On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 6:20 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy < [email protected]> wrote:
> > > > 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. > "All that is", you mean the Creator part of the creation, as in the emergent property article posted in another thread? No, we believe God to be independent and outside creation, whatever that may be. > > >> 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? > I cannot answer that. I believe God has a good reason for it, but we've only been informed that its due to a prior event according to which The Human took the Trust, but breaks the Covenant, and therefore must be judged. Again, similar questions to what you've repeatedly posed can be asked, but they really don't lead to any answers, not because there are no answers, but rather because we humans, or at least I, do not have the answers to it. > >> 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. > Insecure? No, we believe that God knows exactly what each creation is, and could have sorted us without testing, but God gives us a chance to make the right choices, or establish for ourselves where we belong. > 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? > God created the genders and is above that. However, its common (natural?) human practice to speak of unknown in the generic masculine tense (even I have been referred to as he / him by a number of people on this list :). Moreover, in the scriptures, the masculine pronoun is used. The Quran gives introduces the idea that God is the Spiritual Light (Nur) of the Heavens and Earth, and explains it through a parable in Chapter 24, Verse 35. To quote Dr. Zakir Naik (http://www.islam101.com/tauheed/conceptofGod.htm ): *The most concise definition of God in Islam is given in the four verses of Surah Ikhlas which is Chapter 112 of the Qur’an:"Say: He is Allah, The One and Only."Allah, the Eternal, Absolute."He begets not, nor is He begotten.And there is none like unto Him." [Al-Qur’an 112:1-4]The word ‘Assamad’ is difficult to translate. It means ‘absolute existence’, which can be attributed only to Allah (swt), all other existence being temporal or conditional. It also means that Allah (swt) is not dependant on any person or thing, but all persons and things are dependant on Him. * You may also wish to read this answer: http://www.onislam.net/english/ask-about-islam/faith-and-worship/islamic-creed/168624-is-god-male-or-female.html > > I'm not so sure we can talk about hard facts on such a basis. > May be your questions will be better answered by former non-muslims who have accepted Islam, especially Europeans or Americans, who can perhaps better relate to your questions. Some of them are well-known scholars/preachers of Islam and have web presence and videos on YouTube. I was able to find this list on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_converts_to_Islam > >> 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". > God doesn't need to. God's magnificence and amazing-ness is evident through creation. I think so, and I asked if you have a lesser idea of God. > 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? > Already attempted to answer that above and in earlier posts through scripture. Beyond that would be speculation on my part. I do not feel it right to make assumptions about the mind of God. > > >> 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. > > It is an article of faith for us that God has sent prophets and messengers, and revealed scripture to all nations, in continuity, till Jesus, and then after a break in the series of prophets, the final revelation was revealed to Muhammad. The Quran, like all the scriptures revealed before it, is meant for all humanity, not just for a nation, tribe or culture. It is humans who hold back knowledge and consider their scripture as a private property. It is not permissible to hold back knowledge of the scripture from anyone. Since Muhammad is the seal of the prophets, and after him no other messenger or prophet is to come, therefore the arabic text of the Quran has been protected from changes. It was written down and memorised during the life of Mohammad, and is in that order. The Caliphs who followed him simply had the various portions of the text compiled in one single volume, cross-checking it with the huffaz (those who had committed it to memory), so that it was preserved in its pristine form, as revealed. Millions of people since then continue to commit the entire text of the Quran to memory till this day. > >> 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. > This happens when people pick and choose from the Quran what suits their personal agenda rather than submitting completely to the entire guidance. What is mentioned in a sentence in one place, is explained in several other chapters. Quran emphasises the need for and lists the good / righteous deeds, such as kindness, caring, compassion, giving, sharing, justice, rule of law, leading to a socially equitable community. It also states that a muslim must obey God, Prophet and those in Government, so according to that taking the law in your hands, as the terrorists do, is not permissible. Some very strict laws relating to theft, murder and adultery, and its implementation have been discussed at length by some members on this list. I'd like to make the following points about it: [1] its the Government's job to ensure that the due course of law is followed and the punishment is meted out only when proven beyond any doubt [2] the Quran states that these laws, though we may think are harsh, are in the interest of a socially just community [3] the Quran teaches Muslims to stay away from such acts, forbids them to Muslims, and then prescribes these punishments to a Muslim community [4] yet, unfortunately, there are many cases where laws are misused / mis-implemented, and many innocents suffer [5] human punishment does not mean that it is divine punishment: God has promised justice for all on the Day of Judgement, and no innocent's suffering will be in vain [6] those who misuse Quranic laws will also have to face judgement on the Day of Judgement > > >> 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. > Quran repeatedly asks us to study, reflect and verify for ourselves, if it can be from other than God. Its states clearly that this book is without doubts, mistakes, discrepancies or errors, and without God's help, such a text can never be compiled by any creation. It claims that this knowledge can only be sent from God. It challenges us to verify for ourselves, and then once one realises that, then one must fear the fire, whose fuel will be humans and stones. It contains Warnings and Glad Tidings. It is a guidance for those who want to keep their duty to God. > >> >> 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. > The Creator's signature is that this Book is free from errors, mistakes, discrepancies. Each alphabet, each word, each sentence, the lattice of verses mentioning one thing in some places, and describing it in detail at other places, the entire text bears the signature. As for the example, allow me to quote the scripture: [Quran 57: 22, 23] No disaster strikes upon the earth or among yourselves except that it is in a register before We bring it into being - indeed that, for Allah , is easy - In order that you not despair over what has eluded you and not exult [in pride] over what He has given you. And Allah does not like everyone self-deluded and boastful - ( http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=57&verse=22 ) > >> >> >> >>> 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) > Yes, I revert back to the scripture because I am convinced that it is from God, and does not conflict with God being incomprehensible, as explained above in this post, and the two links provided with it. > and the limits of what humans can read/write about that. > which is why I do not quote hadith or any other human source which runs the risk of being considered scripture > Another example: does the Quran allow for possibility that it could be > wrong etc? PGC > No, it doesn't, as explained above. It allows for human evaluation, and suggests parameters that we can use such as discrepancy, falsifiability, trying to write a similar book without God's help, etc., and repeatedly claims that this Book is without any crookedness, errors or mistakes, and a guidance and blessing from the Lord of the Worlds. If I may suggest, keep asking questions and doubting, and at the same time, also read through the entire text of the Quran. Some very good resources on the web give multiple translations in many languages, as well as Arabic text, and lexicon. I think you'll find that the Quran addresses many of your questions and doubts in a much clearer and direct way. Just a few minutes every morning, it just might be worth it! Samiya > > > -- > 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. > -- 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.
