08 Dec 06
Originally posted by webbinatorThank you very much,
http://website.lineone.net/~786kas/home.html
you might need to copy/paste into your browser's address bar
I have said the same several times before, but I don't think no one will be interested,
Check the Quran thread, and GOD in OT thread, and others.
09 Dec 06
Originally posted by webbinatorI'm happy for you and pray to allah for the best for you.
thx. it seems everyone wants to believe what they want to believe. the ultimate question to ask yourself is why do you believe a certain way. 'because this is how my family has always believed' is lame and unacceptable. thank god i'n a muslim-now, and forever.
I'm a Muslim too and every day I spend in this site, it proves to me the blessings I got from Islam.
09 Dec 06
2 edits
Originally posted by ahosyneyhehe....that man...he very funny🙄😵
Can I ask what is wrong with that?
"Conclusion for Scientific Information in The Quran, probability = "1 in 1 billion"
"Conclusion for Literature Quality of The Quran, probability = "1 in 10 million""
"Conclusion for Prophecies Within The Quran, probability = "1 in 1 million"" LMFAO😀
"believe what you will, but if you believe that The Quran is not the word of God, then you believe in the above probability, according to my discussion" er...ok🙄
09 Dec 06
1 edit
Originally posted by AgergI see
[b]hehe....that man...he very funny🙄😵
"Conclusion for Scientific Information in The Quran, probability = "1 in 1 billion"
"Conclusion for Literature Quality of The Quran, probability = "1 in 10 million""
"Conclusion for Prophecies Within The Quran, probability = "1 in 1 million"" LMFAO😀
"believe what you will, but if you believe that The ...[text shortened]... believe in the above probability, according to my discussion" er...ok🙄[/b]
He is very funny , but is he wrong?
I know you may not accept these statments.
We talked before and I know what you feel about that,
I really want to know how these statements should be corrected.
09 Dec 06
3 edits
Originally posted by ahosyneyHis reasoning and conclusion is so screwed up I don't know whether one should laugh at the dude or feel sorry for him.
I see
He is very funny , but is he wrong?
I know you may not accept these statments.
We talked before and I know what you feel about that,
I really want to know how these statements should be corrected.
09 Dec 06
Originally posted by Agerg1- According to his probability analysis he claims that Quran can't be a man made. Or there is a very law probability of that.
His reasoning and conclusion is so convoluted I don't know whether one should laugh at the dude or feel sorry for him.
2 -And then he used that to claim if it is not a human made then it is from GOD.
So which one of the two claim you think he is wrong?
The first one can be verified by doing some reading. The second one result from the first one, so if the first one has been proven wrong then the second one is wrong.
So it is all about the first one. I think you don't accept his probabilities, so as a Muslim I have to ask you why?
09 Dec 06
5 edits
Originally posted by ahosyneySo it is all about the first one. I think you don't accept his probabilities, so as a Muslim I have to ask you why?
1- According to his probability analysis he claims that Quran can't be a man made. Or there is a very law probability of that.
2 -And then he used that to claim if it is not a human made then it is from GOD.
So which one of the two claim you think he is wrong?
The first one can be verified by doing some reading. The second one result from the firs ...[text shortened]... e first one. I think you don't accept his probabilities, so as a Muslim I have to ask you why?
Of course I don't!! How much of his *scientific information* sh;te is not fallaciously surmised or infered from vague writings within your book of truth or even just bloody observable to your average idiot (rain comes from clouds No sh;t Sherlock!!!...so thats why I get wet when those grey fluffy things come!)...If in the hypothetical scenario that scientists discovered that we could use our arse emissions to propel us to Pluto and back you can rest assured that someone somehow would find that it was first spoken of in the Qu-ran!...and even if the Qu-ran was a scientific journal, what grounds does he have just to pick the first number that floats into his head as his probability value for some one or group of people arriving at these ahem...scientific conclusions??? 🙄
*edit* I only skim read the bits afterwards
09 Dec 06
1 edit
Originally posted by Agerg[/b]He introduced three parts, one of them is science.
[b]So it is all about the first one. I think you don't accept his probabilities, so as a Muslim I have to ask you why?
Of course I don't!! How much of his *scientific information* sh;te is not fallaciously surmised or infered from vague writings within your book of truth or even just bloody observable to your average idiot (rain comes from clouds [/ ...[text shortened]... find that it was first spoken of in the Qu-ran!
*edit* I only skim read the bits afterwards
You said
"fallaciously surmised or infered from vague writings within your book of truth"
I don't know if your are sure of this statment but it could be verified. I can agree with you of you show me an example.
Rain comes from cloudes is one and that is the writter opinion, it doesn't mean we say it is from GOD because of that. And this is one point from many.
You didn't talk about the other two points.
Note: It was a trial from the writter to say something. May be he is not that good, but does this imply the idea he is trying to present is wrong?
09 Dec 06
3 edits
Originally posted by ahosyneyYou didn't talk about the other two points.
He introduced three parts, one of them is science.
You said
"fallaciously surmised or infered from vague writings within your book of truth"
I don't know if your are sure of this statment but it could be verified. I can agree with you of you show me an example.
Rain comes from cloudes is one and that is the writter opinion, it doesn't mean May be he is not that good, but does this imply the idea he is trying to present is wrong?[/b]
I have yet to find the inclination to force myself to read it properly, and distill my thoughts such that I can attack him...The first point sealed the deal that he isn't worth taking seriously
You said
"fallaciously surmised or infered from vague writings within your book of truth"
I don't know if your are sure of this statment but it could be verified. I can agree with you of you show me an example.
Tell you what Ahosyney why don't you present us with some excerpts *from the Qu-ran* that specifically address in detail even his *scientific points* without the requirement for us to fill in any gaps.
09 Dec 06
3 edits
Originally posted by Agerg[/b]You are right about the last point, I'm not expert. And you don't have a reason to do it (Although I talked with you about that before and I though that might argue to do it).
[b]You didn't talk about the other two points.
I have yet to find the inclination to force myself to read it properly, and distill my thoughts such thatI can attack them...The first point sealed the deal that he isn't worth taking seriously
You said
"fallaciously surmised or infered from vague writings within your book of truth"
I don't know in detail even his *scientific points* without the requirement for us to fill in any gaps.
I know some one who is talking about this point,he has a lot of articals about that. But the problem that you have to read them too. So I don't know if you can spend sometime reading what he say.
Here is the link if you are interested:
http://www.elnaggarzr.com/Test_fre/English/index_E.asp
This is a temporary English site, it include some samples, the original site in arabic and include more information. But if you search for the authors name you will find more.
I don't think I can make him come here himself 🙂
This link is interesting too:
http://islamyesterday.com/science/
Note: As the author of the first link , Quran is not a sientific book, and all science notes are presented in the context of the Book among several other subjects. So we don't focuse at this point much, but as you and others only accept sciece so we try to introduce you some.
There are several domains that Quran talk about, but everything require reading.
09 Dec 06
3 edits
Originally posted by ahosyneyI'll only concentrate on the first and hope I can get across a simple point
You are right about the last point, I'm not expert. And you don't have a reason to do it (Although I talked with you about that before and I though that might argue to do it).
I know some one who is talking about this point,he has a lot of articals about that. But the problem that you have to read them too. So I don't know if you can spend sometime readi u some.
There are several domains that Quran talk about, but everything require reading.
He it is Who sends down water (rain) from the sky; from it you drink and from it (grows) the vegetation on which you send your cattle to pasture." Is this a word-for-word excerpt from the Qu-ran?...those parenthesis look suspicious
I can take this to mean that he is busting for a pee and when he relieves himself from his seat in the sky we get drinking water...or I can surmise that he sends down fairies of the sky with magic buckets...or infer that he commands water to search for our rivers...or decide that plants only grow from water...or assume that we actually drink *from the sky* depending on how far I skew these words...or look at grey fluffy things we know as clouds and decide that rain comes from them
see...I could read the Bible or the Qu-ran and probably engineer a vast multitude of different interpretations of it's verses such that practically everything we know of today was firsted hinted at within these books.