

 


 


 


 

xgccvr.jpg
Rn
29gddfc.jpg

Sm
2u5clg9.jpg

Sr
e02znk.jpg

S
idduld.jpg

Ta
10q9vnp.jpg


 


 


 

 


 


 


 

34jd9ox.jpg


 


 


 

V


 


 


 

id625x.jpg


 


 


 

 


 


 


 

2qi8nra.jpg


 

 


 

2yoycns.jpg


 


 


 

2ujp9vt.jpg


 


 


 

 


 


 


 

 


 


 


 

67vb6t.jpg

explain this if you can

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Andalusi

 

Yes I’m sure I could find you any number of secondary references to the out-dated figure, it was the commonly accepted figure till around 20 years ago and it’s still common in text books etc that haven’t kept up.  What I want you to do, however, is to look up articles from the physicists who actually measure the electron proton mass ration such as the article I cited to you.  Can you find a source that is primary on this question?  Find a published article in a refereed journal from a physicist in the last 15 years or so who does not support the figure I have given within a few parts per billion?  Secondary sources such as dictionary or glossary references don’t count for much nor do high school level texts even online ones.  If you want to know what’s really going on you have to go to the source and see what you find.  I’ve presented one older article already that shows what the figure is. It’s been refined further in more recent times but the figure does not conform to the figure you pulled from the quran.  Remember that even that article had very small error bars and that has only gotten better since.  Stop finding more and more secondary references to the out dated figure and presenting them as if they actually mean something!  Find out what the people who actually measure this figure have found in recent years and get back to us.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Johnford

 

No one said that the world would not require struggles so that doesn’t prove anything.  Look at evolutionary theory and remember that it has been described as nature red in tooth and claw.  That’s not a picture of a system that does not require struggle.  Nature does not care if we are happy, it does not care if we have to struggle, evolution is driven by how may offspring we successfully bring into the world.  If the most miserable people had more babies then any genes that were part of that misery would be multiplied in our population.  Happiness is irrelevant to nature and to evolution.  That we want to be happy says more about us than about anything out there in the world.

 

I agree with Brian that we can’t prove there is no god but that does not mean his existence should be counted as likely.  I can’t say that there isn’t a teapot orbiting pluto, there’s no way I can actually know that, but the chances are not high that such an idea is more than a fantasy.  Likewise god!  Among the many reasons why we can’t demonstrate that there is no such thing as god is that god is such an ill-defined concept.  Some god’s used to throw lightning bolts around, science proved that they did not exist, some god’s used to bring the rains if we danced the right jig to them but we’ve shown with science that such gods don’t exist but there is no one definition of god so while we can prove that some gods don’t exist others are more slippery.  Whatever god we may prove false someone will always invent another one that we can’t test for.  On this forum it’s been explained to me that god hides behind every single subatomic particle pushing them around and creating the reactions we see in physics without producing any detectable effects.  Such a god, by definition, can’t be detected but there’s no evidence for him/her/it/them either and the invisible/undetectable and the non-existent look a great deal alike in my experience.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Andalusi

 

 

do you know that chemical elements with their names and atomic numbers and chemical numbers in the only element chapter called Iron in the Quran?

 

Can you try to explain that again?  I think what you were trying to say got lost in the translation.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 I can’t say that there isn’t a teapot orbiting pluto, there’s no way I can actually know that, but the chances are not high that such an idea is more than a fantasy.

 

Like the Azande, you also reason most excellently within the idiom of your own belief system ... but as al Ghazali demonstrates in his Incoherence of the Philosophers, such does not make it real.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Johnford

 

Philosophers certainly discuss, ad nauseum, many things which can never be proven.  Philosophers spend a great deal of time banging heads over positions which are mutually exclusive without either side ever reaching a logically unassailable position.  In this respect I believe that theologians and philosophers have a great deal in common.

 

It has been said that a theologian is like a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat that is not there…………and finding it!!

 

For me I’d lump the philosophers and the theologians into the same basket here.  Science on the other hand is the one endeavour in this realm that has proven itself time and again against real world evidence, to be more than just a collection of fanciful human ideas.  We have technology aplenty to show that our science actually does understand this world, we have predictions aplenty to show that our ideas of how this universe work are more than just human imagination in action.  Science proves itself daily by the simple act of working unlike these alternatives you hold in such high esteem.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Andalusi

 

The first time I viewed that post all of the graphics was missing so it made no sense but the pictures are there now so I can see what you are trying to get at.

 

Remember I talked earlier about method selection used to make any number of coincidences appear ‘miraculous’.  This latest is the most glaring example of this I’ve yet seen on this forum.  Let’s count the different methods used.

 

• Letters between the abbreviation for the element and the end of a line containing it approximates its atomic weight.
• Number of letters between the two characters of the abbreviation equals the atomic number.
• Number of letters from the abbreviation and the end of the verse equals the atomic number.
• Number of letters in front of the abbreviation equals the atomic number
• Number of words between the abbreviation and the end of the verse equals the atomic number.
• Number of words between the beginning of the verse and the abbreviation approximates its atomic weight.
• Number of words between the beginning of the verse and the abbreviation equals its atomic number.
• Number of words between the end of the chapter and the abbreviation equals the atomic weight.
• Number of words between the letters of the abbreviation equals the atomic number.
• Word counts in whole scads of sentences added up to equal the atomic weight.

 

Did I miss any?  I’m not sure as you repeated many of them a few times in there.

 

So that’s ten different methods used to pull out figures that look significant.  That’s more of the selection method I was talking about earlier but you’ve forgotten one critical thing here.  Those abbreviations will occur regularly in the text, they are just a letter or a combination of two letters after all.  To show that there is some significance to this you have to count all the times they appear in the text as a whole and count how often they appear with the wrong numbers.  That’s going to be a huge number but without it you have not shown any significance here just a short list of coincidences.  That doesn’t actually leave me with anything to explain.  Coincidences are a normal part of this world they happen all the time.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

We have technology aplenty to show that our science actually does understand this world, we have predictions aplenty to show that our ideas of how this universe work are more than just human imagination in action.

 

In what way ... how do they work ... they only work if you adhere to the philosophy which underpins these beliefs ... a philosophy which you have been denigrating for some time.

 

... of course all this technology works ... in fact ... it cannot do anything but work ... such are the laws of the universe ... they don't work when the technology workers make a mistake or when those same technologists work out that it is all relative ...

 

The point I am labouring is that for you to maintain your belief in 'science' you need the same supporting philosophical arguments as do the Azande ... and you very nicely illustrate that point rather consistently in your posts.  It is not until you are willing to step outside that system that you might find something that will question that philosophy ... and that you unwilling to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In what way ... how do they work ... they only work if you adhere to the philosophy which underpins these beliefs ... a philosophy which you have been denigrating for some time.

 

... of course all this technology works ... in fact ... it cannot do anything but work ... such are the laws of the universe ... they don't work when the technology workers make a mistake or when those same technologists work out that it is all relative ...

 

The point I am labouring is that for you to maintain your belief in 'science' you need the same supporting philosophical arguments as do the Azande ... and you very nicely illustrate that point rather consistently in your posts.  It is not until you are willing to step outside that system that you might find something that will question that philosophy ... and that you unwilling to do.

 

Are you a scientist? Are you sure you know what science is and how it works?

 

"the laws of the universe ... they don't work when the technology workers make a mistake" This statement is horribly wrong! Whether we humans make a mistake calculating the speed of light does not affect the speed of light. If there is a mistake in the human explanation called "Theory of Evolution" does not affect evolution.

 

Epistemologically, there is no belief IN science. If the voltmeter shows 1.5V when measuring a battery I don't believe IN the battery having a potential difference of 1.5V. You believe IN something if it requires faith - ie there's no evidence.

 

Of course there are other methods of acquiring factual information such as intuition, estimates, guesses, hunches, etc - but I prefer knowing a scientist used science to design that aircraft rather than estimates or hunches before I climb in.

 

Philosophy is great and the philosophy of science is part and parcel of the scientific understanding and methodology - but it will not get that plane into the air or tell me whether my battery is empty or full.

On the other hand, science is unable to analyse or explain anything super-natural such as spiritual enlightenment. Science can demonstrate the effect in the brain, but not explain it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Andalusi

 

The first time I viewed that post all of the graphics was missing so it made no sense but the pictures are there now so I can see what you are trying to get at.

 

Remember I talked earlier about method selection used to make any number of coincidences appear ‘miraculous’.  This latest is the most glaring example of this I’ve yet seen on this forum.  Let’s count the different methods used.

 

• Letters between the abbreviation for the element and the end of a line containing it approximates its atomic weight.

• Number of letters between the two characters of the abbreviation equals the atomic number.

• Number of letters from the abbreviation and the end of the verse equals the atomic number.

• Number of letters in front of the abbreviation equals the atomic number

• Number of words between the abbreviation and the end of the verse equals the atomic number.

• Number of words between the beginning of the verse and the abbreviation approximates its atomic weight.

• Number of words between the beginning of the verse and the abbreviation equals its atomic number.

• Number of words between the end of the chapter and the abbreviation equals the atomic weight.

• Number of words between the letters of the abbreviation equals the atomic number.

• Word counts in whole scads of sentences added up to equal the atomic weight.

 

Did I miss any?  I’m not sure as you repeated many of them a few times in there.

 

So that’s ten different methods used to pull out figures that look significant.  That’s more of the selection method I was talking about earlier but you’ve forgotten one critical thing here.  Those abbreviations will occur regularly in the text, they are just a letter or a combination of two letters after all.  To show that there is some significance to this you have to count all the times they appear in the text as a whole and count how often they appear with the wrong numbers.  That’s going to be a huge number but without it you have not shown any significance here just a short list of coincidences.  That doesn’t actually leave me with anything to explain.  Coincidences are a normal part of this world they happen all the time.

 

Russell

 

dont forget allways first occurence of chemical element letters, only astatine and rubidium were expections and you know why it is if you read clearly above.

 

explain how could Galium, Zyrkonium, Radon, Neodyium and many other wich occur only once in the whole chapter and we see clearly that from the first occurence to the end of verse or from the begining to the first occurence there is exactly number of letters as atomic number or mass. 

 

wrc93q.jpg

 

 

2qi8nra.jpg

 

 

29gddfc.jpg

25a6zcn.jpg

 

you dont have much options here if there is only 1 occurence, and in other chemical element wich occure more you allways try to count first occurence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Are you a scientist? Are you sure you know what science is and how it works?

 

No ... Yes ... Yes ...

 

The point that you assiduously avoid is the 'construction' of your own belief system based on scienticism.

 

You therefore inevitably argue from the ideological position that is encompassed by the scientific paradigm ... a paradigm that fails to recognize any other way of thinking or being as in any way real.

 

This has nothing to do with the speed of light or theories of evolution ... it has to do with belief systems ... until you get to acknowledge as much you will never be free of your own ideology.  

 

Until you recognize that science, your ideology, can never explain a Mozart sympathy nor a Michelangelo statute of David nor the Bhagavad Gita, let along the Qur'an, then you will never be able to hear the sound of a leaf falling  ... you lack wisdom.  

Edited by johnford

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Andalusi

 

Earlier in this thread you attempted to prove that the quran was a miracle from god by finding a few coincidences in the text, word locations etc which hid numbers that the original authors could not have known yet they were correctly represented in there.

 

Now you have presented us with a list of ‘miracle’ finds in there which prove that the quran was from god because it correctly lists the details of around 20 items from the periodic table.  The letter abbreviation for a given element was the correct number of words or letters from the start or end of the chapter or line.  In one case you included an instance in which the letters of the abbreviation were the correct number of characters apart.  From this you gave us what around 40 reference points to prove your case.

 

The earlier claims were difficult to reproduce as they had to be done manually but this one is easy enough to ask a computer to test.  Again I took the text of Moby Di-ck from the Gutenberg project and stripped away the modern additions (legal disclaimers and transcribers notes etc) so that I was left with just the original text.  Then I asked the computer to look for all the instances in the text which matched some of the patterns you demonstrated in the quran.  The abbreviation was the correct number of words of characters from the start or end of the line or paragraph or that the two characters of the abbreviation were the correct distance apart in the text.  I found a bit over 89000 instances in Moby Di-ck in which this was the case for the same list of elements.

 

Specifically I found the following number of hits for the elements you gave:-
AL 5256
AR 6426
AT 8296
BI 1354
F 332
GA 2455
K 190
KR 550
LI 4670
H 6108
MG 736
NA 8021
ND 3427
NI 6629
NB 1564
N 373
O 389
RB 1324
RN 4160
SM 2070
SR 4817
S 194
TA 8569
TI 8839
V 158
ZR 48
BH 1188
CL 1462


As you can see the spread of findings was interesting.  Items such as ZR did not show up often because Z is an unusual letter in English.  Single letters did not show up as often because there were more limited ways in which they could hit.  Single letters can’t be the right number of characters apart so they miss out on that character space count.  ZR did not show up at all except for the inter character space count while all the others did show up in the statistics to some extent without it.

 

Now you can apply other arbitrary limits to this, picking just one chapter for example or only counting the first finding of a letter combination but, as you can see, there’s plenty of scope in there to work with.  You could also scan for the entire periodic table to see what you’d find and many more ‘miracles’ would pop out of the text I’m sure.  Excluding the majority of the table, which probably did not support the claim you were making is also an unstated trick to twist the figures to your ends.

 

Yes I can present you with a list by chapter and verse for each hit if you like or you can simply download the text yourself from Project Guttenberg and do the analysis yourself to ensure I was not cheating.  The list of finds is rather long so posting it would probably make this server blow a fuse but that’s hardly the point.

 

The critical point here is, if finding 40 examples of such coincidences in the quran proves that the quran is from god what does finding over 89000 similar examples in Moby Di-ck prove about that book?

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Johnford

 

I agree that the laws of the universe do indeed underpin our technology that is why belief is irrelevant.  Planes work whether you believe in Bernoulli or that some god is pulling the thing through the sky.  Planes work even if the inventor of it suddenly had the delusion that it was all relative, his beliefs don’t affect the plane.

 

As for stepping outside that system I guess that, to date, I’ve never seen any rational reason to do so.  Science works, technology works, they would not be expected to do so if the laws that we believe we are discovering governing this universe were not real at a fundamental level.  When our science shows us things about this universe that no one would ever have expected but then, upon checking, we find that science has lead us to more truth you have to step back and admit that there really is something to this.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Johnford

 

I’m not sure that you are correct when you state that science will never be able to explain Mozart for example.  One of the things we are learning more and more here is that brains are physical systems, amazingly, hugely complex physical systems but they are physical.  There is nothing in there that is not potentially open to scientific understanding, at least nothing that we’ve seen so far.  We can image and measure Love in fMRI scanners for example, we can see many emotions and to some extent we can even control and induce them.  It’s a long way from a full understanding but it directly suggests that these things are all states of a physical system not some mystical force from beyond this world such as a soul.  Suggesting that just because we don’t currently understand something we therefor never will is a god of the gaps argument and those have been proven to be false more than once or twice throughout history.  Who knows what we’ll be able to understand one day.  For now the most we can say with any certainty is “I don’t know” but it’s premature to add “therefor god must have done it”.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Andalusi

 

OK next in our analysis of the miraculous properties of Moby Di-ck let’s look at how many chapters have all of the same findings as you located in the quran.  Sure we found over 89000 instances in which the combination of chemical symbol characters were linked to their atomic weight or atomic number but you claimed that this was further miraculous because all the one’s you mentioned, which was only a small selection from the full table of elements, were found in one chapter.  So I refined my search criterion to locate chapters that contained all of the elements you mentioned associated with their atomic numbers or weights.  That’s a steeper order than you had to face because in your case you simply ignored any that did not appear and only presented those you could make a case for while I’m limiting my search to exactly the one’s you listed regardless.  After a bit of analysis I found that there were seven chapters in which all of the examples you gave were correctly associated with their correct numbers. Chapters 13, 32, 42, 54, 81, 113 and 133 all scored a full house.

 

Wow we’d better get our prayers on for Captain Ahab.  The quran does it once but Moby Di-ck can claim seven miraculous chapters on this criterion alone.

 

In short what you really have proven is how deep some people will dig to find support for their preconceptions without looking at the bigger picture to see if what they have found is truly anything more than a statistical quirk.  Do you see now why educated people laugh at the sort of evidence you are bringing here?

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Andalusi

 

The final exploration I’ll do on this question is to throw the entire periodic table at the analysis and see what comes out.  There are 114 objects in the periodic table which have a one or two letter abbreviation.  I haven’t bothered to include the three letter items as I didn’t work out how to handle them and there’s only a few anyway.

 

So what were the results?  Firstly you didn’t cover even a significant percentage of the periodic table in your ‘miracle’ but I’m going for broke here so let’s say that any chapter that shows more than 100 items of the full table is a miracle.  There are 109 chapters in Moby Di-ck which have 100 or more objects from the periodic table correctly identified by weight or number as you have described.  You'll note that to be included the letters of the reference had to be in the correct order unlike your approach.  If I included references in which the letters were reversed the numbers would be even more impressive.

 

The overall winner was chapter 133.  It has all 114 one or two letter objects from the periodic table included in it.  Every single one!  That’s definitely miraculous wouldn’t you agree?

 

Hail Ahab!!!

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

... but it’s premature to add “therefor god must have done it”

 

So when does 'premature' becomes a definite ... or are you just fudging ...  this year, next year, sometime ...   

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


×