There are many representations of “God”. Yet many if not all religion claims sole authenticity.

Some believers fashion raw materials to depict god. These adherents claim such figurine is figurative of their god; the raw materials do not represent god only the content. Other believers accuse such portrayal as idolatry. How can one worship a god they have engraved? some ask.

Some believer’s portrait of god is encapsulated solely in text. These adherents claim such article is the infallible “word of God”. Others claim such portrayal is susceptible to mistranslation. Why didn’t god write his own autobiography? some ask.

If the holy book(s) are said to be “inspired by God” thus could not these physical representations of certain deities also have been god-inspired when engraved?

The Holy books are laid out in text – a means of communication from god to man. Art is also a form of communication hence these graven images are translated via art.

Could not all these different interpretations of god be valid forms of capturing “his” essence?

If some people desire to have a tangible depiction of god then why should another’s representation be deemed as wrong?

Could God not reveal itself or be celebrated in various contextual forms?

emöfine2: There are many representations of “God”. Yet many if not all religion claims sole authenticity.

Some believers fashion raw materials to depict god. These adherents claim such figurine is figurative of their god; the raw materials do not represent god only the content. Other believers accuse such portrayal as idolatry. How can one worship a god they have engraved? some ask.

Some believer’s portrait of god is encapsulated solely in text. These adherents claim such article is the infallible “word of God”. Others claim such portrayal is susceptible to mistranslation. Why didn’t god write his own autobiography? some ask.

If the holy book(s) are said to be “inspired by God” thus could not these physical representations of certain deities also have been god-inspired when engraved?

The Holy books are laid out in text – a means of communication from god to man. Art is also a form of communication hence these graven images are translated via art.

Could not all these different interpretations of god be valid forms of capturing “his” essence?

If some people desire to have a tangible depiction of god then why should another’s representation be deemed as wrong?


Could God not reveal itself or be celebrated in various contextual forms?

1. They are not valid according to religious as some accept some forms of capture and reject others
2. This is a big problem in Nigeria/World Over why do you expect to qualify all as wrong and except theirs. It has become a huge point of confusion, citing the abrahamic faiths as example why will both tales basically based on similar fantasies and origins refuse to agree with themselves? Ishmael? Isaac? Jesus? I myself see all as sham as i don't believe that out of 40,000 or so description of God that only one stands true

Before England became a protestant nation, they were Roman Catholics. So at the time many people struggled to adapt to this new (protestant) way of worship. The puritans were simple and plain in contrast to the elaborate exhibition of the Catholics who employed a lot of imagery and art etc. (i.e. stained glass windows) in their form of worship. However some of this art assisted the lay people (illiterates) to understand the stories of the bible. If it wasn’t for these art or “graven images” some would have remained ignorant to certain narrations in the bible.

And such reminds me of the different classifications of learning. Some people are audio learners, some visual, some kinesthetic etc however in school we are usually taught in a particular style that may favour a specific group (most often the audio learners who could absorb much echoed information). Now in order for other people with different abilities to capture the lesson being taught they may seek methods that correspond to their capacity to learn.
How then does this differ from the religious contingent who retains and interpret information differently to each other.

mkmyers45: I myself see all as sham as i don't believe that out of 40,000 or so description of God that only one stands true

I think one can also look at it as 40 000 interpretations of “God” if you like. Even people of the same belief system interpret God differently.

emöfine2: There are many representations of “God”. Yet many if not all religion claims sole authenticity.

Could not all these different interpretations of god be valid forms of capturing “his” essence?

If some people desire to have a tangible depiction of god then why should another’s representation be deemed as wrong?

Could God not reveal itself or be celebrated in various contextual forms?

All representations of God can not be correct since each claim render the other wrong. Some of the claims are similar(like the Jewish and muslim definition of God).

God gave us minds and intellects to help us make this important decision, probably the most important of our existence. So each of us must examine dispassionately the evidence that each of these ideologies present.

In my experience, one can only determine the true path by putting all emotions aside, emotions blind reality. It is only then we can make a rational choice.

How do you carve things with your hands from rocks, stone and wood and then bow down to it or give it offerings? If it falls and breaks you replace it with another stone, rock or wood;


God has already revealed himself, you just need to be willing to examine the evidence of each revelation using common sense to come to a reasonable conclusion.

tbaba1234:

All representations of God can not be correct since each claim render the other wrong. Some of the claims are similar(like the Jewish and muslim definition of God).

God gave us minds and intellects to help us make this important decision, probably the most important of our existence. So each of us must examine dispassionately the evidence that each of these ideologies present.

In my experience, one can only determine the true path by putting all emotions aside, emotions blind reality. It is only then we can make a rational choice.

How do you carve things with your hands from rocks, stone and wood and then bow down to it or give it offerings? If it falls and breaks you replace it with another stone, rock or wood;


God has already revealed himself, you just need to be willing to examine the evidence of each revelation using common sense to come to a reasonable conclusion.

Martins asked someone a question on another thread and I will ask you the same questions here. . .Without the validation of the religion you were indoctrinated with, How do you know it's one god instead of several?. . .How did you come to know everything you know about the God you chose to believe in?. . .What makes the existence of many Gods as many believe invalid?. . . How did you come about this knowledge? Don't use any personal beliefs, convictions, holy book or anecdotes. Just tell. . . .

As for people using their hands to crave things, even your own religion does that. . .The Kabbah for example was created by people and is a symbol of reverence in Islam, muslims do not worship the Kabbah but it is of significant importance to the muslim faith despite the fact that it is a man made object. . . .How do you write words and claim it is the word of God and revere it greatly the way the muslims do?. . .What is the differece between words that men wrote and ascribe it to their various Gods and the carvings that men create as the representations of their various Gods?. . .Some people just believe that the images they carve are just a representation of the Gods just as some claim that the books they write are the words of their Gods. . .Why is one claim valid and the other invalid?

mazaje:

Martins asked someone a question on another thread and I will ask you the same questions here. . .Without the validation of the religion you were indoctrinated with, How do you know it's one god instead of several?. . .How did you come to know everything you know about the God you chose to believe in?. . .What makes the existence of many Gods as many believe invalid?. . . How did you come about this knowledge? Don't use any personal beliefs, convictions, holy book or anecdotes. Just tell. . . .

As for people using their hands to crave things, even your own religion does that. . .The Kabbah for example was created by people and is a symbol of reverence in Islam, muslims do not worship the Kabbah but it is of significant importance to the muslim faith despite the fact that it is a man made object. . . .How do you write words and claim it is the word of God and revere it greatly the way the muslims do?. . .What is the differece between words that men wrote and ascribe it to their various Gods and the carvings that men create as the representations of their various Gods?. . .Some people just believe that the images they carve are just a representation of the Gods just as some claim that the books they write are the words of their Gods. . .Why is one claim valid and the other invalid?

Your questions are many: I hope i can address them..

Your first question is How do i know God is one?

I will present 5 arguments for the oneness of a creator/ God and there are as follows:

1. Occam’s Razor
2. Logical Argument
3.Conceptual Differentiation
4. Uniqueness
5. Revelation

1. Occam's razor: Occam's razor is the law of parsimony. It is a principle urging one to select among competing hypotheses that which makes the fewest assumptions and thereby offers the simplest explanation of the effect.(wikipedia definition). Basically what it says is that when there are competing options the one with the fewest assumptions and the simplest explanation is the best one. This is applied in the philosophy of science.

The absurdity of an infinite regress of causes in the creation of the universe creates more problems than it answers....This principle enjoins “Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate”, in English “Plurality should not be posited without necessity.” In other words the simplest and most comprehensive explanation is the best explanation.

In the absence of any evidence or in absence of a need for a plurality of causes we should hold onto the most comprehensive and simple explanation. In this case we have no evidence to say the cause for the universe is actually a combination of two, three or even one thousand causes so the simplest and most comprehensive explanation is that this cause is one. Postulating a plurality of causes does not add to the comprehensiveness of the argument.

2. Logical Argument- The kind of organization existent in the universe necessitates the existence of just one creator. The existence of more than one God could result in chaos: Why? God being the creator has an imposing will. Having more than one creator: all with imposing wills could result in a competition of wills and chaos and disorder.

3. Conceptual differentiation- What makes us appreciate difference and duality in this world? We appreciate the concept of difference of difference in this world because of space, form, physical features etc. The reason you can perceive two objects above is due to differences in colour, size, and shape, including their placement, in other words there is a distance between them.

In absence of these concepts could you perceive the two objects or any objects at all? You could not, because these concepts (space, placement, siz) are required to perceive any number of entities.

Since the creator of this universe has to be outside it(If the creator of the universe is within it, it will lead to the absurdity that the universe created itself- the universe existing and not existing at the same time), these concepts can not be applied to differentiate because these concepts only make sense in this universe.

The universe began to exist. Therefore a single independent cause is rationally necessary to explain the fact that the universe began to exist and a plurality of causes cannot be perceived due to the absence of conceptual differentiators.

4. Uniqueness- If the cause of the universe was not unique that would mean there are some similarities between the cause of the universe and the universe itself. This is not possible as that would place the cause of the universe within the universe (if you define the universe as the sum of all matter) and this would lead to an absurdity as it would imply that the universe created itself. Now you may ask the question: why can’t the cause of the universe resemble the universe? The answer is straight forward; this cause must be immaterial because it created the sum of all material – which is the universe itself – and another principle that supports this is the 1st law of thermodynamics, it states “Energy cannot be created or destroyed”, simply put energy (in other words matter) cannot create itself. If the cause was material then it would defy this principle as it would mean matter and energy self create. So you can conclude that the cause of the universe must be immaterial and therefore unique.

How does this relate to the oneness of God? Well if there were more than one cause for the universe that would mean they are not unique anymore. However you may still argue that there can be two immaterial causes, and I would reply: what does that mean? It would seem that you are violating Occam’s Razor and I would refer you to the first argument.

5. Revelation- A simpler way of providing evidence for God’s oneness is by referring to revelation. The argument here is that if God has announced himself to humanity and this revelation can be proven to be from Him, then what He mentions about himself is obviously true. The daring assumptions, from an agnostic perspective at least, are how do you know God has announced himself to mankind and in what form is this revelation?

Let’s take the last assumption first. If God has announced himself to mankind there are only two possible ways to find out: externally and internally. What I mean by “internally” here is that you can find out who God is solely by introspection and internalisation and what I mean by “externally” is that you can find out who God is via communication outside of yourself, in other words it is instantiated in the mind-independent world. Finding out about God internally is implausible for the following reasons,

1. Human beings are different. They have, what Psychologists call, “individual differences”, these individual differences include DNA, experiences, social context, intellectual and emotional capacities, gender differences, amongst many more. These differences play a role in your ability to internalise via introspection or intuition, therefore the results of introspection or relying on your intuition will differ. So you can see that if these processes where solely used to find out about God there would be inevitable differences in our conception of Him.

2. Since the method used to conclude that God does exist is a “common sense” method, or what philosophers call rational thought and what Muslim theologians may call innate thinking, then internally trying to find out about God would lead to fallacies. This is because what can be concluded using the universe as evidence for a transcendental independent cause is that it must be eternal, unique, powerful and personal; anything else would be speculation. The Qur’an aptly mentions “Why do you say about God of that which you have no knowledge?” If you try and internalise what God is would be equivalent of a mouse trying to conceptualise and think like an Elephant. It is obvious that the human being is not eternal, unique and powerful, therefore the human being could not conceptualise who God is. God would have to tell you via external revelation.

you know God exists like the knocking of the door, you safely assume that something is there, but do you know who it is? You weren’t expecting anyone, so you cry out “who is it?” in order to find out, and the only way to find out is if the person behind the door tells you. So you can conclude that if God has said or announced anything it must be external to the human being.

From an Islamic perspective this external communication is the Qur’an as it is the only text to claim to have come from God that fits the criteria for a divine text, these criteria include,

1. It must be consistence with the rational and intuitive conclusion on God. For example if a book says God is an Elephant with 40 arms you could safely assume that this book is not from God, as God must be external to the universe.

2. It must be internally and externally consistence. In other words if it says on page 20 that God is one and then on page 340 its says God is 3 that would be an internal inconsistency. Additionally if the book says that the universe is only 6,000 years old then that would be an external inconsistency as reality as we know it s that the universe is older the 6,000 years.

3. It must have signposts to transcendence. In simple terms it must have evidence to show that it is from God.

In the case of the Qur’an – and this post is not the place to discuss this in any depth – cannot be explained naturalistically therefore supernatural explanations are the best explanation. Some of these signposts include:

a. The linguistic and literary inimitability
b. There are historical accounts that could not have been known by man at the time of revelation
c. There are some descriptions of natural phenomena that could not have been known by man at the time of revelation

To conclude, since the only way to know what God has announced to mankind is via external revelation, and this revelation can be proven to be the Qur’an – then what is says about God is true. In the context of this discussion the Qur’an says “Know that your Lord God is one”.

emöfine2:

I think one can also look at it as 40 000 interpretations of “God” if you like. Even people of the same belief system interpret God differently.

but using common sense we know that this interpretations all bore down on some basic human analogy hence all contain some form error in description.

tbaba1234:

All representations of God can not be correct since each claim render the other wrong. Some of the claims are similar(like the Jewish and muslim definition of God).

God gave us minds and intellects to help us make this important decision, probably the most important of our existence. So each of us must examine dispassionately the evidence that each of these ideologies present.

In my experience, one can only determine the true path by putting all emotions aside, emotions blind reality. It is only then we can make a rational choice.

How do you carve things with your hands from rocks, stone and wood and then bow down to it or give it offerings? If it falls and breaks you replace it with another stone, rock or wood;


God has already revealed himself, you just need to be willing to examine the evidence of each revelation using common sense to come to a reasonable conclusion.

But everyone is biased, right?

Yes you’re right. All representations of God cannot be the same as not all gods are in harmony with each other. And all representations cannot be the same since humans interpret differently. Should other depictions of god be marginalized because some people have a different understanding or pattern?

What about those who are illiterates or those certain cultures that may in the past or even till date had or have no written alphabet and thus employ art as a tool?

Like I asked before, could God not reveal itself or be celebrated in various contextual forms?

Why should the portrayal of god be limited to a specific context that may favour a particular group and may not even be able to be understood by all people of various backgrounds or who have different means of retaining information?

And like I said in the opening. . .these adherents (well the ones I’ve spoken to) say they do not bow down to the raw materials. They accord reverence only to what the figurine embodies or the essence.

Was not the alleged “word of God” published by man? What is the difference between man writing the holy book as an account of God’s word and an animist creating a similitude of god as a reference to “him”?

The way one worships their god is also linked to ones esteem and ability of understanding. Imagine what happens to the esteem of a person who abandons their former way of worship because they apparently adhered to the wrong depiction of god? Or vice versa, what happens to the esteem of a person who has gained another believer who adopts their form of worship?
Their sense of understanding will also have to be tailored.

tbaba1234:

Your questions are many: I hope i can address them..

Your first question is How do i know God is one?

I will present 5 arguments for the oneness of a creator/ God and there are as follows:

1. Occam’s Razor
2. Logical Argument
3.Conceptual Differentiation
4. Uniqueness
5. Revelation

1. Occam's razor: Occam's razor is the law of parsimony. It is a principle urging one to select among competing hypotheses that which makes the fewest assumptions and thereby offers the simplest explanation of the effect.(wikipedia definition). Basically what it says is that when there are competing options the one with the fewest assumptions and the simplest explanation is the best one. This is applied in the philosophy of science.

The absurdity of an infinite regress of causes in the creation of the universe creates more problems than it answers....This principle enjoins “Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate”, in English “Plurality should not be posited without necessity.” In other words the simplest and most comprehensive explanation is the best explanation.

In the absence of any evidence or in absence of a need for a plurality of causes we should hold onto the most comprehensive and simple explanation. In this case we have no evidence to say the cause for the universe is actually a combination of two, three or even one thousand causes so the simplest and most comprehensive explanation is that this cause is one. Postulating a plurality of causes does not add to the comprehensiveness of the argument.

There is also no evidence for the existence of a singular cause, there are concepts about singularity and plurality of causes. . .Plurality of causes is valid and legitimate because of the complexity of the universe, which is to say the universe is too complex and requires a plurality of causes coming together around a specific purpose. When it comes to the universe plurality is not posited unnecessarily because of the complexity of the universe. . . Rather than indicating that there is a one true God, to me this only indicates that people are simply attracted to the idea. . . .This argument makes sense and is the best you have proposed so far. . .

2. Logical Argument- The kind of organization existent in the universe necessitates the existence of just one creator. The existence of more than one God could result in chaos: Why? God being the creator has an imposing will. Having more than one creator: all with imposing wills could result in a competition of wills and chaos and disorder.

This argument is completely devoid of logic. . .The existence of many Gods coming together around a specific purpose will not result in chaos. . .Take the A380 super jumbo jet, many people came together around a specific purpose and created it and are maintaining it without competing wills, chaos and disorder, once there is a sense of purpose many Gods can come together,create the universe and maintain it. . .This is the worst argument you have proposed of all the others. . .

3. Conceptual differentiation- What makes us appreciate difference and duality in this world? We appreciate the concept of difference of difference in this world because of space, form, physical features etc. The reason you can perceive two objects above is due to differences in colour, size, and shape, including their placement, in other words there is a distance between them.

In absence of these concepts could you perceive the two objects or any objects at all? You could not, because these concepts (space, placement, siz) are required to perceive any number of entities.

Since the creator of this universe has to be outside it(If the creator of the universe is within it, it will lead to the absurdity that the universe created itself- the universe existing and not existing at the same time), these concepts can not be applied to differentiate because these concepts only make sense in this universe.

The universe began to exist. Therefore a single independent cause is rationally necessary to explain the fact that the universe began to exist and a plurality of causes cannot be perceived due to the absence of conceptual differentiators.

Another argument devoid of logic and full of question begging. . .I can build a house and live inside it and maintain it both internally and externally, it still doesn't mean I didn't build the house. . .many people can build a house and live inside the house maintain it both internally and externally as well, doesn't mean they didn't build the house or they are a part of the house furniture. The christians and jews for example believe in a single cause that created the universe and lives inside the universe. The universe having a beginning doesn't mean it is irrational for it to have a plural of causes. . .

4. Uniqueness- If the cause of the universe was not unique that would mean there are some similarities between the cause of the universe and the universe itself. This is not possible as that would place the cause of the universe within the universe (if you define the universe as the sum of all matter) and this would lead to an absurdity as it would imply that the universe created itself. Now you may ask the question: why can’t the cause of the universe resemble the universe? The answer is straight forward; this cause must be immaterial because it created the sum of all material – which is the universe itself – and another principle that supports this is the 1st law of thermodynamics, it states “Energy cannot be created or destroyed”, simply put energy (in other words matter) cannot create itself. If the cause was material then it would defy this principle as it would mean matter and energy self create. So you can conclude that the cause of the universe must be immaterial and therefore unique.

How does this relate to the oneness of God? Well if there were more than one cause for the universe that would mean they are not unique anymore. However you may still argue that there can be two immaterial causes, and I would reply: what does that mean? It would seem that you are violating Occam’s Razor and I would refer you to the first argument.

Another tenuous argument filled with question begging. . . .Nothing wrong with the cause(s) of the universe living inside the universe. If people come together and build a house and live inside the house, it doesn't mean that the same with the building. . .Nothing says that the plurality of causes can not be immaterial and no they are not violating Osccam's razor in this particular case. . .By the way some monotheist believe in a singular God that is material and lives within the universe. . .Example the jews and the christians, so your argument holds no water. . .

5. Revelation- A simpler way of providing evidence for God’s oneness is by referring to revelation. The argument here is that if God has announced himself to humanity and this revelation can be proven to be from Him, then what He mentions about himself is obviously true. The daring assumptions, from an agnostic perspective at least, are how do you know God has announced himself to mankind and in what form is this revelation?

OK. . .

Let’s take the last assumption first. If God has announced himself to mankind there are only two possible ways to find out: externally and internally. What I mean by “internally” here is that you can find out who God is solely by introspection and internalisation and what I mean by “externally” is that you can find out who God is via communication outside of yourself, in other words it is instantiated in the mind-independent world. Finding out about God internally is implausible for the following reasons,

1. Human beings are different. They have, what Psychologists call, “individual differences”, these individual differences include DNA, experiences, social context, intellectual and emotional capacities, gender differences, amongst many more. These differences play a role in your ability to internalise via introspection or intuition, therefore the results of introspection or relying on your intuition will differ. So you can see that if these processes where solely used to find out about God there would be inevitable differences in our conception of Him.
javascript:void(0);
2. Since the method used to conclude that God does exist is a “common sense” method, or what philosophers call rational thought and what Muslim theologians may call innate thinking, then internally trying to find out about God would lead to fallacies. This is because what can be concluded using the universe as evidence for a transcendental independent cause is that it must be eternal, unique, powerful and personal; anything else would be speculation. The Qur’an aptly mentions “Why do you say about God of that which you have no knowledge?” If you try and internalise what God is would be equivalent of a mouse trying to conceptualise and think like an Elephant. It is obvious that the human being is not eternal, unique and powerful, therefore the human being could not conceptualise who God is. God would have to tell you via external revelation.

A lot of question begging here again, the cause(s) must not be personal, and unique for example, and there is nothing wrong with internal revelations, if we are to go by your argument that the creator(s) are powerful then they can revel themselves internally since they/ it has the power to do that. Christians for example believe in an internal revelation. . .

you know God exists like the knocking of the door, you safely assume that something is there, but do you know who it is? You weren’t expecting anyone, so you cry out “who is it?” in order to find out, and the only way to find out is if the person behind the door tells you. So you can conclude that if God has said or announced anything it must be external to the human being.

Nothing stops a powerful God(s) that can do all things from internal revelation, this concept is agreed by the christians for example. .

From an Islamic perspective this external communication is the Qur’an as it is the only text to claim to have come from God that fits the criteria for a divine text, these criteria include,

1. It must be consistence with the rational and intuitive conclusion on God. For example if a book says God is an Elephant with 40 arms you could safely assume that this book is not from God, as God must be external to the universe.

Nothing wrong with a God that is internal to the universe, I gave you an example of the jewish God for example, it exist both within and outside the universe as claimed. ..

2. It must be internally and externally consistence. In other words if it says on page 20 that God is one and then on page 340 its says God is 3 that would be an internal inconsistency. Additionally if the book says that the universe is only 6,000 years old then that would be an external inconsistency as reality as we know it s that the universe is older the 6,000 years.

3. It must have signposts to transcendence. In simple terms it must have evidence to show that it is from God.

In the case of the Qur’an – and this post is not the place to discuss this in any depth – cannot be explained naturalistically therefore supernatural explanations are the best explanation. Some of these signposts include:

a. The linguistic and literary inimitability
b. There are historical accounts that could not have been known by man at the time of revelation
c. There are some descriptions of natural phenomena that could not have been known by man at the time of revelation

To conclude, since the only way to know what God has announced to mankind is via external revelation, and this revelation can be proven to be the Qur’an – then what is says about God is true. In the context of this discussion the Qur’an says “Know that your Lord God is one”.

What exactly are the historical accounts that could not have been known by man at the so called time of revelation?. . .What about the description of natural phenomena that could not have been known at that time, what are they? Pls list them lets examine them. . .Saying that the only way to know about God's revelation is via external revelation is nothing but question begging and jumping the gun, christians for example and many other religions have no problem with internal revelation and that is consistent with a singular or plurality of causes for example. . .

emöfine2:
But everyone is biased, right?

Yes you’re right. All representations of God cannot be the same as not all gods are in harmony with each other. And all representations cannot be the same since humans interpret differently. Should other depictions of god be marginalized because some people have a different understanding or pattern?

What about those who are illiterates or those certain cultures that may in the past or even till date had or have no written alphabet and thus employ art as a tool?

Like I asked before, could God not reveal itself or be celebrated in various contextual forms?

Why should the portrayal of god be limited to a specific context that may favour a particular group and may not even be able to be understood by all people of various backgrounds or who have different means of retaining information?

And like I said in the opening. . .these adherents (well the ones I’ve spoken to) say they do not bow down to the raw materials. They accord reverence only to what the figurine embodies or the essence.

Was not the alleged “word of God” published by man? What is the difference between man writing the holy book as an account of God’s word and an animist creating a similitude of god as a reference to “him”?

Most of your questions have been addressed in my last post.

The true religion of God must be universally understandable and attainable throughout the world. In other words, the true religion of God cannot be confined to any one people, place or period of time. Nor is it logical that such a religion should impose conditions that have nothing to do with the relationship of man with God, such as go-betweens, baptism or belief in man as saviour.

Whenever a man comes to the realization that God is one and distinct from his creation and submits himself, he becomes a muslim. He doesn't have to have met a muslim or read the Quran. Consequently, anyone at anytime in the most remote regions of the world can become a muslim, by merely rejecting the worship of creation and turning to God alone.

So illiteracy or a lack of a written culture does not matter... In fact the Quran was revealed in a society with a largely oral culture....

True, art is a way of expression and that is great... Some animist traditions still have the underlying principle of a one supreme being but they use the statures as go-betweens. These go-betweens are often times given attributes that should only be reserved for the creator for instance the god could be called the god of thunder or of love.

You have divided the attributes of God and given some of it to the creation: Even though the thing you offered that kind of reverence is a creation itself.
If we say as some of the animists suggest that God is in the creation: Then before the creation of the universe, the universe must have existed and not existed at the same time: since God is a part of it: This in itself is an absurdity.

In the case of revelation, a true revelation from God must be consistent and provide us with signposts to the transcedent (see my last post).

tbaba1234:

Most of your questions have been addressed in my last post.

The true religion of God must be universally understandable and attainable throughout the world. In other words, the true religion of God cannot be confined to any one people, place or period of time. Nor is it logical that such a religion should impose conditions that have nothing to do with the relationship of man with God, such as go-betweens, baptism or belief in man as saviour.

I find your assertions interesting. The only thing is that Islam is not universally understandable and attainable(Like every other religion). We are told that Islam was revealed to prophet Mohammed. Islam imposes a go between, in its declaration of belief or faith it says that there is no God but Allah and Mohammed is his last messenger. There by making the belief in Mohammed as a go between.`What about the Hajj to Mecca that Muslims perform, how does it differ to baptism? I will use the words of Mohammed Razi to counter the last point you made about illogicality of belief in man as savior. "On what ground do you deem it necessary that God should single out certain individuals [by giving them prophecy], that he should set them up above other people, that he should appoint them to be the people's guides, and make people dependent upon them?". That is also illogical.

Whenever a man comes to the realization that God is one and distinct from his creation and submits himself, he becomes a muslim. He doesn't have to have met a muslim or read the Quran. Consequently, anyone at anytime in the most remote regions of the world can become a muslim, by merely rejecting the worship of creation and turning to God alone.

I thought for one to become a Muslim he or she must believe that there is no God but Allah and Mohammed is his last messenger. Your assertion of one becoming a Muslim by simply realizing that God is one and distinct from his creation is false. To be a Muslim one has to believe only in Allah as the only God, believe in Mohammed as his last messenger, perform 5 daily prayers, give alms to the poor, fast during the period of Ramadan, and go on pilgrimage to Mecca. One can not be a Muslim without believing in at least one of the 5 things I have listed. Above all one can not be a Muslim if he does not believe in the Koran as the word of Allah.

So illiteracy or a lack of a written culture does not matter... In fact the Quran was revealed in a society with a largely oral culture....

True, art is a way of expression and that is great... Some animist traditions still have the underlying principle of a one supreme being but they use the statures as go-betweens. These go-betweens are often times given attributes that should only be reserved for the creator for instance the god could be called the god of thunder or of love.

Mazaje gave a very good rebuttal to this assertion of yours, the Koran that is considered the word of God is also a go between. Since it is claimed to be the word of God.

You have divided the attributes of God and given some of it to the creation: Even though the thing you offered that kind of reverence is a creation itself.
If we say as some of the animists suggest that God is in the creation: Then before the creation of the universe, the universe must have existed and not existed at the same time: since God is a part of it: This in itself is an absurdity.

In the case of revelation, a true revelation from God must be consistent and provide us with signposts to the transcedent (see my last post).

Many different religions believe that their own version of revelation provides them with that signpost to the transcendent.

dalaman: Mazaje gave a very good rebuttal to this assertion of yours, the Koran that is considered the word of God is also a go between. Since it is claimed to be the word of God.

I was wondering about that also.

Why do some religious people disqualify other renderings of god of differing faiths when they actually have parallels and equivalents that operate in their own belief-system?

Ultimately it all boils down to "my depiction of God is correct and everyone else's portrayal is blasphemous and wrong". If all or some religion claims this then it's clearly biased because the context in which their God is conveyed usually favours a specific group.

tbaba1234:

The true religion of God must be universally understandable and attainable throughout the world. In other words, the true religion of God cannot be confined to any one people, place or period of time. Nor is it logical that such a religion should impose conditions that have nothing to do with the relationship of man with God, such as go-betweens, baptism or belief in man as saviour.

But how do you know such conditions have nothing to do with the relationship of man with God? Do you understand the symbolism behind certain practices?

As already mentioned is not the holy book also a “go-between”. . .a bridge between man and God?

There is also no evidence for the existence of a singular cause, there are concepts about singularity and plurality of causes. . .Plurality of causes is valid and legitimate because of the complexity of the universe, which is to say the universe is too complex and requires a plurality of causes coming together around a specific purpose. When it comes to the universe plurality is not posited unnecessarily because of the complexity of the universe. . . Rather than indicating that there is a one true God, to me this only indicates that people are simply attracted to the idea. . . .This argument makes sense and is the best you have proposed so far. .

This contention(complexity of the universe), although valid, is misplaced .

A powerful being creating the whole universe is a far more coherent and simple explanation than a plurality of causes in line with occam's razor.In philosophical terms the principle enjoins that we do not multiply entities beyond necessity. What this basically means is that we should stick to explanations that do not create more questions than it answers. In the context of the cause for the universe we have no evidence to claim multiplicity, in other words more than one.

This argument is completely devoid of logic. . .The existence of many Gods coming together around a specific purpose will not result in chaos. . .Take the A380 super jumbo jet, many people came together around a specific purpose and created it and are maintaining it without competing wills, chaos and disorder, once there is a sense of purpose many Gods can come together,create the universe and maintain it. . .This is the worst argument you have proposed of all the others. . .

What has to be understood is that the best explanation for the origins of the universe is the concept of God and not ‘designer’ or ‘creator’. There may be a possibility of multiple designers or creators, as highlighted by the A380 super jumbo jet example, but there cannot be more than one God. you may argue that they can agree to have the same will or each have their own domain, but that would mean that their wills are now limited and passive. which would mean they are not Gods anymore by definition!.

Ibn Abi Al-Izz describes the situation best:

If there were two creators and they disagreed about something, such as one wanted to move X, whereas the other did not want it to moved, or one wanted to make Y a living being, whereas the other wanted to make it lifeless, then, logically speaking, there are only three possibilities.

First, the wills of the two are both carried out;
second, only the will of one of them is carried out;
third, the will of neither of them is carried.

The first case is not possible because it requires the existence of contraries (something being alive and dead at the same time for instance).

The third possibility is also ruled out because it would imply that a body is neither moving nor not moving and this is impossible. This would also imply that both of them are incapable or carrying out their wills, which would disqualify them from being God.

Finally, if the will of one is realised and not that of the other, he alone will deserve to be God and the one whose will is not realised cannot be considered God.

Another argument devoid of logic and full of question begging. . .I can build a house and live inside it and maintain it both internally and externally, it still doesn't mean I didn't build the house. . .many people can build a house and live inside the house maintain it both internally and externally as well, doesn't mean they didn't build the house or they are a part of the house furniture. The christians and jews for example believe in a single cause that created the universe and lives inside the universe. The universe having a beginning doesn't mean it is irrational for it to have a plural of causes. . .

I will take it slowly this time:

The God of the Universe must necessarily exist outside the universe for Him to create it.... Right?.... For you to build your house, you must exist outside of it:

Therefore, the God of the universe is not bounded by the constraints of the universe because He doesn't need it to exist.

Now, the conceptual differential arguments says that we only appreciate difference/duality because of the constraints of our universe and the concepts which we have used to define things. The creator on the other hand is not bound by the concepts we have defined for ourselves because he exists outside of the universe.

The plurality of causes would mean we have to constrain God to the concepts that define what we see as different.

Another tenuous argument filled with question begging. . . .Nothing wrong with the cause(s) of the universe living inside the universe. If people come together and build a house and live inside the house, it doesn't mean that the same with the building. . .Nothing says that the plurality of causes can not be immaterial and no they are not violating Osccam's razor in this particular case. . .By the way some monotheist believe in a singular God that is material and lives within the universe. . .Example the jews and the christians, so your argument holds no water. . .

Already addressed above.

A lot of question begging here again, the cause(s) must not be personal, and unique for example, and there is nothing wrong with internal revelations, if we are to go by your argument that the creator(s) are powerful then they can revel themselves internally since they/ it has the power to do that. Christians for example believe in an internal revelation. . .

Nothing stops a powerful God(s) that can do all things from internal revelation, this concept is agreed by the christians for example. .

What exactly are the historical accounts that could not have been known by man at the so called time of revelation?. . .What about the description of natural phenomena that could not have been known at that time, what are they? Pls list them lets examine them. . .Saying that the only way to know about God's revelation is via external revelation is nothing but question begging and jumping the gun, christians for example and many other religions have no problem with internal revelation and that is consistent with a singular or plurality of causes for example. . .

The problems with internal revelation has already being addressed:Because Humans have been given a free will for instance and we grow up under different environments : the results of an internal revelation would be different from individual to individual.

If for instance, everyone has a dream and God speaks to us in our individual dreams... My interpretation of that dream is dependent on my experiences:: Some people will take it as a sign from God, others would take it a some weird dream and pay no importance to it. Others might interpret it as an alien abduction. Our individual differences would determine our interpretation of events.

Some people say they have revelations/dreams that made them muslims or christians for instance. While this is possible, it is highly subjective, because sometimes dreams are just a reflection of our daily activities, thoughts and memories.

On the other hand, an external revelation can be looked at objectively, using common sense and intellect.

I will give just one example of the historical accuracy of the Quran:

Titles of Egyptian Rulers in the Quran
1.) First of all, it is important to note that hieroglyphics were lost at the time of the prophet Muhammad.

Moses was not the only prophet who lived in the lands of Egypt in the history of ancient Egypt. The Prophet Joseph had lived in Egypt long before the time of Moses.
We encounter a certain constrast while reading about the stories of Moses and Joseph.
While addressing the Egyptian ruler at the time of Joseph, the work "malik" (the King) is used in the Qur'an and Pharoah is used for the leader at the time of moses

Historical records available today show us the reason for the different nomenclature of these rulers. The word "pharaoh" was originally the name given to the royal palace in ancient Egypt. The rulers of the old dynasty did not use the title.

The use of the word pharaoh as the title of the ruler did not start until the "New Kingdom" era of Egyptian history. This period started with the 18th dynasty (1539-1292 BC), and by the 20th dynasty (945-730 BC) the word "pharaoh" was adopted as title of respect.

Joseph lived at the time of the Old Kingdom, and hence the word "malik"(king) was used for the Egyptian ruler rather than "pharaoh". On the contrary, since Moses lived at the time of the New Kingdom, the ruler of Egypt is addressed as "pharaoh".

In the biblical account, pharoah is used for the two eras: It is a subtle but significant difference.

Natural phenonmenon
First of all, the greatest miracle is that there are no errors in the quran's description of natural phenomenon for a book that old.

Embryology is detailed in the quran: whole research papers have been written on the subject. unheard of at the time:
Galen got it wrong, aristotle got it wrong.

http://www.iera.org.uk/downloads/Embryology_in_the_Quran_v2.pdf

There are many others, Quran talks about the depths of the Oceans being the darkest part, the mountains as pegs:::e.tc

dalaman:
I find your assertions interesting. The only thing is that Islam is not universally understandable and attainable(Like every other religion). We are told that Islam was revealed to prophet Mohammed. Islam imposes a go between, in its declaration of belief or faith it says that there is no God but Allah and Mohammed is his last messenger. There by making the belief in Mohammed as a go between.`What about the Hajj to Mecca that Muslims perform, how does it differ to baptism? I will use the words of Mohammed Razi to counter the last point you made about illogicality of belief in man as savior. "On what ground do you deem it necessary that God should single out certain individuals [by giving them prophecy], that he should set them up above other people, that he should appoint them to be the people's guides, and make people dependent upon them?". That is also illogical.

On the contrary, this is not the position of muslims:

Islam simply means surrender and submission to God... It does not adopt the name of Muhammad or any prophet (peace and blessings be on all of them).
Muslim means: the one who submits

We believe that prophets have been sent to all nations: All prophets came with the same message: Worship the one God on His terms.

And verily, We have sent a Messenger to every nation, that they would worship Allah and avoid false deities. (Al Quran-16: 36).

The belief in the One God is the most essential requirement to Heaven: For those people who never heard of Muhammad, as long as they never associated anything with God and worshipped the God alone without partners. They are eligible for paradise from Islamic theology:

The Quran talks of christians and Jews who believed in the oneness of God before the time of Muhammad:

Those who believe , and those who follow the Jewish [scriptures], and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve. {2:62}

SO the criteria for heaven for people who never knew of Muhammad is the belief in the oneness of a creator:: It is therefore universal as heaven is attainable for anyone regardless of location.

Before colonization, there were african tribes that had monotheistic beliefs very similar to what Islam preaches.

In the Middle Kingdom of Ancient Kemet (Egypt), well known Pharoah of monotheism, Akhenaton (1358-1340 B.C.E) expressed his dedication to the Sole God by singing praises and reorganizing the state religion. He focussed on the power behind the sun instead of the multiplicity of gods.

He was reported to have said:

How manifold are your works, though hidden from sight, O Sole God, besides whom there is none. You created earth according to your desire, You alone. All people, cattle and all kinds of animals, all on earth that walk on legs and all on high that ply with wings. You set every person in his (her) place and satisfy their needs. All have food and their time of life is determined. Their tongues differ in speech and so do their characters. The colours of their skins are different also. For you distinguished the people. How excellent are your ways, O Lord of eternity.

the Barundi people of Burundi and The Akan of West Africa etc all had monothiestic beliefs: Even the basis of the yoruba belief is essentially monotheistic

In islamic theology, as long as they worshiped the creator alone without partners, they are amongst those who submitted(Muslims).

I thought for one to become a Muslim he or she must believe that there is no God but Allah and Mohammed is his last messenger. Your assertion of one becoming a Muslim by simply realizing that God is one and distinct from his creation is false. To be a Muslim one has to believe only in Allah as the only God, believe in Mohammed as his last messenger, perform 5 daily prayers, give alms to the poor, fast during the period of Ramadan, and go on pilgrimage to Mecca. One can not be a Muslim without believing in at least one of the 5 things I have listed. Above all one can not be a Muslim if he does not believe in the Koran as the word of Allah.

The point is this, If one never came across the Quran or heard about Islam in a correct way> He can still come to the realization of truth.

Those obligations of belief only come upon you, when the signs of the final revelation have come to you.

If you never heard about islam, or muslims or the Quran or Muhammad in the right and correct: you are not held to account. Like if you live on an isolated Island:

It is part of the justice of Allaah that He does not punish any people until He has first sent a warning to them and unless there is evidence against them. Allaah does not treat anybody unfairly.

And the Quran states:

: “… And We never punish until We have sent a Messenger (to give warning).” [al-Israa’ 17:15]

A person who has never heard of Islam or the Prophet SAWS (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), and who has never heard the message in its correct and true form, will not be punished by Allaah if he dies in a state of disbelief. what will his fate will be? the answer will be that Allaah will test him on the Day of Resurrection: if he obeys, he will enter Paradise and if he disobeys he will enter Hell.

Mazaje gave a very good rebuttal to this assertion of yours, the Koran that is considered the word of God is also a go between. Since it is claimed to be the word of God.

Many different religions believe that their own version of revelation provides them with that signpost to the transcendent.

The book or revelation that claims to be from God, is not a go-between if you worship is not directed to it. In the case of muslims, the Quran is the recitation and not the physical book: The physical book is called a Mushaf- Collection of pages...

The Quran claims to be the word of God: and provides a challenge for those who doubt

Do they not consider the Qur'an [with care]? Had it been from other Than Allah, they would surely have found therein Much discrepancy. (4:82)

And if ye are in doubt as to what We have revealed from time to time to Our servant, then produce a Sura (chapter) like thereunto; and call your witnesses or helpers [If there are any] besides Allah, if your [doubts] are true. But if ye cannot- and of a surety ye cannot- then fear the Fire whose fuel is men and stones,- which is prepared for those who reject Faith.(2:23-24)


For 1400 years, this challenge has not been met despite several attempts: The shortest chapter in the Quran is 3 sentences...

The literary genius of the book has been a subject of study for thousands of years and even though we have finite Arabic letters and the blueprint: No one has succeeded in replicating the literary nature of the shortest chapter.


In the case of some animist faiths: the god within the idol transmits their request to God. That is what i mean by a go-between

But how do you know such conditions have nothing to do with the relationship of man with God? Do you understand the symbolism behind certain practices?

As already mentioned is not the holy book also a “go-between”. . .a bridge between man and God
I was wondering about that also.

Why do some religious people disqualify other renderings of god of differing faiths when they actually have parallels and equivalents that operate in their own belief-system?

Ultimately it all boils down to "my depiction of God is correct and everyone else's portrayal is blasphemous and wrong". If all or some religion claims this then it's clearly biased because the context in which their God is conveyed usually favours a specific group.

^please read my last post:

I think all your concerns are addressed there.

tbaba1234:

This contention(complexity of the universe), although valid, is misplaced .

A powerful being creating the whole universe is a far more coherent and simple explanation than a plurality of causes in line with occam's razor.In philosophical terms the principle enjoins that we do not multiply entities beyond necessity. What this basically means is that we should stick to explanations that do not create more questions than it answers. In the context of the cause for the universe we have no evidence to claim multiplicity, in other words more than one.

Occam's razor makes sense in this case. . . . .I understand since there isn't any evidence for singularity or plurality its better to go with the simplest one. . .

What has to be understood is that the best explanation for the origins of the universe is the concept of God and not ‘designer’ or ‘creator’. There may be a possibility of multiple designers or creators, as highlighted by the A380 super jumbo jet example, but there cannot be more than one God. you may argue that they can agree to have the same will or each have their own domain, but that would mean that their wills are now limited and passive. which would mean they are not Gods anymore by definition!.

What is the concept of God? How can there not be one God?. . .The concept of one God does not make better sense than the concept of many Gods when looked at in context and definition. . .

Ibn Abi Al-Izz describes the situation best:

If there were two creators and they disagreed about something, such as one wanted to move X, whereas the other did not want it to moved, or one wanted to make Y a living being, whereas the other wanted to make it lifeless, then, logically speaking, there are only three possibilities.

First, the wills of the two are both carried out;
second, only the will of one of them is carried out;
third, the will of neither of them is carried.

The first case is not possible because it requires the existence of contraries (something being alive and dead at the same time for instance).

The third possibility is also ruled out because it would imply that a body is neither moving nor not moving and this is impossible. This would also imply that both of them are incapable or carrying out their wills, which would disqualify them from being God.Finally, if the will of one is realised and not that of the other, he alone will deserve to be God and the one whose will is not realised cannot be considered God.

This argument can be done away with when the said Gods come about around a specific purpose to create the universe. . .Or when each of them has a specific role to play in creation and maintenance of the universe, it doesn't stop any of them from being God. . .

I will take it slowly this time:

The God of the Universe must necessarily exist outside the universe for Him to create it.... Right?.... For you to build your house, you must exist outside of it:

Therefore, the God of the universe is not bounded by the constraints of the universe because He doesn't need it to exist.

Now, the conceptual differential arguments says that we only appreciate difference/duality because of the constraints of our universe and the concepts which we have used to define things. The creator on the other hand is not bound by the concepts we have defined for ourselves because he exists outside of the universe.

The plurality of causes would mean we have to constrain God to the concepts that define what we see as different.

I really don't see how this negates the existence of many Gods. . . .

The problems with internal revelation has already being addressed:Because Humans have been given a free will for instance and we grow up under different environments : the results of an internal revelation would be different from individual to individual.

If for instance, everyone has a dream and God speaks to us in our individual dreams... My interpretation of that dream is dependent on my experiences:: Some people will take it as a sign from God, others would take it a some weird dream and pay no importance to it. Others might interpret it as an alien abduction. Our individual differences would determine our interpretation of events.

Some people say they have revelations/dreams that made them muslims or christians for instance. While this is possible, it is highly subjective, because sometimes dreams are just a reflection of our daily activities, thoughts and memories.

On the other hand, an external revelation can be looked at objectively, using common sense and intellect.

I agree with you, but external revelation still does not solve the problem of different interpretation, it is evident that the interpretation of the Koran which you according to your argument is a good example of external revelation. . .Many people interpret the Koran very differently based on personal opinions, experiences and prejudice. . .

I will give just one example of the historical accuracy of the Quran:

Titles of Egyptian Rulers in the Quran
1.) First of all, it is important to note that hieroglyphics were lost at the time of the prophet Muhammad.

Moses was not the only prophet who lived in the lands of Egypt in the history of ancient Egypt. The Prophet Joseph had lived in Egypt long before the time of Moses.
We encounter a certain constrast while reading about the stories of Moses and Joseph.
While addressing the Egyptian ruler at the time of Joseph, the work "malik" (the King) is used in the Qur'an and Pharoah is used for the leader at the time of moses

Historical records available today show us the reason for the different nomenclature of these rulers. The word "pharaoh" was originally the name given to the royal palace in ancient Egypt. The rulers of the old dynasty did not use the title.

The use of the word pharaoh as the title of the ruler did not start until the "New Kingdom" era of Egyptian history. This period started with the 18th dynasty (1539-1292 BC), and by the 20th dynasty (945-730 BC) the word "pharaoh" was adopted as title of respect.

Joseph lived at the time of the Old Kingdom, and hence the word "malik"(king) was used for the Egyptian ruler rather than "pharaoh". On the contrary, since Moses lived at the time of the New Kingdom, the ruler of Egypt is addressed as "pharaoh".

In the biblical account, pharoah is used for the two eras: It is a subtle but significant difference.

I don't know what to make of this, Oral tradition is what is used in the past an information was were passed using that tradition for thousands of years, the missing of the hieroglyphics does not really matter as long as the oral tradition which was common at that time was in place. . .The bible I believe gives a better and more detailed of the story of Moses than the Koran and archaeologist use the bible depiction when looking for evidence to support the narrative than that of the Koran. . .What about the complete lack of evidence to support the biblical and koranic narratives, most archaeologist and Egyptologist agree that exodus is non historical. . .100 years of combing of the Sinai desert show nothing to support the exodus narrative. . .

Natural phenonmenon
First of all, the greatest miracle is that there are no errors in the quran's description of natural phenomenon for a book that old.

Embryology is detailed in the quran: whole research papers have been written on the subject. unheard of at the time:
Galen got it wrong, aristotle got it wrong.

http://www.iera.org.uk/downloads/Embryology_in_the_Quran_v2.pdf

There are many others, Quran talks about the depths of the Oceans being the darkest part, the mountains as pegs:::e.tc

There are errors in the Koran. how about the error that shooting stars are missiles sent against Jinns that go to eaves drop in paradise?. . .As for the islamic embryology it is false to claim it was unheard of at that time because muslim doctors like Ibn-Qayyim, agreed when they saw the Koranic material, mirrored a Greek doctor named Galen, who lived of 150 AD long before the Koran was written. . . In 1983 Basim Musallam, Director of the Centre of Middle Eastern Studies at the University of Cambridge concluded, "The stages of development which the Qur'an and Hadith established for believers agreed perfectly with Galen's scientific account....There is no doubt that medieval thought appreciated this agreement between the Qur'an and Galen, for Arabic science employed the same Qur'anic terms to describe the Galenic stages" (B. Musallam (Cambridge, 1983) Sex and Society in Islam. p. 54) In other words when it comes to embryology the Qur'an merely echoes the scientific knowledge man had already discovered 450 years earlier. . . .

As for oceans being the darkest parts. are oceans darker than some caves that have absolutely no access to light?. . . Mountains are pegs?. . .Pegs? really?. . .













[/quote]

emöfine2:

I was wondering about that also.

Why do some religious people disqualify other renderings of god of differing faiths when they actually have parallels and equivalents that operate in their own belief-system?

Ultimately it all boils down to "my depiction of God is correct and everyone else's portrayal is blasphemous and wrong". If all or some religion claims this then it's clearly biased because the context in which their God is conveyed usually favours a specific group.

Your post is my main problem with religion.

mazaje:
This argument can be done away with when the said Gods come about around a specific purpose to create the universe. . .Or when each of them has a specific role to play in creation and maintenance of the universe, it doesn't stop any of them from being God. . .

In this case they are no longer God: they are demi gods: the god of thunder; the god of war; No one has absolute power: It is still impossible in this case because the duties will definitely clash due to the interconnectedness of our universe: What happens then? whose authority takes precedent? a battle of wills? If one overides the other then they are not God.

Like i said it creates more problems than it answers: One God is the logical conclusion to the order of the universe:

I agree with you, but external revelation still does not solve the problem of different interpretation, it is evident that the interpretation of the Koran which you according to your argument is a good example of external revelation. . .Many people interpret the Koran very differently based on personal opinions, experiences and prejudice. . .

True, in Islam there is room for that:

There are four classical schools of thought in Islam: The basic beliefs are the same: There are differences in opinion in issues that are not so clear -cut and that is understandable.

The basic belief is the same: As long as you associate no partners with the creator and accept the prophet Muhammad as his final messenger and do righteous deeds. you are fine.

Anyone who falls outside this and claims to be muslim isn't really one because this is made abundantly clear in the Quran.

I don't know what to make of this, Oral tradition is what is used in the past an information was were passed using that tradition for thousands of years, the missing of the hieroglyphics does not really matter as long as the oral tradition which was common at that time was in place. . .The bible I believe gives a better and more detailed of the story of Moses than the Koran and archaeologist use the bible depiction when looking for evidence to support the narrative than that of the Koran. . .What about the complete lack of evidence to support the biblical and koranic narratives, most archaeologist and Egyptologist agree that exodus is non historical. . .100 years of combing of the Sinai desert show nothing to support the exodus narrative. . .

The egyptian language was dead for centuries before Islam came to arabia:: The details of Muhammad's(Peace and blessings of God be upon him) life are recorded in detail: From the way he combed his hair to how he went to the bathroom. Easily the most recorded man in history. Where did the oral tradition come from? If oral traditions did exist in that regard, then it would have been adopted by the bible writers first.... You would have to produce where the oral tradition came:

Pre-Islamic poetry are still existent today, We know a lot about the pre-islamic oral culture and the things they talked about: Nothing stated is remotely related to Egypt or to Joseph for that matter.

The questions is where did he get it from?

Your hypothesis is one drawn by a man who has refused to believe.

The lack of evidence of the exodus could simply mean that it only involved people in smaller numbers not thousands as stated by the biblical account.

There are errors in the Koran. how about the error that shooting stars are missiles sent against Jinns that go to eaves drop in paradise?. . .As for the islamic embryology it is false to claim it was unheard of at that time because muslim doctors like Ibn-Qayyim, agreed when they saw the Koranic material, mirrored a Greek doctor named Galen, who lived of 150 AD long before the Koran was written. . . In 1983 Basim Musallam, Director of the Centre of Middle Eastern Studies at the University of Cambridge concluded, "The stages of development which the Qur'an and Hadith established for believers agreed perfectly with Galen's scientific account....There is no doubt that medieval thought appreciated this agreement between the Qur'an and Galen, for Arabic science employed the same Qur'anic terms to describe the Galenic stages" (B. Musallam (Cambridge, 1983) Sex and Society in Islam. p. 54) In other words when it comes to embryology the Qur'an merely echoes the scientific knowledge man had already discovered 450 years earlier. . . .

Like i said, you claim there are errors:: show me where they are>

The good thing is that we can look at what galen claimed and what the quran claims since we have the two views:

1st stage:

On s-emen, Galen says:

But let us take the account back again to the first conformation of the animal, and in order to make our account orderly and clear, let us divide the creation of the foetus overall into four periods of time. The first is that in which. as is seen both in abortions and in dissection, the form of the s-emen prevails. At this time, Hippocrates too, the all-marvelous, does not yet call the conformation of the animal a foetus; as we heard just now in the case of s-emen voided in the sixth day, he still calls it s-emen. (Corpus Medicorum Graecorum: Galeni de Semine (Galen: On S-emen) (Greek text with English trans. Phillip de Lacy, Akademic Verlag, 1992), pages 92-95, 101.)

So from a Galenic perspective this stage is merely describing what can be seen with the naked eye, which is a s-emen like substance.

This raises a significant contention; if the Qur’an was a summary of Galenic views on embryology then the Arabic word that should have been used to represent this understanding is mani or maniyyan.

In the first stage; This is what the Quran states:

Had he not been a s-perm (nutfah) from a s-emen (maniyyin) emitted? (75:37) (the meaning of nutfah is quite detailed but one of it is singular entity which is a part of a bigger group of its kind (Lisan Al-Arab dictionary, Book 5, page 725.)

This perspective on nutfah highlights how the intended use of this word is not to portray the meaning of s-emen but rather that it is a drop or a substance from s-emen. Also, in another verse the Qur’an explains how the human being is made from an extract of a liquid disdained (s-emen).

And made his progeny from a quintessence of the nature of a fluid despised( 32:

nutfah is not as a synonym for s- emen, rather it is a drop of a single extract coming from the s- emen (and the female equivalent), containing essential substances like a s- perm or egg.

It is worth noting that Galen adopted the view that the s-emen came from blood. Galen writes:

An artery and a vein are observed to go to each of the testicles, not in a straight path, as they do all other parts, but twisting first in many shapes, like grape tendrils or ivy... Andin these many twists that they make before reaching the testicles you can see the blood gradually growing white. And finally, when the vessel has now reached the testicle, the substance of the s-emen is clearly visible in it...but they generated it from blood, which spent a great deal of time in them; for this is the use of the twisting. And as they altered the quality of the blood they changed it to s-emen (Corpus Medicorum Graecorum: Galeni de Semine (Galen: On S-emen) (Greek text with English trans. Phillip de Lacy, Akademic Verlag, 1992), pages 107 - 109.)

Galen also asserts that s-emen from both the male and female mix with menstrual blood. In his book On S-emen, he dedicates a whole section on disagreeing with the Aristotelian position that the male s-emen mixes with menstrual blood, and articulates a case for the mother contributing s- emen as well as menstrual blood to form the fetus.

Galen concludes that the formation of the fetus arises from the two s-emens mixing with the subsequent involvement of the menstrual blood.

The Quranic description is as follows:

We created man from an essence of clay-
then We placed him as a NUTFAH [/i]in a safe place.
Then We made that drop of fluid into [i]Alaqa (baby in womb)
and then We made that form into a lump of flesh, and We made that lump into bones, and We clothed those bones with flesh, and later We made him into other forms. Glory be to God the best of creators. (development of baby) (chapter 23:14)

Nutfah- nutfah can mean a drop or single entity produce by a combination of drops from the Fluid and the female equivalent, which contain essential extracts or substances like a Fluid or an egg. ((Hans Wehr. A Dictionary of Modern Arabic. Edited by J Milton Cowan. 3rd Edition. 1976, page 974.) ((Lisan Al-Arab dictionary, Book 5, page 725.)(Musnad Ahmad, Vol. 1, page 465) (http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1422&Itemid=132)

Alaqa- a. Hanging/suspended
b. Suckling blood
c. Leech/worm like substance
d. Blood-clot
(http://www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume5/00000421.pdf)

The Galen ideas and processes are not mentioned in the Qur’an. The quranic narrative explicitly states that the nutfah and alaqah stages are distinct and separate using the word then:

So if you say by fire by force:

that nutfah means s-emen (which it doesn't) and alaqa means blood ((which it doesn't) and since galen says s-emen comes from blood: the Quran is copying galen:

You are still wrong:

At no point does the Qur’an mention that the nutfah comes from the .alaqah, and then subsequently mixes with the .alaqah (again!?) to form the human fetus. This clearly undercuts any claim that the Qur’an is similar to Galenic embryology.

The galen ideas are completely alien to the Quran. It is even funny to try and compare.

People try to bring up explanations for things they do not comprehend.

A dispassionate look at galen and Quran embryology reveal great differences:

Mountains as pegs:

Mount Everest, stands approximately 9 km above the surface of the Earth, has a root deeper than 125 km. The fact that mountains have roots that go into the surface of the earth; could not be known by a desert Arab over a thousand years ago.....

If he guessed, it is one of those many impressive guesses by the Quran.

The darkness of the depths of the sea:

The Quran states:

Or [the state of a disbeliever] is like the darkness in a vast deep sea, overwhelmed with waves topped by waves, topped by dark clouds, (layers of) darkness upon darkness: if a man stretches out his hand, he can hardly see it! And he for whom Allah has not appointed light for him there is no light. (24:40)


This diagram shows the depth that light will penetrate in clear ocean water. Because red light is absorbed strongly, it has the shallowest penetration depth, and blue light has the deepest penetration depth. (Applied Optics, Vol. 20 (177) Smith, R.C. and K.S. Baker. 1981) Also see official NASA website.

In the extreme depths of the ocean there is no light only darkness. The cause for this is that sunrays cannot reach it.
The darkness in deep seas and oceans is found around a depth of 200 meters and below. At this depth, there is almost no light. Below a depth of 1000 meters there is no light at all.

The verse also talks about internal waves:: "Internal waves at interface between two layers of water of different densities. One is dense (the lower one), the other one is less dense (the upper one)." (Oceanography, gross, p. 204)

Another coincidence Muhammad never sailed on a sea: The chances of him getting this knowledge is limited:

Or maybe he guessed again....


On the so called error you talked about: The verse says:

We have indeed decked the lower heaven with beauty [in] the stars,-
[For beauty] and for guard against all obstinate rebellious jinns, (37:6-7)

So in this verse: Allah says that He has created the stars to beautify the heavens and to guard against jinns (unseen creatures) who try to ascend past the lowest heaven:

There is no mention of shooting stars (meteors): Ibn kathir uses meteors (shooting stars) based on his understanding of what they were then...

Now we know a little more about stars: We know that all stars have their orbits and move at tremendous pace:

I do not think it is out of the question that stars moving at that pace act as a deterent for Jinns trying to get past the lowest heavens.

This can't be considered an error because there is no way of getting confirmation of this: Jinns are unseen creatures: Our knowledge of them is limted.

Unless you can see Jinns and how they operate: You can't prove or disprove this.

tbaba1234:

In this case they are no longer God: they are demi gods: the god of thunder; the god of war; No one has absolute power: It is still impossible in this case because the duties will definitely clash due to the interconnectedness of our universe: What happens then? whose authority takes precedent? a battle of wills? If one overides the other then they are not God.

Like i said it creates more problems than it answers: One God is the logical conclusion to the order of the universe:

They still are Gods. . .If they can operate in such a way that there won't be a clash, remember they are not humans so there is no need attributing human wills and limitations unto them. . .Ocamm's razor makes sense in this case as I earlier on pointed. . .

True, in Islam there is room for that:

There are four classical schools of thought in Islam: The basic beliefs are the same: There are differences in opinion in issues that are not so clear -cut and that is understandable.

The basic belief is the same: As long as you associate no partners with the creator and accept the prophet Muhammad as his final messenger and do righteous deeds. you are fine.

Anyone who falls outside this and claims to be muslim isn't really one because this is made abundantly clear in the Quran.

As you pointed out, despite the external revelation different schools of thoughts and opinions exist. . .Despite associating no creator to Allah and accepting prophet Mohammed, muslims still hold very divergent opinions on different issues, some castigate others and in some case fight others over differences in opinion and interpretations. .Some call others unbelievers for difference in opinion. . .The bottom line is despite the so called external revelations, disagreements and conflict over interpretation still exist and has not been solved. . .

The egyptian language was dead for centuries before Islam came to arabia:: The details of Muhammad's(Peace and blessings of God be upon him) life are recorded in detail: From the way he combed his hair to how he went to the bathroom. Easily the most recorded man in history. Where did the oral tradition come from? If oral traditions did exist in that regard, then it would have been adopted by the bible writers first.... You would have to produce where the oral tradition came:

Egyptian language being dead does not mean anything here since the story still got to him. . .There were Jews in arabia before islam came and he could have gotten the stories from them. . .Sure the jews living in arabia were familiar with oral traditions already. . . .

Pre-Islamic poetry are still existent today, We know a lot about the pre-islamic oral culture and the things they talked about: Nothing stated is remotely related to Egypt or to Joseph for that matter.

Firstly only part of pre-islamic poetry exist and most of what we know about pre-islamic arabia we know it from the mouth of the muslims. . .The point is jews already live in arabia before Mohammed. . .He could have gotten the story from them. . .The Koran as we know it today did not exist during Mohammed. . .Later redactors could have included it. . .

The questions is where did he get it from?

From the jews that already live in arabia. . . And based on the fact that the Koran as we know it did not even exist during the days of Mohammed. . .

Your hypothesis is one drawn by a man who has refused to believe.

My hypothesis is based on oscam's razor. . .The simplest explanation is always the best. . . .

The lack of evidence of the exodus could simply mean that it only involved people in smaller numbers not thousands as stated by the biblical account.

The biblical account is the basis for all the assumed historical belief of that story. . .So far there is no historical evidence out side the bible or the koran that shows that the jews were ever enslaved in Egypt. . .The Egyptians have no record of Joseph or Moses. . .No evidence what so ever to show that the exodus ever took place. . .

tbaba1234:

Like i said, you claim there are errors:: show me where they are>

The good thing is that we can look at what galen claimed and what the quran claims since we have the two views:

1st stage:

On s-emen, Galen says:

But let us take the account back again to the first conformation of the animal, and in order to make our account orderly and clear, let us divide the creation of the foetus overall into four periods of time. The first is that in which. as is seen both in abortions and in dissection, the form of the s-emen prevails. At this time, Hippocrates too, the all-marvelous, does not yet call the conformation of the animal a foetus; as we heard just now in the case of s-emen voided in the sixth day, he still calls it s-emen. (Corpus Medicorum Graecorum: Galeni de Semine (Galen: On S-emen) (Greek text with English trans. Phillip de Lacy, Akademic Verlag, 1992), pages 92-95, 101.)

So from a Galenic perspective this stage is merely describing what can be seen with the naked eye, which is a s-emen like substance.

This raises a significant contention; if the Qur’an was a summary of Galenic views on embryology then the Arabic word that should have been used to represent this understanding is mani or maniyyan.

In the first stage; This is what the Quran states:

Had he not been a s-perm (nutfah) from a s-emen (maniyyin) emitted? (75:37) (the meaning of nutfah is quite detailed but one of it is singular entity which is a part of a bigger group of its kind (Lisan Al-Arab dictionary, Book 5, page 725.)

This perspective on nutfah highlights how the intended use of this word is not to portray the meaning of s-emen but rather that it is a drop or a substance from s-emen. Also, in another verse the Qur’an explains how the human being is made from an extract of a liquid disdained (s-emen).

And made his progeny from a quintessence of the nature of a fluid despised( 32:

nutfah is not as a synonym for s- emen, rather it is a drop of a single extract coming from the s- emen (and the female equivalent), containing essential substances like a s- perm or egg.

It is worth noting that Galen adopted the view that the s-emen came from blood. Galen writes:

An artery and a vein are observed to go to each of the testicles, not in a straight path, as they do all other parts, but twisting first in many shapes, like grape tendrils or ivy... Andin these many twists that they make before reaching the testicles you can see the blood gradually growing white. And finally, when the vessel has now reached the testicle, the substance of the s-emen is clearly visible in it...but they generated it from blood, which spent a great deal of time in them; for this is the use of the twisting. And as they altered the quality of the blood they changed it to s-emen (Corpus Medicorum Graecorum: Galeni de Semine (Galen: On S-emen) (Greek text with English trans. Phillip de Lacy, Akademic Verlag, 1992), pages 107 - 109.)

Galen also asserts that s-emen from both the male and female mix with menstrual blood. In his book On S-emen, he dedicates a whole section on disagreeing with the Aristotelian position that the male s-emen mixes with menstrual blood, and articulates a case for the mother contributing s- emen as well as menstrual blood to form the fetus.

Galen concludes that the formation of the fetus arises from the two s-emens mixing with the subsequent involvement of the menstrual blood.

The Quranic description is as follows:

We created man from an essence of clay-
then We placed him as a NUTFAH [/i]in a safe place.
Then We made that drop of fluid into [i]Alaqa (baby in womb)
and then We made that form into a lump of flesh, and We made that lump into bones, and We clothed those bones with flesh, and later We made him into other forms. Glory be to God the best of creators. (development of baby) (chapter 23:14)

Nutfah- nutfah can mean a drop or single entity produce by a combination of drops from the Fluid and the female equivalent, which contain essential extracts or substances like a Fluid or an egg. ((Hans Wehr. A Dictionary of Modern Arabic. Edited by J Milton Cowan. 3rd Edition. 1976, page 974.) ((Lisan Al-Arab dictionary, Book 5, page 725.)(Musnad Ahmad, Vol. 1, page 465) (http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1422&Itemid=132)

Alaqa- a. Hanging/suspended
b. Suckling blood
c. Leech/worm like substance
d. Blood-clot
(http://www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume5/00000421.pdf)

The Galen ideas and processes are not mentioned in the Qur’an. The quranic narrative explicitly states that the nutfah and alaqah stages are distinct and separate using the word then:

So if you say by fire by force:

that nutfah means s-emen (which it doesn't) and alaqa means blood ((which it doesn't) and since galen says s-emen comes from blood: the Quran is copying galen:

You are still wrong:

At no point does the Qur’an mention that the nutfah comes from the .alaqah, and then subsequently mixes with the .alaqah (again!?) to form the human fetus. This clearly undercuts any claim that the Qur’an is similar to Galenic embryology.

The galen ideas are completely alien to the Quran. It is even funny to try and compare.

People try to bring up explanations for things they do not comprehend.

Here is what Galen wrote. . .



Eglish translation:
"But let us take the account back again to the first conformation of the animal, and inorder to make our account orderly and clear, let us divide the creation of the foetusoverall into four periods of time.
1.The first is that in which, as is seen both in abortions and in dissection, the form of the semen prevails (Arabic Nutfah). At this time, Hippocrates too, the all-marvelous,does not yet call the conformation of the animal a foetus; as we heard just now inthe case of semen voided in the sixth day, he still calls it semen.

2.But when it has been filled with blood (Arabic Alaqa), and heart, brain and liver arestill unarticulated and unshaped yet have by now a certain solidarity andconsiderable size, this is the second period; the substance of the foetus has theform of flesh and no longer the form of semen. Accordingly you would find thatHippocrates too no longer calls such a form semen but, as was said, foetus

3.The third period follows on this, when, as was said, it is possible to see the threeruling parts clearly and a kind of outline, a silhouette, as it were, of all the other parts (ArabicMudgha). You will see the conformation of the three ruling partsmore clearly, that of the parts of the stomach more dimly, and much more still, thatof the limbs. Later on they form "twigs", as Hippocrates expressed it, indicating bythe term their similarity to branches.

4.The fourth and final period is at the stage when all the parts in the limbs have beendifferentiated; and at this part Hippocrates the marvellous no longer calls the foetusan embryo only, but already a child, too when he says that it jerks and moves as ananimal now fully formed (Arabic `A new creation')."

The first stage of Galen corresponds to (Nufta), the drop of semen.
The second stage, a bloody vascularised embryo with unshaped brain, liver and heart("when it has been filled with blood" corresponds to [Alaqa], the blood clot;
The third stage "has the form of flesh" and corresponds to [Mudghah], the morsel of chewed flesh.
The fourth and final stage was when all the organs were well formed, joints were freely moveable, and the foetus began to move.

A dispassionate look at galen and Quran embryology reveal great differences:

There are differences but there are also similarities. . .Even muslim doctors acknowledge that fact. . .It was early Muslim doctors,including Ibn-Qayyim, who first spotted the similarity. Basim Musallam, as Director of the Centre for Middle Eastern Studies in Cambridge, U.K. concludes:"The stages of development which the Qur'an and Hadith established for believers agreed perfectly with Galen's scientific account ... There is no doubtthat medieval thought appreciated this agreement between the Qur'an andGalen, for Arabic science employed the same Quranic terms to describe theGalenic stages.". . . .

Not only Galen but Aristotle. . .From the spdc website its states that. . "In this section, 728a, Aristotle speaks of the male semen as being in a pure state ... "It follows that what the female would contribute to the semen of the male would be material for the semen to work upon." In other words the semen clots the menstrual blood.

Then he continues, "Nature forms from the purest material the flesh ... and from the residues thereof bones, sinews, hair, and also nails ... and lastly, round about the bones, and attached to them by thin fibrous bands, grow the fleshy parts. ..." 654b

Clearly the Qur'an follows this exactly, sperm clotting the menstrual blood which forms meat. Then the bones are formed and lastly "round about the bones ... grow the fleshy parts" as we see in the following chart.

STAGES OF PRENATAL DEVELOPMENT ACCORDING TO ARISTOTLE

STAGE 1. sperm

STAGE 2. catamenia -- menstrual blood

STAGE 3. flesh

STAGE 4. bones

STAGE 5. around the bones grow the fleshy parts"

The bottom line is that is is very clear that for many years before the Koran the development of the embryo was divided into stages. And it was known by many. . There is a long read from the spdic website about how the writing of Galen and Aristotle influence Mohammed. . .I will just list the summary. .

1.The works of Galen, Hippocrates and Aristotle, written originally in Greek were translated into Syriac in the century preceding the birth of Muhammed.
2.The Syriac translations were kept, and taught, in the newly founded medicalschool at Jundishapur, in what is now Iran.
3.One of the earliest and most celebrated doctors to graduate from Jundishapur was al Harith ibn Kalada.
4.Al Harith ibn Kalada became a companion of the Prophet and influenced hismedical beliefs, according to Muslim historians of this period

Mountains as pegs:

(Quran- 21:31): And We have set on earth firm mountains, lest it should shake with them.

(Quran-16:15): And he has cast the earth firm mountains lest it shake with you…

(Quran-31:10): He created the heavens without supports that you can see, and has cast onto the earth firm mountains lest it shake with you

From this we can conclude that the writer of the koran thought mountains are pegs that hold the earth and actually prevent it from shaking of the earth. Fact is, this particular reasoning for existence of mountains is a direct contradiction with modern geological knowledge. Mountains have pegged the earth with what? We all know why how and where a peg is being used. Pegs are normally used to fix something against a firm support. We hang pictures/portrait in our drawing room using pegs with the wall. Tents are fixed using pegs with the ground so that they stand firm and so on. But mountains pegged the earth with what object?. . .Ancient people viewed mountains as pegs.Here is what RIK VEDA (Hindu Scripture) told many thousand years before the koran was written.

"Sabita made this Earth fixed by different devices like hills and mountains and sustains sky without pillars so that it does not move" [RIK VEDA]

According to the koran, mountains are there for stabilizing earth from shaking, which is completely false some muslims scholars have tired to defend that position but their arguments have been destroyed completely. . .Mountains are never viewed as the stabilizing factors. I never heard or read that any world famous geologist ever claimed that mountains help earth to stabilize or mountain prevents earth from moving/shaking. Actually Mountains are the source of earth’s shaking. Their formation caused and still causes the surface of the earth to shake. Where there are more mountains, there are more earthquakes and more shaking of the planet earth. . . .

Mount Everest, stands approximately 9 km above the surface of the Earth, has a root deeper than 125 km. The fact that mountains have roots that go into the surface of the earth; could not be known by a desert Arab over a thousand years ago.....

No where in the koran does it say that mountains have deep roots, no where. . .The koran only states that mountains are pegs that are supposed to stop the earth from shaking which no scientific basis and is very false, maountians do not peg the earth and they do not stop the earth from shaking rather they cause the earth to shake as a result of their formation and presence. . .The koran does not say that mountains have deep roots, these are very different things. . .The mount everest example is your own making and has nothing to do with the koran. . .Mohammed and the writers of the koran did not know anything about mount everest and its deep roots. . .

If he guessed, it is one of those many impressive guesses by the Quran.

The koran does not say anything about mountains having deep roots. . .That is your own making. . .

The darkness of the depths of the sea:

The Quran states:

Or [the state of a disbeliever] is like the darkness in a vast deep sea, overwhelmed with waves topped by waves, topped by dark clouds, (layers of) darkness upon darkness: if a man stretches out his hand, he can hardly see it! And he for whom Allah has not appointed light for him there is no light. (24:40)


This diagram shows the depth that light will penetrate in clear ocean water. Because red light is absorbed strongly, it has the shallowest penetration depth, and blue light has the deepest penetration depth. (Applied Optics, Vol. 20 (177) Smith, R.C. and K.S. Baker. 1981) Also see official NASA website.

In the extreme depths of the ocean there is no light only darkness. The cause for this is that sunrays cannot reach it.
The darkness in deep seas and oceans is found around a depth of 200 meters and below. At this depth, there is almost no light. Below a depth of 1000 meters there is no light at all.

It is very possible that that the people knew about the darkness that occurs under the ocean. . .Or it could be an intelligent guess. . .After all MANY ancient Greek philosophers that lived hundreds of year before Mohammed have written and talked about natural phenomena or about the earths structure and the cosmos they could never have known at that time that we are just discovering. . .So it is nothing new. . .

The verse also talks about internal waves:: "Internal waves at interface between two layers of water of different densities. One is dense (the lower one), the other one is less dense (the upper one)." (Oceanography, gross, p. 204)

Internal waves?. . .Pls where does it talk about internal waves?. . .

Another coincidence Muhammad never sailed on a sea: The chances of him getting this knowledge is limited:

I have already addressed this, others that lived very long have talked about things we are just discovering that leaves us in awe. . .

On the so called error you talked about: The verse says:

We have indeed decked the lower heaven with beauty [in] the stars,-
[For beauty] and for guard against all obstinate rebellious jinns, (37:6-7)

So in this verse: Allah says that He has created the stars to beautify the heavens and to guard against jinns (unseen creatures) who try to ascend past the lowest heaven:

There is no mention of shooting stars (meteors): Ibn kathir uses meteors (shooting stars) based on his understanding of what they were then...

Now we know a little more about stars: We know that all stars have their orbits and move at tremendous pace:

I do not think it is out of the question that stars moving at that pace act as a deterent for Jinns trying to get past the lowest heavens.

This can't be considered an error because there is no way of getting confirmation of this: Jinns are unseen creatures: Our knowledge of them is limted.

Unless you can see Jinns and how they operate: You can't prove or disprove this.

Stars to beautify the heavens?. . .But the stars are just distant suns. Most of them are solar systems like ours with billions of them having planets revolving round them. . .How they are created to beautify the heavens makes no scientific sense based on what we know about them today, but as for the ancient man that thinks the stars are tiny white dots in the heavens(sky) it makes perfect sense. . .

mazaje:
Egyptian language being dead does not mean anything here since the story still got to him. . .There were Jews in arabia before islam came and he could have gotten the stories from them. . .Sure the jews living in arabia were familiar with oral traditions already. . . .

Firstly only part of pre-islamic poetry exist and most of what we know about pre-islamic arabia we know it from the mouth of the muslims. . .The point is jews already live in arabia before Mohammed. . .He could have gotten the story from them. . .The Koran as we know it today did not exist during Mohammed. . .Later redactors could have included it. . .

The biblical account is the basis for all the assumed historical belief of that story. . .So far there is no historical evidence out side the bible or the koran that shows that the jews were ever enslaved in Egypt. . .The Egyptians have no record of Joseph or Moses. . .No evidence what so ever to show that the exodus ever took place. . .

The only problem with this hypothesis is that all of the stories of the prophets were revealed in Mecca: Not in Medina:

In Mecca the primary audience were the pagan arabs who had no clue of these stories; The interaction with Jews was in medina; By then most of these stories had already been revealed:

So there was no way, he got it from the Jews because there were none in Mecca at the time...

lets assume he got it from the jews; How did he know what to change? filter the rubbish and leave the more reasonable stuff:: Another instance is the noah flood: In islam, It is a local flood that affects only Noah people: Ofcourse, this makes more sense than a global flood:

How come the stories are much more reasonable and in line with historical, common facts?

There are no records of Jews in Mecca; you will have to come up with a better hypothesis....

The Quran was memorised by the companions of the prophet; including his family and written by those who could write: Any attempt to change it would have led to a huge war... It was compiled in a book form within a few years of his death by abu bakr, the first caliph and later standardised to the Quraishi dialect(The prophet dialect) by uthman. We can be reasonably sure that the book we have today is the Quran of Muhammad.

Most of what we know of Egypt are of the leaders of egypt and about the culture of the people: historical records of Moses in Egypt is not really a problem because he was never a prominent figure in Egypt: Joseph existed in the old kingdom: We have significantly less information about the old kingdom. In hieroglyphics many people are addressed by their titles so their real names are never known.

My hypothesis is based on oscam's razor. . .The simplest explanation is always the best. . . .

There are way too many coincidences in the Quran.... The simplest explanation would have to come from the divine because there is simply no naturalistic explanation for it. I just touched the surface of what this book contains.

^^

Am going to the office now, will give a rebuttal later. . .Cheers. . .

^
Do I have to repeat everything i said earlier::

I would appreciate it if you read: It is almost embarrassing that i have to respond to this again after effectively destroying the galen connection in my last post.

I specifically gave definition to Nutfah including references:

Stage 1
Galen says

the form of the S-emen prevails: óðÝñìáôïò in the 2nd century meant semen(Henry Liddell and Robert Scott. Greek-English Lexicon. 7th Edition. Harper and Brothers. 1883, page 1414.)

The word for s-emen in the Arabic is maniyyin as shown in the verses:

nutfah is not as a synonym for s- emen, rather it is a drop of a single extract coming from the s- emen (and the female equivalent), containing essential substances like a s- perm or egg.

Nutfah can be used for both male and female:

As used in the verse

Verily, We have created man from Nutfah Amshaj, in order to try him, so, We made him hearer and seer. (76:2)

The companion of the Prophet Muhammad (SAW), Ibn Abbas (6th century) mentions that the nutfah is:

from a weak drop of the water/fluid of man and woman. (Tanwir al-Miqbas min Tafsir Ibn Abbas.)

Ibn Kathir (13th century), while commenting on the 2nd verse in chapter 76 of the Qur’an, cites Ibn Abbas (6th century) as describing the nutfah stage as the mixing of two fluids, therefore confirming the statement above: http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1422&Itemid=132

So this is not even remotely related to what galen was talking about:


Stage 2:
Galen says

The second stage, a bloody vascularised embryo with unshaped brain, liver and heart

Galen’s second stage that refers to the embryo as being filled with blood.

If the Qur’an borrowed Galenic views on the developing human embryo, the words that should have been used are (mal-at) which means the manner in which something is filled, and (dam) which means blood(Ibid, Vol. 3, page, 917, Ibid, Vol. 5, page 2134.)

the word .alaqah is used in the Qur’an.

Alaqa means
a. Hanging/suspended
b. Suckling blood
c. Leech/worm like substance
d. Blood-clot
(http://www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume5/00000421.pdf)

The word .alaqah alone would not represent the Galenic stage here, because its meanings do not encapsulate the word “filled” and its use to mean blood-clot would be misplaced as the word for blood-clot in Greek is not what is used by galen.

Ibn Kathir explains the word ᶜalaqah to mean a “dangling clot” and Lane's Arabic-Lexicon (link above) clarifies that it means a blood-clot “because of its clinging together”, rather than its physical appearance.

Therefore, using the Arabic words Mala-t and dam would have been more appropriate, because Galen specifically refers to “filled with blood” and not just blood.

At this second stage, Galen uses the word fleshy, to refer to the appearance of the embryo. This undermines the claim that the quranic stages are similar to Galen, because words that can mean fleshy in Arabic, such as mudhgah and lahm, are used to describe later stages. Galen mentions this stage as a fleshy substance filled with blood.

The word in the Qur’an used to describe this stage doesn’t encompass such a meaning, because ᶜalaqah, if we assume it to mean blood or blood-clot, does not encompass a fleshy substance filled with blood.

If someone had to summarise the following statement into Arabic: a blood filled substance that is fleshy - what words must they use to best represent the meaning of the statement?

One thing is for sure that word is not Alaqa


Stage 3:

The Qur’an mentions mudghah as a chewed-like substance and a small piece of flesh.

In contrast, Galen discusses the “conformation” of “the three ruling parts”, “silhouettes” and “twigs”, which is most likely in reference to limb bone formation. He details these three ruling parts as being more visible than the stomach and the limbs.

However, the Qur’an makes no mention of this, and its mention of limb formation comes at the next stage. It is both implausible and impractical, therefore, to suggest that the Qur’an copied the works of Galen as it does not include any of the descriptions provided by Galen at this stage. Also, the word mudghah would have been appropriately used as a summary of the ancient Greek word ἐμβρύειον (em-vree-on)(Greek-English Lexicon. 7th Edition. Harper and Brothers. 1883, page 460.), which means the flesh of an embryo, however Galen did not use this word.

would the word mudghah accurately encompass the meaning of “the three ruling parts”, “silhouettes” and “limbs”? The answer is no. This conclusion is also supported by the fact that there is no mention of flesh, a small piece of meat or something that has been bitten in the original Greek of Galen’s writings describing this stage.

To assert that the Qur’an borrowed Galenic embryology in light of the striking differences discussed above, is tantamount to claiming that evolution and creationism are similar because they address the same field of science. Many questions are raised that belittle this contention, such as: how could the Qur’an, and by extension the Prophet Muhammad, have known what was right, dismissed what was wrong and ensured that the whole quranic narrative on the development of the human embryo was congruent with reality?[/i][size=14pt][/size]


Aristotle is even more laughable:

So what aspects are similar to the Quranic Narrative

Firstly, Aristotle believed only the male produces fluid responsible for the development of the embryo :::::: WRONG!!!!

Aristotle was of the opinion that semen mixed with women’s menstrual blood, coagulating to form the embryo!!!! WRONG!!!!!

Aristotelian views on human development include that male embryos are generated on the left side of the womb, and female embryos on the right side of the womb.

Aristotle held the belief that the upper body is formed before the lower body: WRONG!!!!

Even the classical Muslim scholars had it right as regard the fact the fluid comes from male and female::

The word for menstrual blood in Arabic is hayd. Never mentioned in the Narrative:

al Harith ibn Kalada- (this is the most hilarious, who is this guy?)

1. Historians such as Manfred Ullman and Franz Rosenthal are skeptical about the material referring to bin Kalada. They refer to him as a legendary figure,[ M. Ullman. Die Medizin im Islam. Leiden ad Cologne. 1970, pages 19-20; F. Rosenthal, apud his translation of Ibn Khaldun’s Muqaddima, II, 373.] which has literary allusions to characters of fictitious creation. Professor Gerald Hawting, in his essay The Development of the Biography of al-Harith ibn Kalada and the Relationship between Medicine and Islam, writes:

[i]“In these latter sources the information about al-Harith is fragmentary, references to his profession as a doctor are not consistent and, where they occur, tend to be incidental, and there seems to be little information about the nature of his medicine or detail about his life.”[The Islamic World: From Classic to Modern Times. Edited, C. E. Bosworth et al. Darwin. 1991, page 129]

From this perspective, using unreliable or inconclusive historical narratives concerning bin Kalada’s “profession as a doctor” serve to weaken the argument that the Prophet copied the 7th century physician.

2. There appears to be no evidence of a major medical school in either the 6th or 7th century. The academic medic and historian Plinio Prioreschi in his book A History of Medicine highlights that there are no Persian sources that substantiate the claim that Jundishapur played a significant role in the history of medicine

3. It is generally believed that bin Kalada graduated from the Persian medical school at Jundishapur. However, the existence of such a school has recently been questioned by a number of leading historians. For instance David C. Lindberg in his book The Beginnings of Western Science highlights the legendary status of the school:

“An influential mythology has developed around Nestorian activity in the city of Gondeshapur [Jundishapur] in south-western Persia. According to the often-repeated legend, the Nestorians turned Gondeshapur into a major intellectual center by the sixth century, establishing what some enthusiasts have chosen to call a university, where instruction in all of the Greek disciplines could be obtained. It is alleged that Gondeshapur had a medical school, with a curriculum based on Alexandrian textbooks, and a hospital modeled on Byzantine hospitals, which kept the realm supplied with physicians trained in Greek medicine. Of greatest importance, Gondeshapur is held to have played a critical role in the translation of Greek scholarship into Near Eastern languages and, indeed, to have been the single most important channel by which Greek science passed to the Arabs. Recent research has revealed a considerably less dramatic reality. We have no persuasive evidence for the existence of a medical school or a hospital at Gondeshapur, although, there seems to have been a theological school and perhaps an attached infirmary. No doubt Gondeshapur was the scene of serious intellectual endeavour and a certain amount of medical practice —it supplied a string of physicians for the Abbasid court at Baghdad beginning in the eighth century— but it is doubtful that it ever became a major center of medical education or of translating activity. If the story of Gondeshapur is unreliable in its details, the lesson it was meant to teach is nonetheless valid.” ( David C. Lindberg. The Beginnings of Western Science. University Of Chicago Press. 1992, pages, 164-165)

So we are talking of a school that never even existed....

Roy Porter, a social historian of medicine, raises the contention if whether a medical school actually existed there. Porter in his book The Greatest Benefit to Mankind: A Medical History of Humanity writes:

“Jundishapur was certainly a meeting place for Arab, Greek, Syriac and Jewish intellectuals, but there is no evidence that any medical academy existed there. Only in the early ninth century did Arab–Islamic learned medicine take shape.” (Roy Porter. The Greatest Benefit to Mankind: A Medical History of Humanity. Fontana Press.1999, page,94.)

4. Claiming the Prophet sought medical advice from bin Kalada neither implies nor stipulates the fact that he copied bin Kalada’s work. The onus of proof is on the one who is making the claim. From a historical perspective there is no direct and explicit evidence that indicates the Prophet manufactured his views on embryology via bin Kalada.

5. Early historical sources on the Prophet’s life illustrate and emphasise the integrity of his character. He was not a liar and to assert as much is indefensible. The presumption that he copied bin Kalada, while maintaining the Qur’an to be the word of God, is therefore inconceivable. He was known even by the enemies to his message as the “Trustworthy”.

6. The traditional sources that elaborate on bin Kalada also convey information relating to the Prophet, including his miracles and the supernatural eloquence of the qur’anic discourse. One of these sources is Ta’rikh al-Rusul wa’l-Muluk. It underlines various aspects of the life and character of the Prophet including his truthfulness. Since this source is used for sound historical information, insight, and as a point of reference on bin Kalada, reason necessitates that it also be viewed as reliable with regard to its discussion on the unquestionable integrity of the Prophet. Therefore, to accept the historical sources that elaborate on bin Kalada would be tantamount to accepting the truthfulness of the Prophet, thereby undermining any claim of copying and plagiarisation.

Let me stop here:

Mountains as Pegs:

Your conclusions are laughable..... It is sad that people come up with things that even a 7th century arab will not believe, if the prophet said that to 7th century Arabs: He would have no followers;

And the mountains as pegs? And [have We not] created you in pairs, (78:7-

The word used for pegs in the Quran is awtaad::

Awtaad is driven deeply into the ground to secure the tents of the desert Arabs: That is where the term comes from:

So when the word 'awtaad' is talked about: It refers to something driven deeply into the ground: I didn't just come up with an arbitary definition

So my analogy with the mount everest was accurate.

And He has set up on the earth mountains standing firm, lest it should shift with you; and rivers and roads; that ye may guide yourselves; (16:15)

Have you ever heard of isostasy?

It refers to the gravitational equilibrum of the earth, it changes from place to place and it is affected by..... wait for it the mountains:

The force of gravity arises from the pull of the whole Earth, but it varies slightly from place to place because of the unequal local distribution of mass in the Earth's surface layer.

If a mountain were simply extra rocky material rising above the surrounding plain, the force of gravity would be greater on the mountain by an amount that depends on the size of the mountain, its density, and the slightly greater distance to the mountain top from the centre of the Earth. (http://www.earthfacts.net/earth-dynamics/earthscrustisostasy/)

so the distribution of mass affects the gravitational equilibrium of an area:

It continues:

An increase in the acceleration due to gravity occurs across mountain ranges, but not as much as would be expected because the extra mass rising up is largely compensated for by the greater depth to which the base of the mountains extends down into the denser supporting medium (the astheno­sphere).

(http://www.earthfacts.net/earth-dynamics/earthscrustisostasy/)

The gravitational equilibrium changes given the features of the mountain:: There is an increase in the acceleration due to gravity in mountain range:

Ted Nield talks about this in his book: Supercontinent – 10 billion years in the life of our planet (Granta).

Read about it here: http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/gsl/pid/6565;jsessionid=D364AAA75A6F2AC13445470D8B846060

Please read it first:

It is very possible that that the people knew about the darkness that occurs under the ocean. . .Or it could be an intelligent guess. . .After all MANY ancient Greek philosophers that lived hundreds of year before Mohammed have written and talked about natural phenomena or about the earths structure and the cosmos they could never have known at that time that we are just discovering. . .So it is nothing new. . .

He knew about lost egyptian hieroglyphics and a science that the greeks had no way of finding out because only one person in the history of the world has ever been that low...

We are talking of miles below the water surface::

He must have had a huge library at this rate;

Stars to beautify the heavens?. . .But the stars are just distant suns. Most of them are solar systems like ours with billions of them having planets revolving round them. . .How they are created to beautify the heavens makes no scientific sense based on what we know about them today, but as for the ancient man that thinks the stars are tiny white dots in the heavens(sky) it makes perfect sense. . .

Another fail, Actually the Quran describes the stars as Big and great:::

And We have placed within the heaven Big stars and have beautified it for the observers. (15:16)

Blessed is He who has placed in the sky great stars and placed therein a [burning] lamp and luminous moon. (25:61)

It is clear that the stars were not seen as small points by this Quran

from an observer standpoint, the existence of stars does beautify our universe::

You are debating the wrong book::

The Quran as revelation is not a book of science but a book of signs:

Even though it mentions many accurate natural phenomenon, that is not its purpose.

It is there to present the portrait of God to you....

The Quran reads you as much as you read it::

The more you know, the more outstanding it becomes:

tbaba1234:

The only problem with this hypothesis is that all of the stories of the prophets were revealed in Mecca: Not in Medina:

In Mecca the primary audience were the pagan arabs who had no clue of these stories; The interaction with Jews was in medina; By then most of these stories had already been revealed:

So there was no way, he got it from the Jews because there were none in Mecca at the time...

Let me get something straight. . .Firstly, the koran as we know it today did not exist during the days of Mohammed it came after. The islamic claim is that Mohammed got the revelations recited them to people who wrote them down and later compiled them into a book, that is the muslim claim but the reality of the matter is that the author(s) of the koran as we know it today remain unknown. . . After the death of Mohammad there was a time when Uthman the third Caliph of Islam ordered to burn all the copies of koran except one. It was believed that there were variations in text and recitation practice of the koran at that time and so Uthman took this step. According to koran and hadith, Mohammad was the last prophet of islam. Uthman was not a prophet and we do not know whether he kept the valid and original koran or destroyed it? We also do not know how he determined which one was the correct version of koran and the editing that was done before it was presented by him. It is believed that his own version of the koran is what is available till this day. . .

Secondly, we are told in one of the hadith (v) Sahih Bukhari 4.56.814 (A Christian who converted to Islam wrote Muhammad's revelations; then he reverted back to Christianity and claimed that Muhammad knew nothing and he wrote the Quran for Muhammad. . .

I say this because the Christian who wrote the revelations for Mohammed and later claimed he wrote the koran for mohammed because knew nothing should have been familiar with the jewish stories in egypt. . . .

lets assume he got it from the jews; How did he know what to change? filter the rubbish and leave the more reasonable stuff:: Another instance is the noah flood: In islam, It is a local flood that affects only Noah people: Ofcourse, this makes more sense than a global flood:

How come the stories are much more reasonable and in line with historical, common facts?

You said the language was dead before the time of Mohammed and all the hieroglyphics were missing. . .How then did you get to know that what the writers of the koran said was right historically since the language was long dead and the hieroglyphics missing?. . .

There are no records of Jews in Mecca; you will have to come up with a better hypothesis....

But there was a christian who wrote the revelations for him according to the story. . .

The Quran was memorised by the companions of the prophet; including his family and written by those who could write: Any attempt to change it would have led to a huge war... It was compiled in a book form within a few years of his death by abu bakr, the first caliph and later standardised to the Quraishi dialect(The prophet dialect) by uthman. We can be reasonably sure that the book we have today is the Quran of Muhammad.

As i said earlier Uthman ordered to burn all the copies of koran except one. It was believed that there were variations in text and recitation practice of the koran at that time and so Uthman took this step.

Most of what we know of Egypt are of the leaders of egypt and about the culture of the people: historical records of Moses in Egypt is not really a problem because he was never a prominent figure in Egypt: Joseph existed in the old kingdom: We have significantly less information about the old kingdom. In hieroglyphics many people are addressed by their titles so their real names are never known.

How did you get to know about old and new kingdom when you admit that the writing were lost and that the language was dead before Mohammed? I am going by your own assertions here. . .

There are way too many coincidences in the Quran.... The simplest explanation would have to come from the divine because there is simply no naturalistic explanation for it. I just touched the surface of what this book contains.

Nope, there is nothing written in the koran that could not have been written by people that lived at that time. . .I said that ancient Greek philosophers for example have written and make fantastic claims long before the koran was written that they could never had known about at that time(I can list them for you if you want), things we are just confirming or discovering with our modern equipment and technology. . .Does that mean they were all revealed to them by the Greek Gods of old?

tbaba1234:

Your questions are many: I hope i can address them..

Your first question is How do i know God is one?

I will present 5 arguments for the oneness of a creator/ God and there are as follows:

1. Occam’s Razor
2. Logical Argument
3.Conceptual Differentiation
4. Uniqueness
5. Revelation

1. Occam's razor: Occam's razor is the law of parsimony. It is a principle urging one to select among competing hypotheses that which makes the fewest assumptions and thereby offers the simplest explanation of the effect.(wikipedia definition). Basically what it says is that when there are competing options the one with the fewest assumptions and the simplest explanation is the best one. This is applied in the philosophy of science.

The absurdity of an infinite regress of causes in the creation of the universe creates more problems than it answers....This principle enjoins “Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate”, in English “Plurality should not be posited without necessity.” In other words the simplest and most comprehensive explanation is the best explanation.

In the absence of any evidence or in absence of a need for a plurality of causes we should hold onto the most comprehensive and simple explanation. In this case we have no evidence to say the cause for the universe is actually a combination of two, three or even one thousand causes so the simplest and most comprehensive explanation is that this cause is one. Postulating a plurality of causes does not add to the comprehensiveness of the argument.

I agree multiple causes for an effect is absurd, rather a single mind should be responsible for this effect (universe). However, that doesn't exempt multiple gods, as long as there is a common and single mind to create the universe, they are one single cause. A diverse universe could reflect a diverse, multilayered mind. Sometimes polytheism is this rich. So Occam's Razor doesn't vitiate polytheism.

I notice you give god an attribute of omnipotence, which is not a necessary attribute of god.

tbaba1234: 2. Logical Argument- The kind of organization existent in the universe necessitates the existence of just one creator. The existence of more than one God could result in chaos: Why? God being the creator has an imposing will. Having more than one creator: all with imposing wills could result in a competition of wills and chaos and disorder.

3. Conceptual differentiation- What makes us appreciate difference and duality in this world? We appreciate the concept of difference of difference in this world because of space, form, physical features etc. The reason you can perceive two objects above is due to differences in colour, size, and shape, including their placement, in other words there is a distance between them.

In absence of these concepts could you perceive the two objects or any objects at all? You could not, because these concepts (space, placement, siz) are required to perceive any number of entities.

Since the creator of this universe has to be outside it(If the creator of the universe is within it, it will lead to the absurdity that the universe created itself- the universe existing and not existing at the same time), these concepts can not be applied to differentiate because these concepts only make sense in this universe.

The universe began to exist. Therefore a single independent cause is rationally necessary to explain the fact that the universe began to exist and a plurality of causes cannot be perceived due to the absence of conceptual differentiators.

Laws of thought have settled the question of identity. I don't think the Cause can be separated from the effect, its an extension of the cause. In the Gods/God scenario, the universe will be a part of the them/it.

My opinion is that there isn't the need of a complexity (God) to create anything because Being is self existent and inseparable from reality.

tbaba1234: 4. Uniqueness- If the cause of the universe was not unique that would mean there are some similarities between the cause of the universe and the universe itself. This is not possible as that would place the cause of the universe within the universe (if you define the universe as the sum of all matter) and this would lead to an absurdity as it would imply that the universe created itself. Now you may ask the question: why can’t the cause of the universe resemble the universe? The answer is straight forward; this cause must be immaterial because it created the sum of all material – which is the universe itself – and another principle that supports this is the 1st law of thermodynamics, it states “Energy cannot be created or destroyed”, simply put energy (in other words matter) cannot create itself. If the cause was material then it would defy this principle as it would mean matter and energy self create. So you can conclude that the cause of the universe must be immaterial and therefore unique.

If there is a cause, the effect takes its character from the cause. Energy can't be destroyed or created is doesn't mean self cause, rather its verbatim meaning. Attributing negative traits like immaterial is not helpful, because he is either matter or an abstract.

tbaba1234: 5. Revelation- A simpler way of providing evidence for God’s oneness is by referring to revelation. The argument here is that if God has announced himself to humanity and this revelation can be proven to be from Him, then what He mentions about himself is obviously true. The daring assumptions, from an agnostic perspective at least, are how do you know God has announced himself to mankind and in what form is this revelation?

Let’s take the last assumption first. If God has announced himself to mankind there are only two possible ways to find out: externally and internally. What I mean by “internally” here is that you can find out who God is solely by introspection and internalisation and what I mean by “externally” is that you can find out who God is via communication outside of yourself, in other words it is instantiated in the mind-independent world. Finding out about God internally is implausible for the following reasons,

1. Human beings are different. They have, what Psychologists call, “individual differences”, these individual differences include DNA, experiences, social context, intellectual and emotional capacities, gender differences, amongst many more. These differences play a role in your ability to internalise via introspection or intuition, therefore the results of introspection or relying on your intuition will differ. So you can see that if these processes where solely used to find out about God there would be inevitable differences in our conception of Him.

[quote author=tbaba1234] 2. Since the method used to conclude that God does exist is a “common sense” method, or what philosophers call rational thought and what Muslim theologians may call innate thinking, then internally trying to find out about God would lead to fallacies. This is because what can be concluded using the universe as evidence for a transcendental independent cause is that it must be eternal, unique, powerful and personal; anything else would be speculation. The Qur’an aptly mentions “Why do you say about God of that which you have no knowledge?” If you try and internalise what God is would be equivalent of a mouse trying to conceptualise and think like an Elephant. It is obvious that the human being is not eternal, unique and powerful, therefore the human being could not conceptualise who God is. God would have to tell you via external revelation.

you know God exists like the knocking of the door, you safely assume that something is there, but do you know who it is? You weren’t expecting anyone, so you cry out “who is it?” in order to find out, and the only way to find out is if the person behind the door tells you. So you can conclude that if God has said or announced anything it must be external to the human being.

From an Islamic perspective this external communication is the Qur’an as it is the only text to claim to have come from God that fits the criteria for a divine text, these criteria include,

1. It must be consistence with the rational and intuitive conclusion on God. For example if a book says God is an Elephant with 40 arms you could safely assume that this book is not from God, as God must be external to the universe.

2. It must be internally and externally consistence. In other words if it says on page 20 that God is one and then on page 340 its says God is 3 that would be an internal inconsistency. Additionally if the book says that the universe is only 6,000 years old then that would be an external inconsistency as reality as we know it s that the universe is older the 6,000 years.

3. It must have signposts to transcendence. In simple terms it must have evidence to show that it is from God.

In the case of the Qur’an – and this post is not the place to discuss this in any depth – cannot be explained naturalistically therefore supernatural explanations are the best explanation. Some of these signposts include:

a. The linguistic and literary inimitability
b. There are historical accounts that could not have been known by man at the time of revelation
c. There are some descriptions of natural phenomena that could not have been known by man at the time of revelation

To conclude, since the only way to know what God has announced to mankind is via external revelation, and this revelation can be proven to be the Qur’an – then what is says about God is true. In the context of this discussion the Qur’an says “Know that your Lord God is one”.

Humans have been on earth for over 800000 years and the "revelation" arrives this late?

mazaje:
Let me get something straight. . .Firstly, the koran as we know it today did not exist during the days of Mohammed it came after. The islamic claim is that Mohammed got the revelations recited them to people who wrote them down and later compiled them into a book, that is the muslim claim but the reality of the matter is that the author(s) of the koran as we know it today remain unknown. . . After the death of Mohammad there was a time when Uthman the third Caliph of Islam ordered to burn all the copies of koran except one. It was believed that there were variations in text and recitation practice of the koran at that time and so Uthman took this step. According to koran and hadith, Mohammad was the last prophet of islam. Uthman was not a prophet and we do not know whether he kept the valid and original koran or destroyed it? We also do not know how he determined which one was the correct version of koran and the editing that was done before it was presented by him. It is believed that his own version of the koran is what is available till this day. . .

Secondly, we are told in one of the hadith (v) Sahih Bukhari 4.56.814 (A Christian who converted to Islam wrote Muhammad's revelations; then he reverted back to Christianity and claimed that Muhammad knew nothing and he wrote the Quran for Muhammad. . .

I say this because the Christian who wrote the revelations for Mohammed and later claimed he wrote the koran for mohammed because knew nothing should have been familiar with the jewish stories in egypt. . . .


You said the language was dead before the time of Mohammed and all the hieroglyphics were missing. . .How then did you get to know that what the writers of the koran said was right historically since the language was long dead and the hieroglyphics missing?. . .

But there was a christian who wrote the revelations for him according to the story. . .

As i said earlier Uthman ordered to burn all the copies of koran except one. It was believed that there were variations in text and recitation practice of the koran at that time and so Uthman took this step.

How did you get to know about old and new kingdom when you admit that the writing were lost and that the language was dead before Mohammed? I am going by your own assertions here. . .

Nope, there is nothing written in the koran that could not have been written by people that lived at that time. . .I said that ancient Greek philosophers for example have written and make fantastic claims long before the koran was written that they could never had known about at that time(I can list them for you if you want), things we are just confirming or discovering with our modern equipment and technology. . .Does that mean they were all revealed to them by the Greek Gods of old?

To claim that the revelation was not revealed the way it was, is equivalent to saying the earth is flat or China does not exist:

Why? there are thousands of reports of almost every verse of the quran and the circumstances of revelation: To claim so many people are wrong at the same time and you are right is equivalent to saying that although the world says china exists... It doesn't really exist because i haven't been there.

Another conspiracy: The christian you talk about was in Medina too: so unless he had a time machine:: This falls flat on its face::

You have now degenerated to conspiracy theories

No!! Uthman burnt the Qurans that had dialectic differences: Not word or sentences differences: The Quraishi dialect of the Prophet is what we have today: remember the Quran was memorised by hundreds probably thousands of people: changing the words was literally impossible at that point without sparking a major conflict....

The rossetta stone was found only this century: That is the only way we are able to translate ancient egyptian works::

ThE physical phenomenon is not the only thing about this book:

We have the literary/linguistic element which i think is a far stronger argument for the Quran.