Jump to content
Islamic Forum
andalusi

Why Islam Is Only True Religion From God

Recommended Posts

PropellerAds

The science in the Qur’ān claim commits a logical fallacy called the fallacy of the undistributed middle. This fallacy is where two different things are equated due to a common middle ground that is misused. Below is a generic example: An example:

 

John needs oxygen to survive

My dog needs oxygen to survive

Therefore John is my dog

 

As can be seen above, the middle ground that is misused is oxygen. Although the first two premises are true, that both John and my dog need oxygen to survive, it doesn’t follow that John is my dog. Most of the science in the Qur’ān arguments commit this type of fallacy. Below is a summary:

 

A description of a scientific fact A uses C

A description in the Qur’ān B uses C

Therefore, the description in the Qur’ān B is the description of A

The following are some specific examples:

 

The scientific fact in embryology is the implantation of the blastocyst in the uterine wall. Implantation can be attributed as a safe place.

 

The Qur’ān uses the words qarārin and makīn, which can mean a safe place.

 

Therefore, the Qur’ān is describing the scientific fact of the implantation of the blastocyst.

 

In the above syllogism, it doesn’t follow that the words qarārin makīn (a safe place) imply the process of implantation just because it to shares the attribute of a safe place. The argument will only be valid if all descriptions of qarārin makīn refers to, and describes, the process of implantation. Since qarārin makīn can also refer to the womb, which was the 7th century understanding of the words, then the argument is invalid. The mere correlation between a Qur’ānic word and a scientific process or description does not ascertain the intended meaning of the verse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2pybyg6.jpg

I admire your imagination. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All

 

The one thing that was not mentioned in Andalusi’s post is the old magician’s trick of slight of hand.  The verse quoted states that the origin of the “gushing fluid” is “between the vertebral column and the ribs” then this author goes on to point out that the gonads arose there early on in our development and thus he claims that the passage is correct but is that really true?  Did you notice the slight of hand there?  The fact is that the gonads are, by the time they take part in producing that ‘gushing fluid’ nowhere near the location specified as the source of that fluid.  The description in the quran could apply to virtually any internal organ of the human body apart from the legs, arms and head so it was a very broad brush indeed yet the quran still got this detail wrong.  Understandable if ignorant humans wrote it but it’s hard to accept that a god wouldn’t know better.  Still apologists will do what apologists have done for thousands of years.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Andalusi- although I admire your endurance in all this 'scientific' way to the Quran...it is not the way to propogate the message of the book.

 

The Quran was never (and isn't) a scientific book- it is a book of signs, yes.

 

You have to understand that science changes- and also that many claims that can be made in the Quran predated Islam. In some cases Itit's become an intellectual embarrassment for Muslim apologists and exposes the weakness of the argument.

 

The miracle of the Quran was never about the matters you raise- the claims of science that can be correlated with the Quran. In fact many Muslims who converted to Islam due to the scientific miracles narrative, have left the religion due to encountering opposing arguments.

 

Hence why this approach is never the way of how to convery the message of Islam or its book.

 

The fallacy of the undistributed middle has already been raised on here- but to fit it in with how its being used as a Quranic argument goes like this:

 

  1. The scientific fact in embryology is the implantation of the blastocyst in the uterine wall. Implantation can be attributed as a safe
    place.
  2. The Qur’ān uses the words qarārin, makīn, which can mean a safe place.
  3. Therefore, the Qur’ān is describing the scientific fact of the implantation of the blastocyst.

It doesn’t follow that the words qarārin makīn (a safe place) imply the process of implantation just because it to shares the attribute of a safe place. The argument will only be valid if all descriptions of qarārin makīn refers to, and describes, the process of implantation. Since qarārin makīn can also refer to the womb, which was the 7th century understanding of the words, then the argument is invalid. The mere correlation between a Qur’ānic word and a scientific process or description does not ascertain the intended meaning of the verse.

 

Any person who understand the Arabic language knows there are layers and layers of meanings and we cannot apply this to 'science' just because it kind of fits.

 

The scientific miracles claim would only be valid if it could be demonstrated that the interpretations of the words that seem to correlate with science are the intended meanings. The principles of Qur’ānic exegesis dictates that this is impossible to ascertain.

 

Another way this argument of the Quran being miraculous on the scientific field, is that Muhammad (PBUH) did not have knowledge of the matters.

 

It would go something like this:

 

1)The knowledge implied by the Qur’ānic verses was not available or discovered at the time of revelation (7th Century)

2)The Prophet Muhammad (upon whom be peace) could not have had access to the knowledge implied by the Qur’ānic verses.

 

However when we recall history, we see this is not entirely true.

 

To pick an example, lets look at the information about iron (as mentioned in the Quran). We know it has been refered to as being 'sent down' and many apologists use this as  The Sending Down of Iron “Miracle”

 

However, the Ancient Egyptians 1400 years before the Prophet-hood of Muhammad (PBUH) referred to iron as ba-en-pet meaning “Iron from heaven.” The Assyrians and Babylonians also had similar concepts for iron.

 

Another example is the The Moon Being a Borrowed Light “Miracle”.

 

The claim used by apologists is that no one knew that the moon did not omit its own ligt-but borrowed it from the sun.

 

 In light of history this is not true, at around 500BC, 1200 years before the Qur’ānic revelation, Thales said: ”The moon is lighted from the sun.” Anaxagoras, in 400-500BC asserted that: ”The moon does not have its own light, but light from the sun.”

 

There are numerous other examples but it would take up far too much details and space to jot it all down on here.

 

To claim that there is anything scientifically miraculous about a particular Qur’ānic verse is incoherent. This is because science can change due to new observations and studies. Therefore, for someone to claim that a particular verse is miraculous would mean that the one making the claim can guarantee that the science will never change.

 

To make such a guarantee would imply gross ignorance. Ignorance of the fact that science does change and is tentative due to the problems faced by
induction and empiricism.

 

This leads to the other point that science itself is not the only way to discover facts/truth.

 

The  assumption behind the scientific miracles narrative is that science is the only way or method to render truths about the world
and reality. This assertion is known as scientism. To put it simply,scientism claims that a statement is not true if it cannot be
scientifically proven. In other words if something cannot be shown to be true via the scientific method, then it is false. There are a few
problems with scientism, for instance:


1. Scientism is self-defeating. Scientism claims that a proposition is not true if it cannot be scientifically proven. But the proposition
itself cannot be scientifically proven! It is like saying “there are no sentences in the English language longer than three words” or “I cannot
speak one word of English”.


2. Scientism cannot prove necessary truths like mathematics and logic. For example, If P, then Q. P. Therefore, Q and 3 + 3 = 6 are necessary truths and not merely empirical generalisations.


3. Scientism cannot prove moral and aesthetic truths. For example love, beauty, right and wrong.


4. Science cannot prove other sources of knowledge. For example justified beliefs via ‘authentic testimony’. A major problem with scientism is that truths can be established outside the scientific paradigm.

 

To conclude , some verses in the Qur’ānic discourse are currently “unscientific”. This does not mean the Qur’ān is wrong or not from the Divine , rather it can show that our scientific knowledge is limited and has not reached the right conclusions yet.

 

Our focus should be on the linguistic miracle of the QURAN. Remember this is a book challenging the people to produce a book like it- at a time when the best of Arab poets lived in the 7th century.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The great Jewish philosopher Isaiah Berlin said every idea down through the ages (including all religions) can be classified into three groups: those that can be proved by science, those that can be proved by logic and perhaps the biggest group those that fall in the middle. Indeed the middle has all the things that are really interesting - why am I here, what does life mean and and what's its purpose, why do we find music in every society etc.

 

It is obvious that Islam (or any other religion) cannot be proved to be true for the simple reason that if it could be proved we would have no rational choice other than to believe. Instead we seek for the religion that gives the best explanation of the way things are. For me that best explanation is Christianity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Doc

 

You’re right that sciences view of this world “changes” over time though I would suggest that a better view is that science learns and improves over time if you want to be realistic about this.  Of course that does not apply to Andalusi’s example from the quran of the source of our ‘gushing fluids’ which are known beyond any doubt to originate from a location outside the area described by the quran.  The apologetic view that science’s disagreement with the quran in this case because science has more to learn fails on the facts.  The quran is simply wrong on this point whichever way you look at it.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea that science 'improves' overtime is slightly misleading since occasionally what was thought to be true is totally discarded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Tanker

 

Discarding a false idea is an improvement is it not?  To have been accepted in the first place that idea must have produced true predictions so it did contain some truth, to be discarded some new evidence must have come to hand that showed that the idea was incomplete or incorrect to some extent and those discoveries move us closer to the truth.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sunnymaboy - your only interest is in proving others wrong? Presumably, you think that only you have the truth? But if so why not. Post about the subject of the thread. For example it has been shown that most so called science miracles in the Quran are the result fallacious reasoning so let's hear your refutation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone has their own ideas of what or who God is , even whether or not God exists at all . One thing is for certain , when you close your eyes for the last time , there will be something better , something worse ,or oblivion .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone has their own ideas of what or who God is , even whether or not God exists at all . One thing is for certain , when you close your eyes for the last time , there will be something better , something worse ,or oblivion .

 

 

Er...oblivion, Eclipse. Anybody who thinks there's some form of 'life' when chemo-electrical activities cease (i.e. when a living body dies), is self-delusional and/or indoctrinated with religious mumbo-jumbo. When you're dead, you're dead. The life-after-death phenomenon stems from a confluence of fear of the unknown and wish-thinking and the tragedy of losing loved ones. But there's no mystery to death. Kaput is kaput! Whilst we may all wish to live a little longer, and never to lose our good friends and loved ones; when you're no longer a slave to the death-mystery and the futile longing for eternal life, than life acquires a new and invigorating zest: you become kind to yourself and kind to others, not because of some promised heavenly reward, but because being a good, kind, considerate and loving person brings its own rewards. Embrace this life, brothers and sisters; it's the only one you'll ever have.

 

Amen.

Edited by Olaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Er...oblivion, Eclipse. Anybody who thinks there's some form of 'life' when chemo-electrical activities cease (i.e. when a living body dies), is self-delusional and/or indoctrinated with religious mumbo-jumbo. When you're dead, you're dead. The life-after-death phenomenon stems from a confluence of fear of the unknown and wish-thinking and the tragedy of losing loved ones. But there's no mystery to death. Kaput is kaput! Whilst we may all wish to live a little longer, and never to lose our good friends and loved ones; when you're no longer a slave to the death-mystery and the futile longing for eternal life, than life acquires a new and invigorating zest: you become kind to yourself and kind to others, not because of some promised heavenly reward, but because being a good, kind, considerate and loving person brings its own rewards. Embrace this life, brothers and sisters; it's the only one you'll ever have.

 

Amen.

 

if you only connect life to chemo-electrical activites then you live in delusion, beacuse this doctor disproves you and proves that soul exist and can be outside body

 

 

 

 

blind people from birth during NDE begin to see for the first time when their soul got outside the body

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9AfJbXe3rc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't mean to be rude or patronising Andalusi, but I feel sorry for you in a way.  You're trying so hard to prove your religion's validity on a 'scientific' basis, yet all you end up doing is just quoting from religiously biased sources, from various crackpots, charlatans, and discredited 'scientist, who are either not qualified in the field under the spotlight, and/or whose 'science' doesn't conform to agreed and time tested scientific methods.  Somebody appearing and making claims on Youtube, does not qualify as evidence.  So far, all reports of near-death-experiences have failed to stand up when properly analysed.  There are other and better and more plausible explanations for the experience of being near to death.

 

But tell me Andalusi, what's your take on the 'soul' rising up into heaven?  How do you think this would work?  In what form does a person exist, and so on?  Where is heaven?  Where is God? And please, don't quote any more crackpots. Just tell me your personal understanding.  I'm sincerely interested.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't mean to be rude or patronising Andalusi, but I feel sorry for you in a way.  You're trying so hard to prove your religion's validity on a 'scientific' basis, yet all you end up doing is just quoting from religiously biased sources, from various crackpots, charlatans, and discredited 'scientist, who are either not qualified in the field under the spotlight, and/or whose 'science' doesn't conform to agreed and time tested scientific methods.  Somebody appearing and making claims on Youtube, does not qualify as evidence.  So far, all reports of near-death-experiences have failed to stand up when properly analysed.  There are other and better and more plausible explanations for the experience of being near to death.

 

But tell me Andalusi, what's your take on the 'soul' rising up into heaven?  How do you think this would work?  In what form does a person exist, and so on?  Where is heaven?  Where is God? And please, don't quote any more crackpots. Just tell me your personal understanding.  I'm sincerely interested.

 

 

Somebody appearing and making claims on Youtube, does not qualify as evidence.

 

if a doctor talks about something wich he investigate for several years i think that is good evidence against your claim

 

 

 

But tell me Andalusi, what's your take on the 'soul' rising up into heaven? 
How do you think this would work?  In what form does a person exist, and so on? 

 

humans consist of body and a soul, when death comes angel of death separate the soul from the body and in that case death occur, souls is actualy you, and your body is a vehicle wich the soul use in this world to move in this materialised world. Soul is taken up by angels and is registred in heavens and then sent back to grave (barzah period) waiting period until bodies are reacreated on the day of judgment and eneter bodies to be like we are today body and soul, and people will get out of the graves to be judged by God.

 

 

 

Where is heaven? 

 

in a paralel universe.

 

 

 Where is God? 

 

he is outside his creation, space and time, he is not in place, he is in his own dominion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Andalusi

 

We have a great deal of evidence that what you call a soul is an emergent property of our brains.  When the brain is damaged our ‘soul’ is damaged in predictable ways.  Damage your frontal lobe and we can explain in quite some details what will happen as this area comprises our impulse control centre. The same level of predictability goes for many other specific forms of brain damage.  How do you explain that the ‘soul’ is damaged when the brain is damaged in very specific and predictable ways?

 

Of course there are also drugs which affect the ‘soul’ in very specific and predictable ways.  Odd that a non-physical entity such as a soul could be affected by physical chemicals.  None of this evidence supports the idea that the soul is anything other than an emergent property of our physical brain.

 

Another form of evidence you’ve mentioned above is the out of body experiences and the feeling of oneness with the universe that are experienced by NDE’ers.  Are you aware that these same experiences can be induced in people who are not near death, by chemicals; magnets applied to the head or by hi G loads?  Are you aware that older people who have such experiences see dead relatives waiting for them but children who have the same experiences and don’t know any dead people see living friends and family ‘waiting for them’?  Does any of that suggest that these experiences are based in a soul and an afterlife?

 

All the best.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Andalusi

 

We have a great deal of evidence that what you call a soul is an emergent property of our brains.  When the brain is damaged our ‘soul’ is damaged in predictable ways.  Damage your frontal lobe and we can explain in quite some details what will happen as this area comprises our impulse control centre. The same level of predictability goes for many other specific forms of brain damage.  How do you explain that the ‘soul’ is damaged when the brain is damaged in very specific and predictable ways?

 

Of course there are also drugs which affect the ‘soul’ in very specific and predictable ways.  Odd that a non-physical entity such as a soul could be affected by physical chemicals.  None of this evidence supports the idea that the soul is anything other than an emergent property of our physical brain.

 

Another form of evidence you’ve mentioned above is the out of body experiences and the feeling of oneness with the universe that are experienced by NDE’ers.  Are you aware that these same experiences can be induced in people who are not near death, by chemicals; magnets applied to the head or by hi G loads?  Are you aware that older people who have such experiences see dead relatives waiting for them but children who have the same experiences and don’t know any dead people see living friends and family ‘waiting for them’?  Does any of that suggest that these experiences are based in a soul and an afterlife?

 

All the best.

 

Russell

 

beacuse soul is connected to our body, what body feels soul feels also

 

imagine what would happen if soul use its vehicle(body) and is disconnected from it, something hits you, you dont feel the pain, just movement, or someone sticks you with iron nail, you dont feel anything except that you see blood gushing from the wound

 

 

 

 

Another form of evidence you’ve mentioned above is the out of body experiences and the feeling of oneness with the universe that are experienced by NDE’ers.  Are you aware that these same experiences can be induced in people who are not near death, by chemicals; magnets applied to the head or by hi G loads?  Are you aware that older people who have such experiences see dead relatives waiting for them but children who have the same experiences and don’t know any dead people see living friends and family ‘waiting for them’?  Does any of that suggest that these experiences are based in a soul and an afterlife?

 
i do not neglect that there are methods wich can decive the soul beacuse soul is connected to the body, if you do something with the brain , or give halucination drugs of course soul is also affected beacuse you play games with the brain nerves.
 
but this is clear proof , that people during NDE go outside body, and could see what doctors do to them, and not only that they could also see and hear doctors, they could hear and see what they relatives say and do in the waiting room.
 
And seeing dead relatives during NDE could be that they see Djinn kareens, these djinns are attached to us whole life and follow us, when a person dies, JInn kareen continue to live and they can take shape and voice of the dead person and they can know secrets wich dead person could only know. These DJinn kareens can distract you from the right path by using shapes and voices of dead relatives and urge you to die in another state wich God is not statified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Birmingham Qur'an manuscript dated among the oldest in the worldPosted on 22 Jul 2015
http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/news/lat...-22-07-15.aspx

A Qur’an manuscript held by the University of Birmingham has been placed among the oldest in the world thanks to modern scientific methods.Radiocarbon analysis has dated the parchment on which the text is written to the period between AD 568 and 645 with 95.4% accuracy. The test was carried out in a laboratory at the University of Oxford. The result places the leaves close to the time of the Prophet Muhammad, who is generally thought to have lived between AD 570 and 632.

 

quran-manuscripts-woman.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

evidence from that manuscript wich even i can read in original language arabic, you can actually se separation of chapters and verses

23semo8.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Andalusi

 

I can accept that the soul would ‘feel’ with the body if they were connected but what does the soul add to this picture when everything that is you can be controlled or destroyed by physical means?  What does the soul add to the picture here or is it just some sort of redundant copy of our minds invented for the soul purpose of rewarding or torturing after death so that the religious can be kept in line?

 

The more important point is that those you see when experiencing an NDE are related to your beliefs, they are not universal.  NDE’s are claimed to be experiencing the path the heaven (for Christians at least) so they see dead relatives and friends welcoming them but children see living friends and atheists see all sorts of people.  None of that is consistent with the claim that the NDE is anything other than a generation of an oxygen deprived brain.

 

Then we see the evidence that when we artificially deprive the brain of oxygen it has exactly the same experiences, people who’ve experienced both attest to the sameness of these experiences.  Then the theory was floated that the issue was suppression of the centre of the brain responsible for our sense of presence so science artificially suppressed it with electromagnets and people then again experience this same NDE experience.

 

Another set of experiments focused on the out of body component of these experiences by placing hidden messages in locations that a patient could not see in ER rooms.  Many people reported out of body NDE experiences but none ever correctly related the messages even though, given their claimed top down views of their bodies the messages would have been clearly visible.  People who are apparently unconscious may well be able to hear and even see what’s going on around them but only from the point of view of a patient on the treatment bed, this test rules out that they were ever outside their bodies as they claimed.  Sure they apparently had some degree of perception during this time but a mystical NDE, no the evidence does not support that.

 

There’s so much evidence on this question and none of it, ever, supports the view that NDE’s are anything but the misfiring of an oxygen deprived brain.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Andalusi

 

I can accept that the soul would ‘feel’ with the body if they were connected but what does the soul add to this picture when everything that is you can be controlled or destroyed by physical means?  What does the soul add to the picture here or is it just some sort of redundant copy of our minds invented for the soul purpose of rewarding or torturing after death so that the religious can be kept in line?

 

The more important point is that those you see when experiencing an NDE are related to your beliefs, they are not universal.  NDE’s are claimed to be experiencing the path the heaven (for Christians at least) so they see dead relatives and friends welcoming them but children see living friends and atheists see all sorts of people.  None of that is consistent with the claim that the NDE is anything other than a generation of an oxygen deprived brain.

 

Then we see the evidence that when we artificially deprive the brain of oxygen it has exactly the same experiences, people who’ve experienced both attest to the sameness of these experiences.  Then the theory was floated that the issue was suppression of the centre of the brain responsible for our sense of presence so science artificially suppressed it with electromagnets and people then again experience this same NDE experience.

 

Another set of experiments focused on the out of body component of these experiences by placing hidden messages in locations that a patient could not see in ER rooms.  Many people reported out of body NDE experiences but none ever correctly related the messages even though, given their claimed top down views of their bodies the messages would have been clearly visible.  People who are apparently unconscious may well be able to hear and even see what’s going on around them but only from the point of view of a patient on the treatment bed, this test rules out that they were ever outside their bodies as they claimed.  Sure they apparently had some degree of perception during this time but a mystical NDE, no the evidence does not support that.

 

There’s so much evidence on this question and none of it, ever, supports the view that NDE’s are anything but the misfiring of an oxygen deprived brain.

 

Russell

 

 

I can accept that the soul would ‘feel’ with the body if they were connected but what does the soul add to this picture when everything that is you can be controlled or destroyed by physical means?  What does the soul add to the picture here or is it just some sort of redundant copy of our minds invented for the soul purpose of rewarding or torturing after death so that the religious can be kept in line?

 

as long as the soul is attached to the body soul is also affected, as soon as soul separate from the body physical body have no impact on the soul, so if blind person cant see from the birth and soul get outside body it can start to see, beacuse it is not limited by the body, evidence here

 

People Born Blind Can See During a Near-Death Experience

http://www.near-death.com/science/evidence/people-born-blind-can-see-during-nde.html

 

 

 

The more important point is that those you see when experiencing an NDE are related to your beliefs, they are not universal.  NDE’s are claimed to be experiencing the path the heaven (for Christians at least) so they see dead relatives and friends welcoming them but children see living friends and atheists see all sorts of people.  None of that is consistent with the claim that the NDE is anything other than a generation of an oxygen deprived brain.

 

this can be explained by Jinns, for example Jinns can take shape of your relatives , this sort of Jinn is called Jinn kareen (the followers)

 

when person dies, follwer Jinn continue to live, and can copy that person, both in shape and voice and it knows stuff only wich you know, that is how mediums contact these Jinn kareen and people think they speak to dead people while actually then dont speak with souls actually they only speak to these Jinns kareen

 

these JInns and Jinn kareen have be proven in experiment by non-relgious group assited with scientists

Scole experiments

 

 

 

There’s so much evidence on this question and none of it, ever, supports the view that NDE’s are anything but the misfiring of an oxygen deprived brain.

 

that doctor above in those 3 videos dont agree with you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Andalusi

 

You suggest that a soul can see once it’s detached from a blind body but we know what seeing is and how it works in the brain, blind people who have their physical handicap cured can’t suddenly see, they need to learn what seeing is and how to do it.  Seeing isn’t innate rather, like all other senses, its use is learned through life experience so your idea is not rational.

 

Kenneth Ring is certainly a true believer but his ideas contradict so much of what the vast majority of researchers in medicine have demonstrated that we have to take his words with a grain of salt don’t you think.  He claims that blind people see in NDE’s but people who are blind from birth don’t even know what seeing is, their brains are incapable of it.  That plus the fact that many detailed studies by a number of researchers show clearly that NDE experiences aren’t’ actually seeing anything from outside their bodies plus those out of body feelings can be induced by reducing the brain’s oxygen supply.  All of that strongly supports the idea that these NDE’s are created by an oxygen starved brain which is one of the processes that will happen when your body is close to death as well as under other circumstances unrelated to death.

 

We’ll skip for a moment that I don’t believe there is any such thing as Jinn but lets examine the logic of that idea.  I pointed out that the forms seen in NDE’s are shaped by our beliefs, Muslims see different things to Catholics who see different things to young children during NDE’s.  These links are strongly correlated though not universal.  Why would Jinn’s want to show up as Jonny’s best friend when he died while showing up as deceased relatives to an old Catholic woman?  There seems no rational reason for these choices.

 

You’ll have to show me where a non religious experiment proved Jinn, that seems seriously improbable.

 

I’m not sure what to say about the Scole experiments. I haven’t the time to watch the whole thing, it’s over an hour and a half long, but in the few bits I did watch it looks theatrically faked and that seems to be the consensus of the reviews I read.  Such things are easy enough to do in this day of CGI and other special effects or even just the old slight of hand tricks that magicians have been up to for years.  You have to be very carful not to pick and choose anything that seems to support your position, you have to look for the sort of rigor shown in scientific studies to rule out trickery or simple misapprehension on the part of the producers.

 

You are right that the doctors in those three examples disagree with me and the vast majority of serious researchers in this field disagree with them and agree with me.  This is not a numbers game, if they actually have evidence they should be able to publish it in reputable, peer reviewed publications and have it generally accepted.  As you have probably noticed they can’t, they can’t reach the levels of proof needed to be admitted to such publications.  I suspect that there is a very good reason for that, historically and no doubt today, these sorts of experiments show results while small and loosely controlled but the effects disappear when the experiments are enlarged and the rigor applied to them is increased.  Small sample sizes often produce interesting results by chance alone but that evaporates as the sample size increases and as the rigor increases just as you would expect if there were nothing to the claims being made.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Andalusi

 

You suggest that a soul can see once it’s detached from a blind body but we know what seeing is and how it works in the brain, blind people who have their physical handicap cured can’t suddenly see, they need to learn what seeing is and how to do it.  Seeing isn’t innate rather, like all other senses, its use is learned through life experience so your idea is not rational.

 

Kenneth Ring is certainly a true believer but his ideas contradict so much of what the vast majority of researchers in medicine have demonstrated that we have to take his words with a grain of salt don’t you think.  He claims that blind people see in NDE’s but people who are blind from birth don’t even know what seeing is, their brains are incapable of it.  That plus the fact that many detailed studies by a number of researchers show clearly that NDE experiences aren’t’ actually seeing anything from outside their bodies plus those out of body feelings can be induced by reducing the brain’s oxygen supply.  All of that strongly supports the idea that these NDE’s are created by an oxygen starved brain which is one of the processes that will happen when your body is close to death as well as under other circumstances unrelated to death.

 

We’ll skip for a moment that I don’t believe there is any such thing as Jinn but lets examine the logic of that idea.  I pointed out that the forms seen in NDE’s are shaped by our beliefs, Muslims see different things to Catholics who see different things to young children during NDE’s.  These links are strongly correlated though not universal.  Why would Jinn’s want to show up as Jonny’s best friend when he died while showing up as deceased relatives to an old Catholic woman?  There seems no rational reason for these choices.

 

You’ll have to show me where a non religious experiment proved Jinn, that seems seriously improbable.

 

I’m not sure what to say about the Scole experiments. I haven’t the time to watch the whole thing, it’s over an hour and a half long, but in the few bits I did watch it looks theatrically faked and that seems to be the consensus of the reviews I read.  Such things are easy enough to do in this day of CGI and other special effects or even just the old slight of hand tricks that magicians have been up to for years.  You have to be very carful not to pick and choose anything that seems to support your position, you have to look for the sort of rigor shown in scientific studies to rule out trickery or simple misapprehension on the part of the producers.

 

You are right that the doctors in those three examples disagree with me and the vast majority of serious researchers in this field disagree with them and agree with me.  This is not a numbers game, if they actually have evidence they should be able to publish it in reputable, peer reviewed publications and have it generally accepted.  As you have probably noticed they can’t, they can’t reach the levels of proof needed to be admitted to such publications.  I suspect that there is a very good reason for that, historically and no doubt today, these sorts of experiments show results while small and loosely controlled but the effects disappear when the experiments are enlarged and the rigor applied to them is increased.  Small sample sizes often produce interesting results by chance alone but that evaporates as the sample size increases and as the rigor increases just as you would expect if there were nothing to the claims being made.

 

Russell

 

 

 

You suggest that a soul can see once it’s detached from a blind body but we know what seeing is and how it works in the brain, blind people who have their physical handicap cured can’t suddenly see, they need to learn what seeing is and how to do it.  Seeing isn’t innate rather, like all other senses, its use is learned through life experience so your idea is not rational.

 

these are experiences from people who were blind from birth

 

if they lie, then i lie too

 

 

 All of that strongly supports the idea that these NDE’s are created by an oxygen starved brain which is one of the processes that will happen when your body is close to death as well as under other circumstances unrelated to death.

 

no, here are latest study about NDE

 

Near-Death Experiences May Not be Hallucinations: We Could Have Real, Postmortem Awareness  
A new study finds that consciousness might continue to occur minutes after the heart has stopped beating.
 

http://www.alternet.org/personal-health/near-death-experiences-may-not-be-hallucinations-we-could-have-real-postmortem

 

 

 

 

We’ll skip for a moment that I don’t believe there is any such thing as Jinn but lets examine the logic of that idea.  I pointed out that the forms seen in NDE’s are shaped by our beliefs, Muslims see different things to Catholics who see different things to young children during NDE’s.  These links are strongly correlated though not universal.  Why would Jinn’s want to show up as Jonny’s best friend when he died while showing up as deceased relatives to an old Catholic woman?  There seems no rational reason for these choices.

 

beacuse Jinn have free will and emotions like we humans

 

What if Jinn want to console the relative of the dead person, if Jinn is a good person, if he is evil person he may divert relative from ending his life as righteous person

 

 

 

You’ll have to show me where a non religious experiment proved Jinn, that seems seriously improbable.

 

scole experiment is non-relgious experiment wich prove JInn in my opinion, since they experienced dematerialisation of mattter same as magician experience dematerialisation of matter during tyheir trick when Jinn assist them in their tricks

 

stuff leviated in scole experiemnt just like stuff leviate in magician tricks, and magician claim that they are assisted by demons wich we call Jinn.

 

that is how i connect Jinns with scole experiment and magians magic wich they preform.

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


×