The supernatural

[Mojo]

In fairness, I think Heydarian was probably referring to Armstrong's previous book on the subject, Muhammad: A Biography of the Prophet (the title is closer).

That book was published in 1991 (so no time travel needed). However, it doesn't appear on either the NYT or AmazonUS bestseller lists for 2004.

According to Saeed, that one “became the best-selling book of the year in the United States a month after 9/11”, which would be 2001.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

According to Saeed, that one “became the best-selling book of the year in the United States a month after 9/11”, which would be 2001.

...and that's still not true!

Didn't even make the top 10.
https://pop-culture.us/Books/2001.php

That site has a list for every year: in case anyone was wondering, it wasn't a bestseller in 1999 or 2000 either.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

<snip>

The mistake of the disbelievers is that they only accept "algebra". If so, what is the place of "choice"? The "necessity" of the existence of the disability and also the "necessity" of the complete cause cause the disability. If this causal hierarchy is not established, no disability causal. This causal hierarchy must end at some point. Because if it continues, we will never have a complete cause. And logic rejects it. The universe has become a "necessity". The full cause has also become necessary. Therefore, the universe has been created. The essential cause of the universe must be inherent. Otherwise, the hierarchy of causes does not end. And logic and philosophy reject it. And if God is material, the hierarchy of causes will continue and will not have an end point, so it is rejected. We do not exclude God. Because basically God should not be of the material kind. And it is not made of material. Because if it is made of matter, the hierarchy of the perfect cause does not end. And there must be another reason. You said this yourself. Therefore, this absolutely necessary cause must be inherent and not dependent on another cause. We call God the essential intrinsic cause. Thus, according to the rational philosophy approach, the relationship between cause and effect is a "necessity" relationship. It is not "algebra".
<snip>

Amusing word salad. But to quote the Immortal Bard, ". . . . full of sound and fury, signifying nothing".

Still the discredited "Argument from First Cause."

 

[Mojo]

Hi
- Look, dear pixel, the universe is made of matter. Is not that so? Good. Everything that exists in the universe must be necessary in order to exist. Therefore, the cause of the existence of the disabled must also be necessary. If not, the process of finding the disabled is incomplete. Therefore, it does not exist. And logic and philosophy reject this approach.
The causal cause of the disability must be perfect in order to create the disability. If the cause is minor, the disability does not causal. For example, water is made up of oxygen and hydrogen. If it is just oxygen, water will not be made. But only water is possible. Also, if we only have hydrogen, there is still no water. But it is possible for water to form. Therefore, it must be the cause of complete water formation. And oxygen and hydrogen are both combined to form water.
In the philosophy of the universe, a unit is considered. All beings in the universe have a hierarchy of causes. And there must be a necessity to create the necessary cause of that disability.

It’s kind of hard to see what you’re trying to say here, but given the state of the universe, I suppose a disabled god is marginally more plausible than an omnipotent one.

 

[Mojo]

- Several possible answers Is our main answer in this discussion? No. It is only possible. But it is not certain. We are looking for a definitive answer. God's claim is true until we find the definitive answer. This is our best assumption. So we can not deny God. God is presented as an outstanding selection. And there. Of course, we know that science will never be able to find a definitive answer. Because God's claim is true. This is our opinion. And it is definite until proven otherwise. And no one can deny it.

Nope, the existence of your god is your claim, and it fails until you provide evidence to support it.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Nope, the existence of your god is your claim, and it fails until you provide evidence to support it.

The highlighted is important, because he would also need to disprove the existence of all the other gods, while he's at it.

 

[IanS]

Hi


- Several possible answers Is our main answer in this discussion? No. It is only possible. But it is not certain. We are looking for a definitive answer. God's claim is true until we find the definitive answer. This is our best assumption. So we can not deny God. God is presented as an outstanding selection. And there. Of course, we know that science will never be able to find a definitive answer. Because God's claim is true. This is our opinion. And it is definite until proven otherwise. And no one can deny it.

So far, the opposite has not been proven. Personally, I have repeatedly asked all of you in this group to prove to me the opposite of this claim, so that I may renounce God. But so far none of you have been able to. And this is not the only group I have raised this issue. I have discussed this in many groups. But no one has proven otherwise.

- I want a definite and firm answer. No possible and unknown answers and possibilities. It is logically and philosophically rejected.

- If I have correctly understood the poll about the personal god in America, I personally do not agree. Understanding God is for everyone. Of course,
everyone knows and accepts God according to his understanding. Or rejects it. And denies. We have a logical answer for all these options. And in this group I have told you.

The above is another example of how utterly deluded heydarian is, and how he cannot, or will not, allow himself to understand simple truth and “fact”.

He says he will not accept answers from science that show how several different possibilities exist for how our universe began or for how life first began on Earth etc. He says that because published science papers rarely if ever claim absolute certainty for anything, that is not good enough for him and he will not accept any such scientific explanation unless it claims total 100% certainty …

… but those papers which explain such things as an Inflationary stage of the Big Bang, are supported by all known experimental observations from things like the Hubble telescope, radio telescopes, specific experiments detecting gravity waves, detection of the 3K background radiation etc. etc., as well as their central explanation which is derived directly from the maths of quantum theory. In order to get that explanation published, Alan Guth and others had to meet the scientific standard of producing all of that evidence and all of those mathematical confirmations in excruciating detail, and it all had to be checked and tested by every other relevent scientist on Earth and shown to be correct as far as anyone could tell. That's the stage it has to reach to qualify for publication in a journal like Physical Review. But heydarian is now claiming that is not good enough for him and that he can simply reject all of that …

… and he claims instead that we must accept that an invisible supernatural God is a better explanation, even though he has zero evidence for any such God, and he has no precise mathematical explanation for any such god, and in fact everything ever discovered in science is completely against any such God … if he tries (and religious nut cases have tried) to get his claim published then it will instantly fail on the basis that there is nothing at all to show that it could be true in any way at all … and yet he is here repeatedly claiming that it's a stronger position than for example Inflation, or any model of the Big Bang, or any of the various published models of how life may have begun via a chemical route from RNA to DNA etc., … he's claiming that his God belief which has 0.0000...0000-going-on-for-50-decimal-places-% of any evidence or any calculated/maths results, is to be preferred over published models that are likely to be 80% or more correct in at least the fundamental basis of what their evidence and calculations show …

… he's claiming that zero evidence and zero credible explanation is far better than explanations with huge and unarguable evidence supported by precise mathematical calculations and supported by all manner of testing and conformation from every other method known to Man/science.

On a wider note, not for heydarian because he is far beyond any understanding of truth or reality, but for others who may think that published science is not good enough when it does not claim complete 100% certainty – what we have discovered through science (especially from modern interpretations of quantum theory), is that there are no certainties of fact in a universe where quantum properties determine the underlying structure of Atoms (which, as far as we know, is the case for everything in this entire universe) … the best that can ever be possible is to show that various answers have a probability of being correct which is so high that to argue against it is absurd, and to argue against it with no credible alternative models/evidence is simply not tenable or credible at all …

… we cannot, for example, absolutely prove that Evolution is true, or that Quantum Theory or Relativity is true, or if it comes to that we cannot literally prove that planets like Jupiter or Mercury exist, or that any galaxies exist, or that Atoms exist, or that people even exist! … but to argue that those do not exist is worthless unless you can show evidence, calculations, and reasoning that is stronger and better than the enormous mountain of evidence from science which shows that all those things do of course exist.

In summary - if heydarian claims that published science should be rejected if it's evidence and it's support only amounts to a probable or likely explanation for something like the Big Bang or for Abiogenesis, then he should also reject his own existence as a real person! ... because there is far less evidence for him existing than there is for any of the published science that he claims to reject.

 

[heydarian saeed]

It's a book. It exists. So does War & Peace, Harry Potter, My Little Pony, and Bhagavad Gita. Claiming any book is "holy" is a supernatural claim and assumes facts not in evidence. Can you define the term and prove that any book is "holy" without using self-referential passages in the same book?What difference does the date make? If I write a book in 2022 and call it holy, would you agree with my claim? If not, why not?

Hi
Continue my reply to message 2885. Please read if you wish.
- The only divine book that has not been distorted is the "Qur'an".
This is the claim of the narrator of the Qur'an. God Himself has said in the Qur'an: "No one can distort the Qur'an." We have only been able to find one reason for this claim of God! This is because: "If we remove even one letter from the words of the Qur'an, the meaning of the sentence will change. And the composition of the sentence and its message will be damaged. Because all the letters in the words of the Qur'an are arranged very precisely. Of course, the original Arabic text of the Qur'an.
What has astonished and confused us. This is because we make mistakes in our translations and interpretations. Because these translations and interpretations are just our perception. Everyone has their own translation and interpretation. Especially since the translations and interpretations are all from ancient times. And it is clear that ancient translations are of little use to us in the twentieth century. And many of us humans do not accept and reject it. And we are right. Translations and interpretations should be changed regularly according to the present time. And translations should be written with modern science.
- Other reasons for the revelation of the Qur'an by God other than valid historical documents are the following:
1- There is no possibility of any distortion in the Quran. Even if one word is removed or moved from the Qur'an, the meaning of the Qur'anic sentence will be mistaken. The arrangement of all the letters - words and sentences of the Quran is extremely accurate. Therefore, no one has been able to say such a thing in the seventh century. On the other hand, among all the holy books of religions, only the Qur'an has such a feature. Which can not be distorted. And this is a sign that the Qur'an is a revelation from God. (15/9 - 41/41&42)
2- He calls for verses from the Quran. Not to declare war, but to say: If all human beings gather, they will not be able to recite the Qur'an. He says: If all human beings gather, they will not be able to recite ten surahs like the Qur'an. He says: If all human beings gather, they will not be able to recite even one surah like the Qur'an. And this is a sign that the Qur'an is a revelation from God. (11/13 & 14 – 2/ 23 & 24 - 10 / 38 – 52/33 & 34)
3- The illiteracy of the Prophet of Islam is a proof that the Qur'an is not from him. In addition, the completeness of the Qur'an is such that no one can recite this comprehensive and complete book. And only a higher power than man, who dominates all the sciences of the world, can say this. On the other hand, as in the seventh century, no one could recite the Qur'an. And only God says it. Until now, no one has been able to say a word like the Qur'an. It is completely unique. Therefore, it is a sign that the Qur'an is a revelation from God. (7/157 & 158 (
Because God has told them that in the future I will recite the Qur'an to the last prophet, Muhammad. In fact, this prediction was inspired by God to the previous prophets. And has been announced to the people. And the relevant verses are even in the Qur'an and the Bible itself. (61/6 - 6/114 - Gospel of John 14:15 - 6:14 - 7:40 - 1:19 - Gospel of Matthew 5:17)
5- In verse 82 of Sura 4, the complete harmony and non-difference in words and sentences and the meaning of the verses are explicitly stated as evidence of the revelation of the Qur'an by God. Because no objection can be made to this word. Until now, man has not been able to write such a book without any problems. Therefore, it is a sign that the Qur'an is a revelation from God.
6- There is a possibility of revelation to man from God. And not rejected. All divine prophets throughout history have received the same message from God. Authentic historical texts in this regard have proved the truth of this issue. The Qur'an was the last divine revelation to Muhammad. (See the unique historical Qur'anic inscription of the seventh century at the University of Birmingham, England. Verses 1 and 2 of Sura 50 of the Qur'an also say the same thing).
Thanks

 

[heydarian saeed]

You are just repeating fundamental logical and factual errors which have been explained to you many times. Unless you are prepared to at least try to understand the responses you receive, there is no point in continuing this discussion.

Hi
I understand exactly what you are saying. There is nothing wrong between you and me. The problem is that my logical philosophical approach is different from yours. That's why you think I do not understand your messages.Yes, I understand your messages well. If I do not accept, it is not because I do not understand. I'm sure you understand that too. I have no doubt about your rationality and honesty. You and I just have a different approach. And we talk friendly. But you and I have a different philosophical approach. We need to understand this. OK. It is natural that our logical principles are different. We are not against each other. Rather, we friendly express our opinions to each other according to a logical approach. This is the basis of the dialogue of different civilizations and cultures. And there is no problem. See, dear Pixel, my approach is a "philosophy of existential originality" based on the belief in one God. But your logical philosophical approach is the originality of matter. Your logic is to deny God and the originality of matter and the nature of matter. This is your approach.
Here or in any other group, we do not agree with each other to change our approach. Unless it proves to us that there is a better approach. I am personally looking for this. Is a philosophical approach better than the "originality of existence and belief in the one God"? If I find it, I will certainly be rational and accept it. But I have not found it yet. Maybe my philosophical approach also has its drawbacks. I accept as long as it is proven to me. As with your approach, there are drawbacks. And I told you some of them. As you know, there are about 50 different logical philosophical approaches in the world. And each has a specific approach. Of course, some are similar. And some are fundamentally different. My sense and logic is that some of us in this group are exchanging ideas. This is a very good approach. And I love it.It is not in vain for me to talk to you. I enjoy.
Thanks a lot.

 

[abaddon]

Hi
Continue my reply to message 2885. Please read if you wish.
- The only divine book that has not been distorted is the "Qur'an".
This is the claim of the narrator of the Qur'an. God Himself has said in the Qur'an: "No one can distort the Qur'an." We have only been able to find one reason for this claim of God! This is because: "If we remove even one letter from the words of the Qur'an, the meaning of the sentence will change. And the composition of the sentence and its message will be damaged. Because all the letters in the words of the Qur'an are arranged very precisely. Of course, the original Arabic text of the Qur'an.
What has astonished and confused us. This is because we make mistakes in our translations and interpretations. Because these translations and interpretations are just our perception. Everyone has their own translation and interpretation. Especially since the translations and interpretations are all from ancient times. And it is clear that ancient translations are of little use to us in the twentieth century. And many of us humans do not accept and reject it. And we are right. Translations and interpretations should be changed regularly according to the present time. And translations should be written with modern science.
- Other reasons for the revelation of the Qur'an by God other than valid historical documents are the following:
1- There is no possibility of any distortion in the Quran. Even if one word is removed or moved from the Qur'an, the meaning of the Qur'anic sentence will be mistaken. The arrangement of all the letters - words and sentences of the Quran is extremely accurate. Therefore, no one has been able to say such a thing in the seventh century. On the other hand, among all the holy books of religions, only the Qur'an has such a feature. Which can not be distorted. And this is a sign that the Qur'an is a revelation from God. (15/9 - 41/41&42)
2- He calls for verses from the Quran. Not to declare war, but to say: If all human beings gather, they will not be able to recite the Qur'an. He says: If all human beings gather, they will not be able to recite ten surahs like the Qur'an. He says: If all human beings gather, they will not be able to recite even one surah like the Qur'an. And this is a sign that the Qur'an is a revelation from God. (11/13 & 14 – 2/ 23 & 24 - 10 / 38 – 52/33 & 34)
3- The illiteracy of the Prophet of Islam is a proof that the Qur'an is not from him. In addition, the completeness of the Qur'an is such that no one can recite this comprehensive and complete book. And only a higher power than man, who dominates all the sciences of the world, can say this. On the other hand, as in the seventh century, no one could recite the Qur'an. And only God says it. Until now, no one has been able to say a word like the Qur'an. It is completely unique. Therefore, it is a sign that the Qur'an is a revelation from God. (7/157 & 158 (
Because God has told them that in the future I will recite the Qur'an to the last prophet, Muhammad. In fact, this prediction was inspired by God to the previous prophets. And has been announced to the people. And the relevant verses are even in the Qur'an and the Bible itself. (61/6 - 6/114 - Gospel of John 14:15 - 6:14 - 7:40 - 1:19 - Gospel of Matthew 5:17)
5- In verse 82 of Sura 4, the complete harmony and non-difference in words and sentences and the meaning of the verses are explicitly stated as evidence of the revelation of the Qur'an by God. Because no objection can be made to this word. Until now, man has not been able to write such a book without any problems. Therefore, it is a sign that the Qur'an is a revelation from God.
6- There is a possibility of revelation to man from God. And not rejected. All divine prophets throughout history have received the same message from God. Authentic historical texts in this regard have proved the truth of this issue. The Qur'an was the last divine revelation to Muhammad. (See the unique historical Qur'anic inscription of the seventh century at the University of Birmingham, England. Verses 1 and 2 of Sura 50 of the Qur'an also say the same thing).
Thanks

Too funny. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and even more ironic, those are Arabic numerals.

Perhaps I will post a substantive rebuttal of the content when I stop laughing. I have not yet stopped.

 

[heydarian saeed]

The above is another example of how utterly deluded heydarian is, and how he cannot, or will not, allow himself to understand simple truth and “fact”.

He says he will not accept answers from science that show how several different possibilities exist for how our universe began or for how life first began on Earth etc. He says that because published science papers rarely if ever claim absolute certainty for anything, that is not good enough for him and he will not accept any such scientific explanation unless it claims total 100% certainty …

… but those papers which explain such things as an Inflationary stage of the Big Bang, are supported by all known experimental observations from things like the Hubble telescope, radio telescopes, specific experiments detecting gravity waves, detection of the 3K background radiation etc. etc., as well as their central explanation which is derived directly from the maths of quantum theory. In order to get that explanation published, Alan Guth and others had to meet the scientific standard of producing all of that evidence and all of those mathematical confirmations in excruciating detail, and it all had to be checked and tested by every other relevent scientist on Earth and shown to be correct as far as anyone could tell. That's the stage it has to reach to qualify for publication in a journal like Physical Review. But heydarian is now claiming that is not good enough for him and that he can simply reject all of that …

… and he claims instead that we must accept that an invisible supernatural God is a better explanation, even though he has zero evidence for any such God, and he has no precise mathematical explanation for any such god, and in fact everything ever discovered in science is completely against any such God … if he tries (and religious nut cases have tried) to get his claim published then it will instantly fail on the basis that there is nothing at all to show that it could be true in any way at all … and yet he is here repeatedly claiming that it's a stronger position than for example Inflation, or any model of the Big Bang, or any of the various published models of how life may have begun via a chemical route from RNA to DNA etc., … he's claiming that his God belief which has 0.0000...0000-going-on-for-50-decimal-places-% of any evidence or any calculated/maths results, is to be preferred over published models that are likely to be 80% or more correct in at least the fundamental basis of what their evidence and calculations show …

… he's claiming that zero evidence and zero credible explanation is far better than explanations with huge and unarguable evidence supported by precise mathematical calculations and supported by all manner of testing and conformation from every other method known to Man/science.

On a wider note, not for heydarian because he is far beyond any understanding of truth or reality, but for others who may think that published science is not good enough when it does not claim complete 100% certainty – what we have discovered through science (especially from modern interpretations of quantum theory), is that there are no certainties of fact in a universe where quantum properties determine the underlying structure of Atoms (which, as far as we know, is the case for everything in this entire universe) … the best that can ever be possible is to show that various answers have a probability of being correct which is so high that to argue against it is absurd, and to argue against it with no credible alternative models/evidence is simply not tenable or credible at all …

… we cannot, for example, absolutely prove that Evolution is true, or that Quantum Theory or Relativity is true, or if it comes to that we cannot literally prove that planets like Jupiter or Mercury exist, or that any galaxies exist, or that Atoms exist, or that people even exist! … but to argue that those do not exist is worthless unless you can show evidence, calculations, and reasoning that is stronger and better than the enormous mountain of evidence from science which shows that all those things do of course exist.

In summary - if heydarian claims that published science should be rejected if it's evidence and it's support only amounts to a probable or likely explanation for something like the Big Bang or for Abiogenesis, then he should also reject his own existence as a real person! ... because there is far less evidence for him existing than there is for any of the published science that he claims to reject.

Hello
We fully accept science. And we will never deny it. Please do not mislead others to judge my speech. You are unlikely, dear philosopher. To have such an approach. You said all the contents of modern and quantum science in this message, we know better than you. And we accept everything exactly. Now you have to be a little careful:
"In proving the ultimate cause of the universe, which is a logical philosophical argument, not an empirical science approach, an acceptable theory must certainly be definite. Possibilities are not accepted in this argument. And it is rejected. It is a logical philosophical approach." I hope you understand the difference between the two.I hope you improve your approach. And think better. "Experimental science is different from logical philosophy. Our discussion is about " proving God as the ultimate cause of the universe." This is a logical philosophical discussion.
Thank you very much. Hoping for great success

 

[Pixel42]

See, dear Pixel, my approach is a "philosophy of existential originality" based on the belief in one God.

Yes, you start by assuming the existence of God, and then look for arguments (no matter how illogical and factually inaccurate) which allow you to maintain that assumption whilst waving away any and all objections to it. That is the most fundamental of the mistakes you are making.

But your logical philosophical approach is the originality of matter. Your logic is to deny God and the originality of matter and the nature of matter. This is your approach.

No it isn't.

My approach is to start by looking at the evidence - the mountain of knowledge and understanding which has been painstakingly accumulated by generations of humanity's finest minds - and arriving at the most logical assumptions about the origin and nature of the universe which are consistent with it. Those assumptions do not include the assumption that God exists, because that assumption is unnecessary, illogical, and inconsistent with the evidence.

 

[abaddon]

Hello
We fully accept science. And we will never deny it. Please do not mislead others to judge my speech. You are unlikely, dear philosopher. To have such an approach. You said all the contents of modern and quantum science in this message, we know better than you. And we accept everything exactly. Now you have to be a little careful:
"In proving the ultimate cause of the universe, which is a logical philosophical argument, not an empirical science approach, an acceptable theory must certainly be definite. Possibilities are not accepted in this argument. And it is rejected. It is a logical philosophical approach." I hope you understand the difference between the two.I hope you improve your approach. And think better. "Experimental science is different from logical philosophy. Our discussion is about " proving God as the ultimate cause of the universe." This is a logical philosophical discussion.
Thank you very much. Hoping for great success

The hell? What is inside the quotes and what is outside the quotes? Who knows? Who cares?

"Experimental science is different from logical philosophy. Our discussion is about " proving God as the ultimate cause of the universe." This is a logical philosophical discussion.

This is not a typo. {shift}2 does not happen accidentally. Perhaps he left one out? Maybe. But we are in no better position attempting to work out what belongs in quotes and what does not unless he tells us. Frankly, I am not wasting time on that guessing game.

 

[IanS]

Hello
We fully accept science. And we will never deny it. Please do not mislead others to judge my speech. You are unlikely, dear philosopher. To have such an approach. You said all the contents of modern and quantum science in this message, we know better than you. And we accept everything exactly. Now you have to be a little careful:
"In proving the ultimate cause of the universe, which is a logical philosophical argument, not an empirical science approach, an acceptable theory must certainly be definite. Possibilities are not accepted in this argument. And it is rejected. It is a logical philosophical approach." I hope you understand the difference between the two.I hope you improve your approach. And think better. "Experimental science is different from logical philosophy. Our discussion is about " proving God as the ultimate cause of the universe." This is a logical philosophical discussion.
Thank you very much. Hoping for great success

No. What are your qualifications in science to tell me that you understand it better than I do?

And the question of how and why the Big Bang occurred (which science shows as very likely true), is a scientific question and not one for any so-called "philosophy" ...

... we are in the 21st century (not the 5th century BC!), and science is now the method we use to determine what is likely to be the true explanations for real existing things in this universe ...

... that's why everything ever known/heard about any Big Bang or about any Abiogenesis or anything about Evolution, is all published and studied and explained by science and by scientists and NOT by any so-called "philosophers" or "philosophy".

Where are the scientific papers that claim God/Allah told anyone about modern science in the 7th century?

Why can't you ever produce the papers to support the claims that you keep making?

 

[abaddon]

Hi
Continue my reply to message 2885. Please read if you wish.
- The only divine book that has not been distorted is the "Qur'an".

Unevidenced claim.

This is the claim of the narrator of the Qur'an.

Yeah an unevidenced claim

God Himself has said in the Qur'an: "No one can distort the Qur'an."

There is no evidence that any god said anything to anyone ever. None.

We have only been able to find one reason for this claim of God! This is because: "If we remove even one letter from the words of the Qur'an, the meaning of the sentence will change. And the composition of the sentence and its message will be damaged. Because all the letters in the words of the Qur'an are arranged very precisely. Of course, the original Arabic text of the Qur'an.

Who cares? It's a fairy tale.

What has astonished and confused us. This is because we make mistakes in our translations and interpretations. Because these translations and interpretations are just our perception. Everyone has their own translation and interpretation. Especially since the translations and interpretations are all from ancient times. And it is clear that ancient translations are of little use to us in the twentieth century. And many of us humans do not accept and reject it. And we are right. Translations and interpretations should be changed regularly according to the present time. And translations should be written with modern science.

It does not matter. The Koran is garbage. Oh look, I changed some letters. When will the lightning be striking me, or plagues of locusts or whatever?

- Other reasons for the revelation of the Qur'an by God other than valid historical documents are the following:

ORLY?

1- There is no possibility of any distortion in the Quran. Even if one word is removed or moved from the Qur'an, the meaning of the Qur'anic sentence will be mistaken. The arrangement of all the letters - words and sentences of the Quran is extremely accurate. Therefore, no one has been able to say such a thing in the seventh century. On the other hand, among all the holy books of religions, only the Qur'an has such a feature. Which can not be distorted. And this is a sign that the Qur'an is a revelation from God. (15/9 - 41/41&42)

Bunch of claims and no evidence of any shape.

2- He calls for verses from the Quran. Not to declare war, but to say: If all human beings gather, they will not be able to recite the Qur'an. He says: If all human beings gather, they will not be able to recite ten surahs like the Qur'an. He says: If all human beings gather, they will not be able to recite even one surah like the Qur'an. And this is a sign that the Qur'an is a revelation from God. (11/13 & 14 – 2/ 23 & 24 - 10 / 38 – 52/33 & 34)

More unevidenced claims.

3- The illiteracy of the Prophet of Islam is a proof that the Qur'an is not from him. In addition, the completeness of the Qur'an is such that no one can recite this comprehensive and complete book. And only a higher power than man, who dominates all the sciences of the world, can say this. On the other hand, as in the seventh century, no one could recite the Qur'an. And only God says it. Until now, no one has been able to say a word like the Qur'an. It is completely unique. Therefore, it is a sign that the Qur'an is a revelation from God. (7/157 & 158 (
Because God has told them that in the future I will recite the Qur'an to the last prophet, Muhammad. In fact, this prediction was inspired by God to the previous prophets. And has been announced to the people. And the relevant verses are even in the Qur'an and the Bible itself. (61/6 - 6/114 - Gospel of John 14:15 - 6:14 - 7:40 - 1:19 - Gospel of Matthew 5:17)

Sure. His scribes wrote stuff down because Big Mo was an ignorant idiot. So what?

(This is where 4 should be, but isn't)

5- In verse 82 of Sura 4, the complete harmony and non-difference in words and sentences and the meaning of the verses are explicitly stated as evidence of the revelation of the Qur'an by God. Because no objection can be made to this word. Until now, man has not been able to write such a book without any problems. Therefore, it is a sign that the Qur'an is a revelation from God.[/QUOTE]Circular reasdoning.

6- There is a possibility of revelation to man from God. And not rejected. All divine prophets throughout history have received the same message from God. Authentic historical texts in this regard have proved the truth of this issue. The Qur'an was the last divine revelation to Muhammad. (See the unique historical Qur'anic inscription of the seventh century at the University of Birmingham, England. Verses 1 and 2 of Sura 50 of the Qur'an also say the same thing).
Thanks

I really do not care what the Koran says. In fact, the Koran does not say a thing. It is an inanimate object.

What would you say if I told you my coffee mug said it was OK to have 17 wives? How about if my coffee mug told me to kill every child under 1 year old? Would that be OK? How about if I rounded up my neighbours, raided your home and enslaved you and your entire family? Would you be OK with that?

I doubt it.

But both the bible and Koran have no problem with it.

 

[Mojo]

God Himself has said in the Qur'an: "No one can distort the Qur'an."

God was clearly wrong, then, because you have been distorting it for all you are worth in your attempts to make it fit your claims about science.

 

[Mojo]

The highlighted is important, because he would also need to disprove the existence of all the other gods, while he's at it.

Indeed, according to Saeed’s own principles he must believe in all of them until he has managed to disprove them.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Hi
Continue my reply to message 2885. Please read if you wish.
- The only divine book that has not been distorted is the "Qur'an".
This is the claim of the narrator of the Qur'an. God Himself has said in the Qur'an: "No one can distort the Qur'an." We have only been able to find one reason for this claim of God! This is because: "If we remove even one letter from the words of the Qur'an, the meaning of the sentence will change. And the composition of the sentence and its message will be damaged. Because all the letters in the words of the Qur'an are arranged very precisely. Of course, the original Arabic text of the Qur'an.

This is true of any text in any language: If you change it, the meaning may change. So what? At best this could prove that it was the original text, but in fact you can't prove even that, because how can you tell if it is still the original meaning?

What has astonished and confused us. This is because we make mistakes in our translations and interpretations. Because these translations and interpretations are just our perception. Everyone has their own translation and interpretation. Especially since the translations and interpretations are all from ancient times.

So you recognize, after all, that the meaning has indeed been perturbed?

1- There is no possibility of any distortion in the Quran. Even if one word is removed or moved from the Qur'an, the meaning of the Qur'anic sentence will be mistaken. The arrangement of all the letters - words and sentences of the Quran is extremely accurate.

How can you tell if the original meaning has been changed at some time? Do you have the original manuscript?

Therefore, no one has been able to say such a thing in the seventh century. On the other hand, among all the holy books of religions, only the Qur'an has such a feature. Which can not be distorted. And this is a sign that the Qur'an is a revelation from God. (15/9 - 41/41&42)

Why should no one be able to say that in the seventh century? Were people dumber back then? (No, they were not).

2- He calls for verses from the Quran. Not to declare war, but to say: If all human beings gather, they will not be able to recite the Qur'an. He says: If all human beings gather, they will not be able to recite ten surahs like the Qur'an. He says: If all human beings gather, they will not be able to recite even one surah like the Qur'an. And this is a sign that the Qur'an is a revelation from God. (11/13 & 14 – 2/ 23 & 24 - 10 / 38 – 52/33 & 34)

This is a silly statement. Either it is from the Quran, or it is not.

3- The illiteracy of the Prophet of Islam is a proof that the Qur'an is not from him.

So what? Then it is from other authors.

In addition, the completeness of the Qur'an is such that no one can recite this comprehensive and complete book.

In fact, I'm pretty sure Islamic scholars can do just that. Anyway, people have learned to recite far bigger works.

Hans

 

[Mojo]

In fact, I'm pretty sure Islamic scholars can do just that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafiz_(Quran)

 

[Chanakya]

heydarian just wants to sit sipping coffee and eating muffins, and have a long discussion that may be utterly nonsensical, not to mention downright vile in as much as what it really speaks to, but that involves his telling us, in every other post, how much he loves us.

I wonder, would it be fine --- as far as heydarian is concerned, and also as far as our mods are concerned --- to sit in this cafe, and sip from this brew, and smilingly tell him how, simply by shifting base from his superstitions to another superstition, it is he and his family that are on their way to hell? To keep smiling at him, and telling him how much we love him, as we categorically tell him that he as well as his family are more vile than murderers, and graphically describe to him how he and his blasphemous family will be tortured in hell for their evil sinful blasphemous reprehensible ways? Maybe that is a language he will understand, even as everything else goes whizzing right above his head. After all that would be the language of love, and we'd keep assuring him, every few posts, how much we love him.