On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 6:54 PM, Samiya Illias <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On 27-Jun-2014, at 3:50 pm, Platonist Guitar Cowboy < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 9:34 AM, Samiya Illias <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Okay, let’s leave aside whether this is a book about God by humans, or a >> book from God about humans. >> > > Why? It makes a claim that god is beyond comprehension; and goes on to > tell us what is good and evil based on this. Please explain how this ties > in with factual accuracy? Last I checked, what is beyond comprehension is > what it is and does itself explain this. Invoking such would be a type of > blasphemy to an ultimate entity beyond comprehension. > > > Why can God not comprehend Himself, > I don't know whether some hypothetical entity/object responsible for reality, Quran based or not, possesses self-referential ability; or what form that would take. Self? In relation to what "other" one would be inclined to ask. But then one stumbles on one part of the problem: if such god is "all that is", how could that god possess a self that requires an "other/background/universe" to contrast against? This is part of why I wouldn't know whether god could have a self, in the sense that I can understand. > and what's stopping God from communicating with His creations? > I'm not saying god doesn't, but I don't know that god does either. Why would he if his creation is according to his taste? > He created the physical laws and all creation is bound by them. He created > us, gave us free-will and is testing us with some dos and don'ts. > Again you make god some sort of insecure tester of "his" own creation. Is god a "he" by the way? Do you understand the blaspheme problem in this context? That this hardly fits with saying god is incomprehensible? I'm not so sure we can talk about hard facts on such a basis. > If God can create everything from the cosmologically largest to the > tiniest string or whatever is smaller than that, if God created our DNA and > our neuronal and other networks with such precision, what's stopping or > limiting God from sending a book which we can read and take guidance from? > Do you consider God anything less than magnificently amazing? > I don't know if god has a need to display himself as "magnificently amazing". Humans and certain animals do this for variety of reason, but I don't think god has a need to show off. What would god have to prove to whom? Why would God create something already known to him and then want to test that? > > > > >> Let’s discuss the factual accuracy part first. You ask “how we can study >> something factually, with so many authoritative arguments and divine >> authority getting in the way?” The authoritative arguments and divine >> authority are only for those who consider the Quran from God. >> > ? > > > I mean in the sense of what religion we profess to belong to in this > world, not in the absolute sense. For all we know, you might be right and I > may be wrong. If what the scriptures foretell is correct, then however the > content of the scriptures will be applicable to all in the final judgement. > But there are billions of scriptures written by billions of humans. You've never answered my question concerning why God would limit his influence by writing the holy book correctly for only one culture? That seems like cheating the test; making it easier for some students than others. And if hypothetical god were his own student, why would he want to win by such cheating method? I don't like winning a chess game by cheating; I don't even like winning, if the opponent or me looses by too trivial error, because the game quickly gets boring. > > For all others, its just book giving warnings and glad tidings about a >> future (hereafter) we cannot know of otherwise. It explains giving many >> examples and similitudes, and those explanations draw the reader’s >> attention to much that we can verify for factual accuracy. >> > Well, if you ignore the kind of elephant in the room question that I keep > posing, then indeed, you can focus on anything you like. But calling this > process factually accurate, I don't understand. > > > I don't think I understand your question then. You asked how the Quran > handled it, > I asked whether and how the Quran handles "overly literal interpretation leading to human suffering", as we can see with much religion and politics. > so I quoted the verses, and explained that Book from God about Humans > concept. > > Then you asked how does it lead to factual accuracy, so I explained through > a few examples. Now, you say that I'm ignoring the question. I don't > comprehend your question... > Semi-fictional example: Say I grow up without religion in my education and I enjoy the music of the band Queen. As I grow up, I read more about the band, the music, the people, the histories, and I learn all the lyrics of all the songs by heart. Become a total expert and follower. At some point I will look at the world and myself, and see everything as related to my religion of loving this band of musicians. I then start to make sense of everything in only this way. One day, I decide to hurt somebody or myself because I believe the words "nothing really matters" from one of my favorite songs. I took what was to be song/poem, a statement of some possible truth, to be the absolute literal truth, blaspheme the truth perhaps, and hurt myself/others. This is what I mean by "overly literal interpretation" and its kind of problem. I am/was interested in, as you read Quran and have more experience than me, how much the Quran let's people doubt. > > For instance, the description of developmental stages of the human >> embryo has been verified by modern technology such as high-powered >> microscopes, similarly that the gender of the child is determined by the >> male sperm, that humans were formed first from clay (check RNA research) >> and then from ‘despised fluid’. As per modern science findings, and >> contrary to general religious perception, no where does the Quran state >> that Adam was the first human. Rather, it makes two statements: (a) >> creation of Adam and Jesus was similar: I take it to mean that both were >> created outside the normal human development process, without fathers: that >> is a matter of faith; however the other statement about humans, which is of >> interest to me from an evolutionary point of view, is that the Quran poses >> the question that wasn’t there a period of time over humans when they were >> unremembered / not mentioned? >> >> If we consider verses mentioning time, it compares one measure of time >> with another measure of time, the concept of relativity of time has only >> been accepted by the scientific community for a century or so, whereas the >> Quran was revealed over fourteen centuries ago. It speaks of a land where >> the sun is rising and there is no protection from Sun: we now know the in >> the Antarctic spring, a continent-wide hole forms in the ozone. >> > On this basis, Science-Fiction deserves the same status. Frankenstein, > Alice or Star Trek have done such, notably Picard's Ipad (aside from > complex predictions concerning society, technology, theology) when nobody > could have known about Apple's success in this regard. > > > Check each book if it is falsifiable or not. You'll find out which book is > then based on lucky guesses or non-human inspiration, and which book is > absolutely non-falsifiable and thus bears the Creator's signature. > I see the falsifiability thread perhaps got more attention than it deserved. Maybe you want to form a more independent position on this and perhaps you might want to look at the notion of falsifiability in a few domains that you choose, independent of the recent drama here, before making such sentence a "fact"? For example, it is non-falsifiable that if a car hits me with high velocity, I will get very hurt. But this doesn't mean that this is god's will or bears creator's signature. > > > > >> Where it foretold the defeat of the Romans, it stated that they will be >> defeated in the lowest land: we now know that the region of the Dead Sea is >> the lowest point on Earth’s surface, in terms of heights measured in sea >> level, or as wikipedia describes: 'lowest elevation on land' >> >> The Quran also stated that the body of the Pharaoh who drowned chasing >> Moses has been preserved. It was only in the last century that such a mummy >> was discovered about which scientists theorise that the cause of death was >> drowning. >> >> The Quran claims that all creatures form communities like humans, and >> scientists are discovering more and more evidence for the same. >> >> The Quran mentions many such things which can be verified for factual >> accuracy through honest, sincere, meticulous study and research. >> >> Once you verify for yourself whether you find this book to be written by >> humans or sent by someone who really knows everything about everything, >> then its up to your will and choice whether to accept the theology in it. >> > Well, mentioning observations/predictions that have panned out as true is > nothing special concerning theological text. Doesn't explain... well > anything really; outside of "because some prediction I stated is true, > believe me!" Most text use such to enforce the authoritative statements and > it is easy to see why. > > If you make factual accuracy in this sense your theme, then why not equal > treatment and list all the problems and factual inaccuracies as well? PGC > > > Sure. List them and let's discuss. > I have done so with most points. Mostly you digress back to scripture, where I see little relation to our original points, especially point 1) and the limits of what humans can read/write about that. Another example: does the Quran allow for possibility that it could be wrong etc? PGC -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
