| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Saab Siddiqui" |
| Date: |
23 Dec 2003 03:56:14 PM |
| Object: |
Life originated from water in the Noble Quran |
Allah Almighty in the Noble Quran makes very important scientific claims:
"He it is Who created the heavens and the earth in six Days - and His Throne
was over the waters - that He might try you, which of you is best in
conduct. But if thou wert to say to them, "Ye shall indeed be raised up
after death", the Unbelievers would be sure to say, "This is nothing but
obvious sorcery!" (The Noble Quran, 11:7)"
"Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined
together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder? We made
from water every living thing. Will they not then believe? (The Noble
Quran, 21:30)"
"It is He Who has created man from water: then has He established
relationships of lineage and marriage: for thy Lord has power (over all
things). (The Noble Quran, 25:54)"
"And God has created every animal from water: of them there are some that
creep on their bellies; some that walk on two legs; and some that walk on
four. God creates what He wills for verily God has power over all things.
(The Noble Quran, 24:45)"
"Protoplasm is the basis of all living matter, and 'the vital power of
protoplasm seems to depend on the constant presence of water' (Lowsons'
Text-book of Botany, Indian Edition. London 1922, p. 23). Text books of
Zoology are also clear on the point. For example, see T.J. Parker and W.A.
Haswell, Textbook of Zoology, London, 1910, Vol I. p. 15: 'Living protoplasm
always contains a large amount of water.' " [2]
"About 72 percent of the surface of our Globe is still covered with water,
and it has been estimated that if the inequalities of the surface were all
leveled, the whole surface would be under water, as the mean elevation of
land sphere-level would be 7,000-10,000 feet below the surface of the ocean
(cf. 11:7). This shows the predominance of water on our Globe. That all
life began in the water is also a conclusion to which our latest knowledge
in biological science points. Apart from the fact that protoplasm, the
original basis of living matter, is liquid or semi-liquid and in a state of
constant flux and instability, there is the fact that land animals, like the
higher vertebrates, including man, show, in their embryological history,
organs like those of fishes, indicating the watery origin of their original
habitat. The constitution of protoplasm is about 80 to 85 percent water
(see also 24:30-31 and 24:45)." [3]
Bibliography:
1- The Meaning of the Holy Qur'an.
Author: Abdullah Yusuf Ali.
Published by: Amana Publications, 10710 Tucker Street, Suite B, Beltsville,
Maryland 20705-2223 USA.
Telephone: (301) 595-5777.
Fax: (301) 595-5888.
ISBN: 0-91597-59-0 (HC).
2- The Meaning of the Holy Qur'an [1], foot note #3021, page 880.
3- The Meaning of the Holy Qur'an [1], foot note #2691, page 801.
.
|
|
| User: "Boony" |
|
| Title: Re: Life originated from water in the Noble Quran |
24 Dec 2003 07:46:41 AM |
|
|
"Saab Siddiqui" <p@O.g> wrote in message
news:vuheg3stldp607@corp.supernews.com...
Allah Almighty in the Noble Quran makes very important scientific claims:
<snip some crap>
You must be an A Grade, chrome plated dip-***** if you think anyone in
alt.atheism gives a flying ***** about the Koran any more than they do about
the Bible.
a - without
theism - religion
Get it?
Go away.
Boony
aa #1444
By the way - Merry Christmas
.
|
|
|
| User: "Saab Siddiqui" |
|
| Title: Re: Life originated from water in the Noble Quran |
28 Dec 2003 03:50:39 PM |
|
|
Boony <winpro@nospam.internode.on.net> wrote in message
news:3fe998bb$1@duster.adelaide.on.net...
"Saab Siddiqui" <p@O.g> wrote in message
news:vuheg3stldp607@corp.supernews.com...
Allah Almighty in the Noble Quran makes very important scientific
claims:
<snip some crap>
You must be an A Grade, chrome plated dip-***** if you think anyone in
alt.atheism gives a flying ***** about the Koran any more than they do
about
the Bible.
so in other words you have no response to the quran correctly saying that
all living things come from water. does this frustrate you? do you curse out
of frustration?
--
saab siddiqui al mujahed
email me at saab_siddiqui(a)palestinemail.com
but you have to change the "(a)" to "@" for it to work
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Life originated from water in the Noble Quran |
28 Dec 2003 08:02:48 PM |
|
|
And so upon Sun, 28 Dec 2003 16:50:39 -0500 didst Saab Siddiqui speak
thusly:
Boony <winpro@nospam.internode.on.net> wrote in message
news:3fe998bb$1@duster.adelaide.on.net...
"Saab Siddiqui" <p@O.g> wrote in message
news:vuheg3stldp607@corp.supernews.com...
Allah Almighty in the Noble Quran makes very important scientific
claims:
<snip some crap>
You must be an A Grade, chrome plated dip-***** if you think anyone in
alt.atheism gives a flying ***** about the Koran any more than they do
about
the Bible.
so in other words you have no response to the quran correctly saying that
all living things come from water. does this frustrate you? do you curse out
of frustration?
It's a stupid "claim" on your part. How did he "know" that? He didn't.
It's nothing but coincidence. Given the state of knowledge at the time,
how many other options were there? Dirt and air? So he had a one-third
chance of being "right?"
How about showing a *real scientific claim. Such as what is the topology
of the universe?
--
Mark K. Bilbo
"There is no system but GNU, and Linux is one of its kernels."
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Peacenik" |
|
| Title: Re: Life originated from water in the Noble Quran |
05 Jan 2004 01:00:58 AM |
|
|
"Saab Siddiqui" <p@O.g> wrote in message
news:vuheg3stldp607@corp.supernews.com...
Allah Almighty in the Noble Quran makes very important scientific claims:
....and they are all false. The Quran is like the Bible and the
Bhagavad-Gita: beautiful poetry, stirring imagery, interesting tales; but
FICTION, FICTION, FICTION.
--
Peacenik
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Giron" |
|
| Title: Regarding Brian Leftow's Modal Ontological Argument for God's Existence (for Saab Siddiqui) |
02 Jan 2004 10:30:10 AM |
|
|
"Saab Siddiqui" <p@O.g> wrote in message news:<vv8kbh5rn5oi1f@corp.supernews.com>...
of course we already know dont even know what logics is but ill bite
anyway. do you think of this
http://mohdperv.tripod.com/leftow.pdf
I don't think any thing about it. I am not going to look.
ha ha ha ha ha! holy kafir ask me to attempt to prove god exist. so i give a
link to an attempted proof. holy kafir has no answer. i bet he looked and
was dumbfounded. so now he say "I am not going to look."
=============
NOTE: This has been cross-posted to alt.atheism because I feel it is
relevant because it serves as an Atheist's objection to a
sophisticated attempt at proving God's existence. It is a response to
a post by Saab Siddiqui in alt.religion.islam which has been archived
by google here:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=vv8kbh5rn5oi1f%40corp.supernews.com
=============
Pax Vobis Saab!
I'm actually familiar with Leftow's reworking of one of St. Anselm's
ontological arguments for God's existence (as per the link above,
which is actually an article from the journal "Philosophy," put out by
the Royal Institute of Philosophy), as I discussed it in sci.logic
back in April. I believe I've gotten a pretty good handle on it since
then, and can now show why it does not prove God's existence. I've
actually been meaning to write a response to the piece and submit it
to the Royal Institute of Philosophy to put in their journal (and even
if it was not accepted by them I could put it up on my website).
Nonetheless, it is a sophisticated argument, and yes I admit Brian
Leftow is an intellectual with some training in logic who believes in
God - he is among the theistic philosophers listed here:
http://theism.actualism.com/theistic.php3
That being said, let me get to the argument. I'll be using '(x)' for
the universal quantifier, '<>' for the 'possible' modal operator,
'(Ex)' for the existential quantifier, I will use a lowercase 'i' for
the identity variable, and '>' for the counterfactual connective. The
rest of the symbols (ampersand for conjunction, arrow for conditional,
squiggle/tilde for negation, et cetera) should be familiar to anyone
who has studied logic at the undergraduate level. I will give each
line of Leftow's argument and a rough translation. First let me give
the argument as is:
1. (x)(('<>'(Ew)(w=x) & ~(Ey)(y=x)) --> ((Ez)(z=x) > ~Gx))
2. ('<>'(Ew)(w=ixGx) & ~(Ey)(y=ixGx)) --> ((Ez)(z=ixGx) > ~G(ixGx))
3. '<>'(Ew)(w=ixGx) --> (~(Ey)(y=ixGx) --> ((Ez)(z=ixGx) > ~G(ixGx)))
4. '<>'(Ew)(w=ixGx)
5. ~(Ey)(y=ixGx) --> ((Ez)(z=ixGx) > ~G(ixGx))
6. ~((Ez)(z=ixGx) > ~G(ixGx))
7. (Ey)(y=ixGx)
At first glance it seems valid, and all the premises in one form or
another come off as seeming at least intuitively true. Now I will go
line by line with my rough translation, and explain where I think the
argument fails.
1. (x)(('<>'(Ew)(w=x) & ~(Ey)(y=x)) --> ((Ez)(z=x) > ~Gx))
This roughly says: "for all things, if it is possible for a thing to
exist but that thing does not exist, then if it did exist it would not
be a 'G'." Here a 'G' could be God. Leftow saw it as roughly the
"greatest concievable thing". If we accept that a G has nessecary
existence, the above is intuitively true. Some may object that we're
presupposing a thing with necessary existence, but I would disagree,
as the premise above does not assume it exists. If we define it simply
as a thing with necessary existence, and the argument was not
problematic in the way that I claim below, we could still say it only
proves that there is something that exists which exists necessarily,
but this does not prove it is God. Nonetheless, Anselm meant a thing
of which nothing higher could be concieved. Really I have no problem
with this premise.
2. ('<>'(Ew)(w=ixGx) & ~(Ey)(y=ixGx)) --> ((Ez)(z=ixGx) > ~G(ixGx))
This roughly reads: "if it is possible for the G (ixGx) to exist and
the G does not exist, then if the G did exist the G would not be a G."
It seems like a tongue twister, and some may even get the feeling that
Leftow is cheating here. But he is not. If the first premise is true
(and I certainly accept it as true), then you can instantiate whatever
you want in place of x. The premise does not assume the existence of
ixGx; rather it merely placed it in premise one via universal
instantiation. So I have no problem with this premise.
3. '<>'(Ew)(w=ixGx) --> (~(Ey)(y=ixGx) --> ((Ez)(z=ixGx) > ~G(ixGx)))
This roughly reads: "if it is possible for ixGx to exist, then if it
did not exist, if it did it wouldn't be a G." Another tongue twister
when translated back into a natural language. This is true because
Leftow has simply made an appeal to the following logical rule:
((x & y) --> z) = (x --> (y --> z))
He has simply adjusted the previous premise accordingly. In terms of
logical structure, this premise is equivalent to the previous one.
4. '<>'(Ew)(w=ixGx)
This reads: "it is possible that ixGx exists." I certainly agree. Back
in April in sci.logic people complained that by assuming it is
possible for it to exist you assume it actually exists. I strongly
disagree. Third order modal logic, as I understand it, deals with
issues of it at least being possible for something to be necessary,
and that does not mean it is in fact necessary, rather it is only
possibly necessary. Regardless, for those who still doubt, Leftow goes
into defending each premise in more detail in his article. I
personally agree with this premise, so I'm moving on.
5. ~(Ey)(y=ixGx) --> ((Ez)(z=ixGx) > ~G(ixGx))
This reads: "if ixGx does not exist, then if it did it would not be a
G". This is simply the consequent of premise 3. In light of premise 4,
Leftow performed a simple modus ponens. If x then y, x, therefore y.
6. ~((Ez)(z=ixGx) > ~G(ixGx))
This reads: "it is not the case that if the G (ixGx) exists, it is not
a G." This is the premise I have a problem with. When you read it
aloud, there seems to be no problem. That is what it is saying, and
from there Leftow moved into his conclusion via modus tollens...
7. (Ey)(y=ixGx)
...which reads: "ixGx exists." So in otherwords it seems he has
proved at least that some thing necesarily exists. More so, he seems
to have proven that ixGx exists, which is Anselm's thing "of which
nothing greater can be conceived," which Anslem (and Leftow and many
others) defines as God. The problem, as I noted above, is in the sixth
premise:
6. ~((Ez)(z=ixGx) > ~G(ixGx))
While it reads as I translated it, I believe the translation into a
natural language like English deceieved Leftow. In a conditional
proposition or a counterfactual proposition, it reads the same way:
"if x then y." The problem is that while in a natural language
(English) it sounds the same, in the formal language there is a key
difference between a conditional proposition such as:
(x --> y)
...and a counterfactual proposition such as:
(x > y)
That difference is the fact that the latter works under the assumption
that the antecedent ('x') is false! That was the whole point of the
opening premise. The consequent of the first premise...
((Ez)(z=x) > ~Gx))
...was predicated on the assumption that this thing did NOT exist,
which is why Leftow used a counterfactual connective ('>') in the
first place. In other words, we reach the consequent *IF* the thing
does not exist. So Leftow simply negated the consequent of premise
5...
((Ez)(z=ixGx) > ~G(ixGx))
...because he thought it was false. When you read it aloud in natural
language it seems false (i.e. how could you say that if the G existed
it would not be a G?). The problem is that this being a counterfactual
proposition, the assumption is that (Ex)(z=ixGx) is false, i.e. that
the ixGx does not exist. So Leftow's sixth premise is false because
the above is actually true: [working under the assumption that the G
did not exist] if the G existed it would not be a G [because G's exist
necessarily, cf. premise 1].
Leftow or his supporters may try to escape this by noting that David K
Lewis, in his wonderful book "Counterfactuals" (which Leftow actually
cites once or twice in his article), concedes that it is possible to
have a counterfactual proposition with a true antecedent. While that
would seem to counter what I just said above, note that Lewis also
notes that such a proposition would be uttered "by mistake" and
further notes that a counterfactual proposition with a true antecedent
reduces to a straight material conditional (I don't have Lewis' book
handy, which is why I have not cited a specific page, but if anyone
challenges me on this I'll be more than willing to give a full
citation).
So, if Leftow or his supporters try to escape my criticism of premise
six by noting that it is possible to have a counterfactual with a true
antecedent, he/they must concede that he has actually employed a
regular material conditional. If that is the case, then this creates
all sorts of problems. For example, his sixth premise then becomes:
~((Ez)(z=ixGx) --> ~G(ixGx))
Even undergrads know that ~(x --> y) is equivalent to (x & ~y). So to
assert the above is to assert the following...
(Ez)(z=ixGx) & G(ixGx)
...which reads: "the G exists and it is a G." So if Leftow goes this
route it means he has *ASSUMED* that the G exists. So either premise
six is false because Leftow misinterpreted the counterfactual, or the
counterfactual reduces to a material conditional and Leftow has
assumed his own conclusion. Either way, the argument is insufficient
for proving the existence of ixGx.
-Denis Giron
http://freethoughtmecca.org/home.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Saab Siddiqui" |
|
| Title: Re: Regarding Brian Leftow's Modal Ontological Argument for God's Existence (for Saab Siddiqui) |
03 Jan 2004 10:25:45 AM |
|
|
Denis Giron <denis_giron@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bac0a2be.0401020830.654d7f77@posting.google.com...
So if Leftow goes this
route it means he has *ASSUMED* that the G exists. So either premise
six is false because Leftow misinterpreted the counterfactual, or the
counterfactual reduces to a material conditional and Leftow has
assumed his own conclusion. Either way, the argument is insufficient
for proving the existence of ixGx.
i dont know. you saying a man with phd in logics dont know how to use
logics? what are your qualifications in logics? and could you give page
numbers from david lewis. i mean i hope you dont expect me to just believe
you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Count 1" |
|
| Title: Re: Regarding Brian Leftow's Modal Ontological Argument for God's Existence (for Saab Siddiqui) |
03 Jan 2004 10:28:38 AM |
|
|
"Saab Siddiqui" <p@O.g> wrote in message
news:vvdr8h5hlujtae@corp.supernews.com...
Denis Giron <denis_giron@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bac0a2be.0401020830.654d7f77@posting.google.com...
So if Leftow goes this
route it means he has *ASSUMED* that the G exists. So either premise
six is false because Leftow misinterpreted the counterfactual, or the
counterfactual reduces to a material conditional and Leftow has
assumed his own conclusion. Either way, the argument is insufficient
for proving the existence of ixGx.
i dont know. you saying a man with phd in logics dont know how to use
logics? what are your qualifications in logics? and could you give page
numbers from david lewis. i mean i hope you dont expect me to just believe
you.
Why not? You appear to believe anything your Imam tells you.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Giron" |
|
| Title: Re: Regarding Brian Leftow's Modal Ontological Argument for God's Existence (for Saab Siddiqui) |
05 Jan 2004 04:58:03 PM |
|
|
"Saab Siddiqui" <p@O.g> wrote in message news:<vvdr8h5hlujtae@corp.supernews.com>...
...
Pax Vobis Saab!
Readers who are interested in gaining the full context of this
discussion should note that the full thread has been archived by
Google here:
http://groups.google.com/groups?threadm=bac0a2be.0401020830.654d7f77%40posting.google.com
So if Leftow goes this
route it means he has *ASSUMED* that the G exists. So either premise
six is false because Leftow misinterpreted the counterfactual, or the
counterfactual reduces to a material conditional and Leftow has
assumed his own conclusion. Either way, the argument is insufficient
for proving the existence of ixGx.
i dont know. you saying a man with phd in logics dont know how to use
logics? what are your qualifications in logics?
As far as actual degrees go, thus far I only have a B.A. in Philosophy
from Baruch College. My reasons for believing that Dr. Leftow has made
a mistake were listed in my opening post.
and could you give page
numbers from david lewis. i mean i hope you dont expect me to just believe
you.
Of course I don't expect you to just believe what I say. Of course you
could have justed checked his book yourself, and referenced section
1.7, titled "True Antecedents." Nonetheless, I'll give two passages
from David Lewis' book. Fist the passage that notes that a
counterfactual with a true antecedent would only be uttered by
accident:
"Counterfactuals with true antecedents - counterfactuals that are not
counterfactual - are not automatically false, nor do they lack truth
value. This stipulation does not seem to me at all artificial.
Granted, the counterfactual constructions of English do carry some
sort of presupposition that the antecedent is false. It is some sort
of mistake to use them unless the speaker does take the antecedent to
be false, and some sort of mishap to use them when the speaker wrongly
takes the antecedent to be false. But there is no reason to suppose
that every sort of presupposition failure must produce automatic
falsity or a truth-value gap. Some or all sorts of presupposition, and
in particular the presupposition that the antecedent of a
counterfactual is false, may be matters of conversational implicature,
without any effect on truth conditions. Though it is difficult to find
out the truth conditions of counterfactuals with true antecedents,
since they would be asserted only by mistake, we will see later (in
Section 1.7) how this may be done."
[David K. Lewis, "Counterfactuals," (Blackwell, 1973), p. 3]
In one sense the above seems to be something Leftow could fall back
on, but it is in the next passage that Lewis notes that
counterfactuals with true antecedents reduce to normal material
conditionals:
"We noted at the outset that truth of the antecedent was a defect in a
counterfactual, but not necessarily the sort of defect that produces
automatic falsity or a truth value gap. According to the truth
conditions I have given, a counterfactual with a true antecedent is
true if and only if the consequent is true. This is both for 'would'
and 'might' counterfactuals (and for the strong 'would' and weak
'might' counterfactuals introduced in the previous section). In short:
counterfactuals with true antecedents reduce to material
conditionals."
[Lewis, opere citato, p. 26]
So my objections still stand.
-Denis Giron
http://freethoughtmecca.org/home.htm
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Regarding Brian Leftow's Modal Ontological Argument for God's Existence (for Saab Siddiqui) |
04 Jan 2004 05:23:55 PM |
|
|
{{From: (Denis Giron)
This reads: "it is possible that ixGx exists." I certainly agree.}}
I don't agree. It seems to me there are various conservation laws which
are strictly obeyed. There are no exceptions to these laws, not just by
chance, but it's impossible (not possible) for any event to violate
those laws.
If we define some word or symbol to denote a violation of those
conservation laws, or some entity capable of making such violations,
then it's impossible for that word or symbol to denote anything real,
anything that exists.
I'm not sure what the properties of your hypothetical ixGx might be,
but I'm guessing they involve some sort of omnipotence that can violate
conservation laws. If those laws are indeed absolute, can never be
violated, and if your ixGx indeed is postulated to violate those laws,
then your ixGx can't possibly exist. I don't know for sure whether such
conservation laws are absolute, and I don't know for sure whether your
postulated ixGx is supposed to be able to violate those laws, so I
don't know for sure whether your postulated ixGx can or cannot possibly
exist, so I'm not willing to accept your (actually Leftow's) premise as
stated (by you, Denis) above.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Giron" |
|
| Title: Re: Regarding Brian Leftow's Modal Ontological Argument for God's Existence (for Saab Siddiqui) |
05 Jan 2004 04:36:14 PM |
|
|
wrote in message news:<REM-2004jan04-001@Yahoo.Com>...
...
Pax Vobis Robert!
For readers who are interested in getting the full context of this
post (and the one by Mr. Maas that I am responding to), the full
thread has been archived by Google here:
http://groups.google.com/groups?threadm=bac0a2be.0401020830.654d7f77%40posting.google.com
Note that this is within the scope of a discussion about Brian
Leftow's modal ontological argument for God's existence, as per his
article "Anselm's Neglected Argument," published in the journal
"Philosophy," Vol. 77, no. 3, (July 2002), pp. 331-347. The argument
was originally posted by Saab Siddiqui to alt.religion.islam, but his
link now seems to be broken. While I'm not sure if all people can
access EBSCO without a membership, readers should be able to find
access to the full text of the article in PDF format at the following
URL:
http://ejournals.ebsco.com/Article.asp?ContributionID=2322583
Now let me get to Mr. Maas' comments...
{{From: (Denis Giron)
This reads: "it is possible that ixGx exists." I certainly agree.}}
I don't agree. It seems to me there are various conservation laws which
are strictly obeyed. There are no exceptions to these laws, not just by
chance, but it's impossible (not possible) for any event to violate
those laws.
If we define some word or symbol to denote a violation of those
conservation laws, or some entity capable of making such violations,
then it's impossible for that word or symbol to denote anything real,
anything that exists.
I'm not sure what the properties of your hypothetical ixGx might be,
but I'm guessing they involve some sort of omnipotence that can violate
conservation laws.
Quickly, it is not my hypothetical ixGx, rather it is Brian Leftow's
(and to a lesser degree, St. Anselm's). I believe Leftow sides with
St. Anselm's interpretation of the ixGx being "the greatest
conceivable thing" or "a thing of which nothing greater can be
conceived". The definition does not seem to necessarily imply
omnipotence. If the argument (without Leftow's commentary) is taken
alone, the first two premises seem to simply define the ixGx as a
thing that has necessary existence. That too does not imply
omnipotence as far as I can see.
So I believe that it is at least possible that a thing of which
nothing greater can be conceived can exist, and I also believe that it
is possible that a thing whose existence is necessary could exist as
well. My own objections to Leftow's argument was not really concerned
with objecting to his fourth premise, though I suppose one could
question it. Leftow himself seems to have anticipated that, and does
make an attempt to reinforce much of his argument in his article.
-Denis Giron
http://freethoughtmecca.org/home.htm
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Life originated from water in the Noble Quran |
24 Dec 2003 03:45:52 PM |
|
|
And so upon Tue, 23 Dec 2003 16:56:14 -0500 didst Saab Siddiqui speak
thusly:
Allah Almighty in the Noble Quran makes very important scientific claims:
So when will you be posting them?
--
Mark K. Bilbo
"There is no system but GNU, and Linux is one of its kernels."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Saab Siddiqui" |
|
| Title: Re: Life originated from water in the Noble Quran |
28 Dec 2003 03:51:31 PM |
|
|
Mark K. Bilbo <noem@il.huh> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.12.24.21.45.52.249142@il.huh...
And so upon Tue, 23 Dec 2003 16:56:14 -0500 didst Saab Siddiqui speak
thusly:
Allah Almighty in the Noble Quran makes very important scientific
claims:
So when will you be posting them?
i did already but you snipped it because yopu had no answer. the quran
correctly say that all living thing come from water. how did muhammad know
this?
--
saab siddiqui al mujahed
email me at saab_siddiqui(a)palestinemail.com
but you have to change the "(a)" to "@" for it to work
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peacenik" |
|
| Title: Re: Life originated from water in the Noble Quran |
05 Jan 2004 01:02:31 AM |
|
|
"Saab Siddiqui" <p@O.g> wrote in message
news:vuukco2d19haab@corp.supernews.com...
saab siddiqui al mujahed
"al mujahed"? The fighter?
--
Peacenik
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Life originated from water in the Noble Quran |
28 Dec 2003 08:00:46 PM |
|
|
And so upon Sun, 28 Dec 2003 16:51:31 -0500 didst Saab Siddiqui speak
thusly:
Mark K. Bilbo <noem@il.huh> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.12.24.21.45.52.249142@il.huh...
And so upon Tue, 23 Dec 2003 16:56:14 -0500 didst Saab Siddiqui speak
thusly:
Allah Almighty in the Noble Quran makes very important scientific
claims:
So when will you be posting them?
i did already but you snipped it because yopu had no answer. the quran
correctly say that all living thing come from water. how did muhammad know
this?
Oh please. That's not a scientific claim.
You're not very good at this are you?
--
Mark K. Bilbo
"There is no system but GNU, and Linux is one of its kernels."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "spakka" |
|
| Title: Re: Life originated from water in the Noble Quran |
28 Dec 2003 05:41:08 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 16:51:31 -0500, Saab Siddiqui wrote:
the quran
correctly say that all living thing come from water.
Viruses
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "dots@fat b a b i e s.com Alhazred" |
|
| Title: Re: Life originated from water in the Noble Quran |
24 Dec 2003 08:12:46 AM |
|
|
And thence there was but Alhazred's reply to "Saab Siddiqui" <p@O.g>:
Allah Almighty in the Noble Quran makes very important scientific claims:
-----
Eric Alhazred
"Humans were created by water to transport it uphill."
--unknown
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "spakka" |
|
| Title: Re: Life originated from water in the Noble Quran |
28 Dec 2003 05:59:18 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 16:56:14 -0500, Saab Siddiqui wrote:
Allah Almighty in the Noble Quran makes very important scientific claims:
<snip laughable alleged scientific claims>
Forgive me if I don't strap a bomb to myself just yet.
.
|
|
|
| User: "TruthTeller" |
|
| Title: Re: Life originated from water in the Noble Quran |
28 Dec 2003 10:09:20 PM |
|
|
They just dont understand. Why bother? They're fools. They just keep
making excuses for their petty thoughts.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Adam Marczyk" |
|
| Title: Re: Life originated from water in the Noble Quran |
23 Dec 2003 09:25:11 PM |
|
|
Saab Siddiqui <p@O.g> wrote in message
news:vuheg3stldp607@corp.supernews.com...
Allah Almighty in the Noble Quran makes very important scientific claims:
"He it is Who created the heavens and the earth in six Days - and His
Throne was over the waters - that He might try you, which of you is best
in conduct. But if thou wert to say to them, "Ye shall indeed be raised
up after death", the Unbelievers would be sure to say, "This is nothing
but obvious sorcery!" (The Noble Quran, 11:7)"
"Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined
together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder? We made
from water every living thing. Will they not then believe? (The Noble
Quran, 21:30)"
"It is He Who has created man from water: then has He established
relationships of lineage and marriage: for thy Lord has power (over all
things). (The Noble Quran, 25:54)"
"And God has created every animal from water: of them there are some that
creep on their bellies; some that walk on two legs; and some that walk on
four. God creates what He wills for verily God has power over all things.
(The Noble Quran, 24:45)"
The Qur'an also says that life was created from clay (15:26), dust (30:20),
sperm (16:4 - no mention of eggs, of course), and nothing (3:47). I'd say
you're just picking and choosing your verses and ignoring the ones that are
less favorable to your argument.
--
"We have loved the stars too fondly | a.a. #2001
to be fearful of the night." | http://www.ebonmusings.org
--Tombstone epitaph of | e-mail: ebonmuse!hotmail.com
two amateur astronomers, | ICQ: 8777843
quoted in Carl Sagan's _Cosmos_ | PGP Key ID: 0x5C66F737
----------------------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Saab Siddiqui" |
|
| Title: Re: Life originated from water in the Noble Quran |
28 Dec 2003 03:49:30 PM |
|
|
Adam Marczyk <ebonmuse@deletethis.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:qG7Gb.32615$Fn5.22013@news02.roc.ny...
Saab Siddiqui <p@O.g> wrote in message
news:vuheg3stldp607@corp.supernews.com...
Allah Almighty in the Noble Quran makes very important scientific
claims:
"He it is Who created the heavens and the earth in six Days - and His
Throne was over the waters - that He might try you, which of you is best
in conduct. But if thou wert to say to them, "Ye shall indeed be raised
up after death", the Unbelievers would be sure to say, "This is nothing
but obvious sorcery!" (The Noble Quran, 11:7)"
"Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined
together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder? We
made
from water every living thing. Will they not then believe? (The Noble
Quran, 21:30)"
"It is He Who has created man from water: then has He established
relationships of lineage and marriage: for thy Lord has power (over all
things). (The Noble Quran, 25:54)"
"And God has created every animal from water: of them there are some
that
creep on their bellies; some that walk on two legs; and some that walk
on
four. God creates what He wills for verily God has power over all
things.
(The Noble Quran, 24:45)"
The Qur'an also says that life was created from clay (15:26), dust
(30:20),
sperm (16:4 - no mention of eggs, of course), and nothing (3:47). I'd say
you're just picking and choosing your verses and ignoring the ones that
are
less favorable to your argument.
it says first man created from clay or dust. human beings created from
nutfah amshaaj. but all living things come from water. this is not
contradiction. you were made from sperm and egg but that does not deny all
living things came from water. you have no answer so you try to twist.
--
saab siddiqui al mujahed
email me at saab_siddiqui(a)palestinemail.com
but you have to change the "(a)" to "@" for it to work
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Holy Kafir" |
|
| Title: Re: Life originated from water in the Noble Quran |
28 Dec 2003 04:53:42 PM |
|
|
"Saab Siddiqui" <p@O.g> wrote in message
news:vuuk08sb7qhm84@corp.supernews.com...
Adam Marczyk <ebonmuse@deletethis.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:qG7Gb.32615$Fn5.22013@news02.roc.ny...
Saab Siddiqui <p@O.g> wrote in message
news:vuheg3stldp607@corp.supernews.com...
Allah Almighty in the Noble Quran makes very important scientific
claims:
"He it is Who created the heavens and the earth in six Days - and His
Throne was over the waters - that He might try you, which of you is
best
in conduct. But if thou wert to say to them, "Ye shall indeed be
raised
up after death", the Unbelievers would be sure to say, "This is
nothing
but obvious sorcery!" (The Noble Quran, 11:7)"
"Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined
together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder? We
made
from water every living thing. Will they not then believe? (The Noble
Quran, 21:30)"
"It is He Who has created man from water: then has He established
relationships of lineage and marriage: for thy Lord has power (over
all
things). (The Noble Quran, 25:54)"
"And God has created every animal from water: of them there are some
that
creep on their bellies; some that walk on two legs; and some that walk
on
four. God creates what He wills for verily God has power over all
things.
(The Noble Quran, 24:45)"
The Qur'an also says that life was created from clay (15:26), dust
(30:20),
sperm (16:4 - no mention of eggs, of course), and nothing (3:47). I'd
say
you're just picking and choosing your verses and ignoring the ones that
are
less favorable to your argument.
it says first man created from clay or dust. human beings created from
nutfah amshaaj. but all living things come from water. this is not
contradiction. you were made from sperm and egg but that does not deny all
living things came from water. you have no answer so you try to twist.
Egyption creation myths, that predate your qu'ran, also say life came from
water, Atun (AKA Ra, AKA, Khepri) arose from Nu (watery chaos): "Heaven and
earth did not exist. And the things of the earth did not yet exist. I raised
them out of Nu, from their stagnant state. I have made things out of that
which I have already made, and they came from my mouth.". So, by your
reasoning, it must also be correct. But, this presents a contradiction, both
your god and Atun can not both exist.
Oh well, so much for that argument.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Saab Siddiqui" |
|
| Title: Re: Life originated from water in the Noble Quran |
28 Dec 2003 05:20:03 PM |
|
|
The Holy Kafir <x@x.x> wrote in message
news:bsnmtq$bsud$1@news3.infoave.net...
"Saab Siddiqui" <p@O.g> wrote in message
news:vuuk08sb7qhm84@corp.supernews.com...
Adam Marczyk <ebonmuse@deletethis.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:qG7Gb.32615$Fn5.22013@news02.roc.ny...
Saab Siddiqui <p@O.g> wrote in message
news:vuheg3stldp607@corp.supernews.com...
Allah Almighty in the Noble Quran makes very important scientific
claims:
"He it is Who created the heavens and the earth in six Days - and
His
Throne was over the waters - that He might try you, which of you is
best
in conduct. But if thou wert to say to them, "Ye shall indeed be
raised
up after death", the Unbelievers would be sure to say, "This is
nothing
but obvious sorcery!" (The Noble Quran, 11:7)"
"Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were
joined
together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder? We
made
from water every living thing. Will they not then believe? (The
Noble
Quran, 21:30)"
"It is He Who has created man from water: then has He established
relationships of lineage and marriage: for thy Lord has power (over
all
things). (The Noble Quran, 25:54)"
"And God has created every animal from water: of them there are some
that
creep on their bellies; some that walk on two legs; and some that
walk
on
four. God creates what He wills for verily God has power over all
things.
(The Noble Quran, 24:45)"
The Qur'an also says that life was created from clay (15:26), dust
(30:20),
sperm (16:4 - no mention of eggs, of course), and nothing (3:47). I'd
say
you're just picking and choosing your verses and ignoring the ones
that
are
less favorable to your argument.
it says first man created from clay or dust. human beings created from
nutfah amshaaj. but all living things come from water. this is not
contradiction. you were made from sperm and egg but that does not deny
all
living things came from water. you have no answer so you try to twist.
Egyption creation myths, that predate your qu'ran, also say life came from
water, Atun (AKA Ra, AKA, Khepri) arose from Nu (watery chaos): "Heaven
and
earth did not exist. And the things of the earth did not yet exist. I
raised
them out of Nu, from their stagnant state. I have made things out of that
which I have already made, and they came from my mouth.".
can you cite a pre-islamic text that actually say what you write above?
also heaven and earth not made from water. that is wrong. quran does not say
heaven and earth made from water. quran say every living thing is from
water. and that is correct.
--
saab siddiqui al mujahed
email me at saab_siddiqui(a)palestinemail.com
but you have to change the "(a)" to "@" for it to work
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Holy Kafir" |
|
| Title: Re: Life originated from water in the Noble Quran |
28 Dec 2003 05:26:33 PM |
|
|
"Saab Siddiqui" <p@O.g> wrote in message
news:vuup9ds8netg4b@corp.supernews.com...
The Holy Kafir <x@x.x> wrote in message
news:bsnmtq$bsud$1@news3.infoave.net...
"Saab Siddiqui" <p@O.g> wrote in message
news:vuuk08sb7qhm84@corp.supernews.com...
Adam Marczyk <ebonmuse@deletethis.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:qG7Gb.32615$Fn5.22013@news02.roc.ny...
Saab Siddiqui <p@O.g> wrote in message
news:vuheg3stldp607@corp.supernews.com...
Allah Almighty in the Noble Quran makes very important scientific
claims:
"He it is Who created the heavens and the earth in six Days - and
His
Throne was over the waters - that He might try you, which of you
is
best
in conduct. But if thou wert to say to them, "Ye shall indeed be
raised
up after death", the Unbelievers would be sure to say, "This is
nothing
but obvious sorcery!" (The Noble Quran, 11:7)"
"Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were
joined
together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder?
We
made
from water every living thing. Will they not then believe? (The
Noble
Quran, 21:30)"
"It is He Who has created man from water: then has He established
relationships of lineage and marriage: for thy Lord has power
(over
all
things). (The Noble Quran, 25:54)"
"And God has created every animal from water: of them there are
some
that
creep on their bellies; some that walk on two legs; and some that
walk
on
four. God creates what He wills for verily God has power over all
things.
(The Noble Quran, 24:45)"
The Qur'an also says that life was created from clay (15:26), dust
(30:20),
sperm (16:4 - no mention of eggs, of course), and nothing (3:47).
I'd
say
you're just picking and choosing your verses and ignoring the ones
that
are
less favorable to your argument.
it says first man created from clay or dust. human beings created from
nutfah amshaaj. but all living things come from water. this is not
contradiction. you were made from sperm and egg but that does not deny
all
living things came from water. you have no answer so you try to twist.
Egyption creation myths, that predate your qu'ran, also say life came
from
water, Atun (AKA Ra, AKA, Khepri) arose from Nu (watery chaos): "Heaven
and
earth did not exist. And the things of the earth did not yet exist. I
raised
them out of Nu, from their stagnant state. I have made things out of
that
which I have already made, and they came from my mouth.".
can you cite a pre-islamic text that actually say what you write above?
I did.
also heaven and earth not made from water. that is wrong. quran does not
say
heaven and earth made from water. quran say every living thing is from
water. and that is correct.
And so does the quote, or do you have a problem with reading comprehension.
Do the words context and implies escape you? Yes, they do, when it is
convinient for you. Read it again: "... And the things of the earth did not
yet exist. I raised them out of Nu, from their stagnant state. ... "
Context, figure it out.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Saab Siddiqui" |
|
| Title: Re: Life originated from water in the Noble Quran |
28 Dec 2003 05:33:10 PM |
|
|
The Holy Kafir <x@x.x> wrote in message
news:bsnor9$bv5c$1@news3.infoave.net...
"Saab Siddiqui" <p@O.g> wrote in message
news:vuup9ds8netg4b@corp.supernews.com...
The Holy Kafir <x@x.x> wrote in message
news:bsnmtq$bsud$1@news3.infoave.net...
"Saab Siddiqui" <p@O.g> wrote in message
news:vuuk08sb7qhm84@corp.supernews.com...
Adam Marczyk <ebonmuse@deletethis.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:qG7Gb.32615$Fn5.22013@news02.roc.ny...
Saab Siddiqui <p@O.g> wrote in message
news:vuheg3stldp607@corp.supernews.com...
Allah Almighty in the Noble Quran makes very important
scientific
claims:
"He it is Who created the heavens and the earth in six Days -
and
His
Throne was over the waters - that He might try you, which of you
is
best
in conduct. But if thou wert to say to them, "Ye shall indeed be
raised
up after death", the Unbelievers would be sure to say, "This is
nothing
but obvious sorcery!" (The Noble Quran, 11:7)"
"Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were
joined
together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them
asunder?
We
made
from water every living thing. Will they not then believe? (The
Noble
Quran, 21:30)"
"It is He Who has created man from water: then has He
established
relationships of lineage and marriage: for thy Lord has power
(over
all
things). (The Noble Quran, 25:54)"
"And God has created every animal from water: of them there are
some
that
creep on their bellies; some that walk on two legs; and some
that
walk
on
four. God creates what He wills for verily God has power over
all
things.
(The Noble Quran, 24:45)"
The Qur'an also says that life was created from clay (15:26), dust
(30:20),
sperm (16:4 - no mention of eggs, of course), and nothing (3:47).
I'd
say
you're just picking and choosing your verses and ignoring the ones
that
are
less favorable to your argument.
it says first man created from clay or dust. human beings created
from
nutfah amshaaj. but all living things come from water. this is not
contradiction. you were made from sperm and egg but that does not
deny
all
living things came from water. you have no answer so you try to
twist.
Egyption creation myths, that predate your qu'ran, also say life came
from
water, Atun (AKA Ra, AKA, Khepri) arose from Nu (watery chaos):
"Heaven
and
earth did not exist. And the things of the earth did not yet exist. I
raised
them out of Nu, from their stagnant state. I have made things out of
that
which I have already made, and they came from my mouth.".
can you cite a pre-islamic text that actually say what you write above?
I did.
no you didnt. you gave a quote with no citation. i have no idea when that
was written. it could have been written last week or 50,000,000 years ago.
is there a pre-islamic text that say that?
also heaven and earth not made from water. that is wrong. quran does not
say
heaven and earth made from water. quran say every living thing is from
water. and that is correct.
And so does the quote, or do you have a problem with reading
comprehension.
Do the words context and implies escape you? Yes, they do, when it is
convinient for you. Read it again: "... And the things of the earth did
not
yet exist. I raised them out of Nu, from their stagnant state. ... "
Context, figure it out.
i dont even know the meaning of "nu". could you prove it means water. also
the text whether it is new or old is wrong about having the earth and heaven
from water. if this really is pre-islamic isnt it interesting that the quran
repeat the true part but leave out the error?
--
saab siddiqui al mujahed
email me at saab_siddiqui(a)palestinemail.com
but you have to change the "(a)" to "@" for it to work
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Holy Kafir" |
|
| Title: Re: Life originated from water in the Noble Quran |
28 Dec 2003 06:02:59 PM |
|
|
"Saab Siddiqui" <p@O.g> wrote in message
news:vuuq2j9kkv4gc1@corp.supernews.com...
The Holy Kafir <x@x.x> wrote in message
news:bsnor9$bv5c$1@news3.infoave.net...
"Saab Siddiqui" <p@O.g> wrote in message
news:vuup9ds8netg4b@corp.supernews.com...
The Holy Kafir <x@x.x> wrote in message
news:bsnmtq$bsud$1@news3.infoave.net...
"Saab Siddiqui" <p@O.g> wrote in message
news:vuuk08sb7qhm84@corp.supernews.com...
Adam Marczyk <ebonmuse@deletethis.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:qG7Gb.32615$Fn5.22013@news02.roc.ny...
Saab Siddiqui <p@O.g> wrote in message
news:vuheg3stldp607@corp.supernews.com...
Allah Almighty in the Noble Quran makes very important
scientific
claims:
"He it is Who created the heavens and the earth in six Days -
and
His
Throne was over the waters - that He might try you, which of
you
is
best
in conduct. But if thou wert to say to them, "Ye shall indeed
be
raised
up after death", the Unbelievers would be sure to say, "This
is
nothing
but obvious sorcery!" (The Noble Quran, 11:7)"
"Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth
were
joined
together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them
asunder?
We
made
from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?
(The
Noble
Quran, 21:30)"
"It is He Who has created man from water: then has He
established
relationships of lineage and marriage: for thy Lord has power
(over
all
things). (The Noble Quran, 25:54)"
"And God has created every animal from water: of them there
are
some
that
creep on their bellies; some that walk on two legs; and some
that
walk
on
four. God creates what He wills for verily God has power over
all
things.
(The Noble Quran, 24:45)"
The Qur'an also says that life was created from clay (15:26),
dust
(30:20),
sperm (16:4 - no mention of eggs, of course), and nothing
(3:47).
I'd
say
you're just picking and choosing your verses and ignoring the
ones
that
are
less favorable to your argument.
it says first man created from clay or dust. human beings created
from
nutfah amshaaj. but all living things come from water. this is not
contradiction. you were made from sperm and egg but that does not
deny
all
living things came from water. you have no answer so you try to
twist.
Egyption creation myths, that predate your qu'ran, also say life
came
from
water, Atun (AKA Ra, AKA, Khepri) arose from Nu (watery chaos):
"Heaven
and
earth did not exist. And the things of the earth did not yet exist.
I
raised
them out of Nu, from their stagnant state. I have made things out of
that
which I have already made, and they came from my mouth.".
can you cite a pre-islamic text that actually say what you write
above?
I did.
no you didnt. you gave a quote with no citation. i have no idea when that
was written. it could have been written last week or 50,000,000 years ago.
is there a pre-islamic text that say that?
Yes, it is from Egyption Creation Mythology. Much much older than your book.
If you want to look it up, you can look up Ra, Khepri, Atun and Nu. All you
need is there. I will not do your work for you. You do it your self.
also heaven and earth not made from water. that is wrong. quran does
not
say
heaven and earth made from water. quran say every living thing is from
water. and that is correct.
And so does the quote, or do you have a problem with reading
comprehension.
Do the words context and implies escape you? Yes, they do, when it is
convinient for you. Read it again: "... And the things of the earth did
not
yet exist. I raised them out of Nu, from their stagnant state. ... "
Context, figure it out.
i dont even know the meaning of "nu". could you prove it means water. also
the text whether it is new or old is wrong about having the earth and
heaven
from water. if this really is pre-islamic isnt it interesting that the
quran
repeat the true part but leave out the error?
You can look it up, can't you? You can type, you can find your own way to a
search engine of your choice. Your ignorance is not my problem.
As for error or not, you do not know what is true and what is error. For
starters all such creation myth is simply allegory.
If you do not like the Egyption one, we can find a few others, most noteably
a classification of creation myths known as "earth divers". Face it, your
quran is not from your god. Other myths say more or less the same thing.
These other gods and your god can not both exist, unless you want to make
the claim your god influenced these other myths. But that is a big can of
worms. You're welcome to open it and unleash the chaos. But, you will have
to do your own research. I am not here to do the leg work for you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Saab Siddiqui" |
|
| Title: Re: Life originated from water in the Noble Quran |
29 Dec 2003 01:59:19 PM |
|
|
The Holy Kafir <x@x.x> wrote in message
news:bsnqvi$c118$1@news3.infoave.net...
Egyption creation myths, that predate your qu'ran, also say life
came
from
water, Atun (AKA Ra, AKA, Khepri) arose from Nu (watery chaos):
"Heaven
and
earth did not exist. And the things of the earth did not yet
exist.
I
raised
them out of Nu, from their stagnant state. I have made things out
of
that
which I have already made, and they came from my mouth.".
can you cite a pre-islamic text that actually say what you write
above?
I did.
no you didnt. you gave a quote with no citation. i have no idea when
that
was written. it could have been written last week or 50,000,000 years
ago.
is there a pre-islamic text that say that?
Yes, it is from Egyption Creation Mythology. Much much older than your
book.
no you just claim it is there. you want me to just believe what you say at
face value? i dont think so. like i say above "it could have been written
last week or 50,000,000 years ago." present evidence that it was said before
before quran was written. surely there is pre-islamic manuscript or
inscription right? if you cant present no evidence that the quote is
pre-islamic why should i believe you?
If you want to look it up, you can look up Ra, Khepri, Atun and Nu. All
you
need is there. I will not do your work for you. You do it your self.
do the work for me? you the one making the claim! you write "Egyption
creation myths, that predate your qu'ran, also say life came from water".
you gave a quote but you dont give any citation or even back up your claim
that this predate the quran.
also heaven and earth not made from water. that is wrong. quran does
not
say
heaven and earth made from water. quran say every living thing is
from
water. and that is correct.
And so does the quote, or do you have a problem with reading
comprehension.
Do the words context and implies escape you? Yes, they do, when it is
convinient for you. Read it again: "... And the things of the earth
did
not
yet exist. I raised them out of Nu, from their stagnant state. ... "
Context, figure it out.
i dont even know the meaning of "nu". could you prove it means water.
also
the text whether it is new or old is wrong about having the earth and
heaven
from water. if this really is pre-islamic isnt it interesting that the
quran
repeat the true part but leave out the error?
You can look it up, can't you?
so you assert nu mean water but you dont have to prove it?
As for error or not, you do not know what is true and what is error. For
starters all such creation myth is simply allegory.
you expect me to believe that quran get this idea from previous beliefs or
writings but you cannot even prove these beliefs existed before the quran
and even if it were true how funny that quran keep the accurate part but
discard the inaccurate part. i ask you again if quran copy from earlier
beliefs how it know to say all life come from water but leave out part about
heaven and earth come from water? it seems you have no answer.
If you do not like the Egyption one, we can find a few others, most
noteably
a classification of creation myths known as "earth divers". Face it, your
quran is not from your god.
why because you thow out the word "earth divers"? you should present
evidence of pre-islamic writing saying this not just assert such and expect
me to believe you.
--
saab siddiqui al mujahed
email me at saab_siddiqui(a)palestinemail.com
but you have to change the "(a)" to "@" for it to work
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Holy Kafir" |
|
| Title: Re: Life originated from water in the Noble Quran |
29 Dec 2003 02:13:25 PM |
|
|
"Saab Siddiqui" <p@O.g> wrote in message
news:vv11t1a3j9bt59@corp.supernews.com...
The Holy Kafir <x@x.x> wrote in message
news:bsnqvi$c118$1@news3.infoave.net...
Egyption creation myths, that predate your qu'ran, also say life
came
from
water, Atun (AKA Ra, AKA, Khepri) arose from Nu (watery chaos):
"Heaven
and
earth did not exist. And the things of the earth did not yet
exist.
I
raised
them out of Nu, from their stagnant state. I have made things
out
of
that
which I have already made, and they came from my mouth.".
can you cite a pre-islamic text that actually say what you write
above?
I did.
no you didnt. you gave a quote with no citation. i have no idea when
that
was written. it could have been written last week or 50,000,000 years
ago.
is there a pre-islamic text that say that?
Yes, it is from Egyption Creation Mythology. Much much older than your
book.
no you just claim it is there. you want me to just believe what you say at
face value? i dont think so. like i say above "it could have been written
last week or 50,000,000 years ago." present evidence that it was said
before
before quran was written. surely there is pre-islamic manuscript or
inscription right? if you cant present no evidence that the quote is
pre-islamic why should i believe you?
If you want to believe it is not pre-quranic, be my guest. Your choice to be
ignorant is not my problem or responsibility.
If you want to look it up, you can look up Ra, Khepri, Atun and Nu. All
you
need is there. I will not do your work for you. You do it your self.
do the work for me? you the one making the claim! you write "Egyption
creation myths, that predate your qu'ran, also say life came from water".
you gave a quote but you dont give any citation or even back up your claim
that this predate the quran.
You know who Ra is in Egyption mythology, don't you?
also heaven and earth not made from water. that is wrong. quran
does
not
say
heaven and earth made from water. quran say every living thing is
from
water. and that is correct.
And so does the quote, or do you have a problem with reading
comprehension.
Do the words context and implies escape you? Yes, they do, when it
is
convinient for you. Read it again: "... And the things of the earth
did
not
yet exist. I raised them out of Nu, from their stagnant state. ... "
Context, figure it out.
i dont even know the meaning of "nu". could you prove it means water.
also
the text whether it is new or old is wrong about having the earth and
heaven
from water. if this really is pre-islamic isnt it interesting that the
quran
repeat the true part but leave out the error?
You can look it up, can't you?
so you assert nu mean water but you dont have to prove it?
Your choice to be ignorant is not my problem or responsibility.
As for error or not, you do not know what is true and what is error. For
starters all such creation myth is simply allegory.
you expect me to believe that quran get this idea from previous beliefs or
writings but you cannot even prove these beliefs existed before the quran
and even if it were true how funny that quran keep the accurate part but
discard the inaccurate part. i ask you again if quran copy from earlier
beliefs how it know to say all life come from water but leave out part
about
heaven and earth come from water? it seems you have no answer.
I can prove these myths were pre-quranic, I choose to let you confirm. Your
choice to be ignorant is not my problem or responsibility.
I have not made the assertion that the quran got these ideas from Egyption
mythology. Boy, for someone that is so insitant that rules of logic always
override context, you sure have made an error.
My point, which you are unable to comprehend, apparently, because you want
to argue that which was not even eluded, was that another creation myth also
uses water as a source for life. Your position is that since this is in the
qu'ran, that it is evideince of devine origin. Thus, another source, not
influenced by islam, must also be of devine origin. Thus, Ra and your allah
can not both exist or you must claim they are the same thing. Which of
course will negate your allah as the definition must be changed.
If you do not like the Egyption one, we can find a few others, most
noteably
a classification of creation myths known as "earth divers". Face it,
your
quran is not from your god.
why because you thow out the word "earth divers"? you should present
evidence of pre-islamic writing saying this not just assert such and
expect
me to believe you.
Your choice to be ignorant is not my problem or responsibility.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Saab Siddiqui" |
|
| Title: Re: Life originated from water in the Noble Quran |
29 Dec 2003 02:52:49 PM |
|
|
The Holy Kafir <x@x.x> wrote in message
news:bsq1t6$d4el$1@news3.infoave.net...
"Saab Siddiqui" <p@O.g> wrote in message
news:vv11t1a3j9bt59@corp.supernews.com...
The Holy Kafir <x@x.x> wrote in message
news:bsnqvi$c118$1@news3.infoave.net...
Egyption creation myths, that predate your qu'ran, also say
life
came
from
water, Atun (AKA Ra, AKA, Khepri) arose from Nu (watery
chaos):
"Heaven
and
earth did not exist. And the things of the earth did not yet
exist.
I
raised
them out of Nu, from their stagnant state. I have made things
out
of
that
which I have already made, and they came from my mouth.".
can you cite a pre-islamic text that actually say what you write
above?
I did.
no you didnt. you gave a quote with no citation. i have no idea when
that
was written. it could have been written last week or 50,000,000
years
ago.
is there a pre-islamic text that say that?
Yes, it is from Egyption Creation Mythology. Much much older than your
book.
no you just claim it is there. you want me to just believe what you say
at
face value? i dont think so. like i say above "it could have been
written
last week or 50,000,000 years ago." present evidence that it was said
before
before quran was written. surely there is pre-islamic manuscript or
inscription right? if you cant present no evidence that the quote is
pre-islamic why should i believe you?
If you want to believe it is not pre-quranic, be my guest. Your choice to
be
ignorant is not my problem or responsibility.
you poison the well now. what i say is that you assert it is pre-islamic and
i ask you to prove that it is pre-islamic. he who asserts must prove. dont
claim it is predate quran if you have no evidence to back it up. and dont be
mad at me if you have no evidence.
If you want to look it up, you can look up Ra, Khepri, Atun and Nu.
All
you
need is there. I will not do your work for you. You do it your self.
do the work for me? you the one making the claim! you write "Egyption
creation myths, that predate your qu'ran, also say life came from
water".
you gave a quote but you dont give any citation or even back up your
claim
that this predate the quran.
You know who Ra is in Egyption mythology, don't you?
i think sun god but i know maybe nothing outside of that and maybe even
there i am wrong. the issue here is that you claim it predate quran. so i am
asking you to prove it predate quran. thats simple. you asserted and he who
asserts must prove so now i ask you to prove your assertion.
also heaven and earth not made from water. that is wrong. quran
does
not
say
heaven and earth made from water. quran say every living thing
is
from
water. and that is correct.
And so does the quote, or do you have a problem with reading
comprehension.
Do the words context and implies escape you? Yes, they do, when it
is
convinient for you. Read it again: "... And the things of the
earth
did
not
yet exist. I raised them out of Nu, from their stagnant state. ...
"
Context, figure it out.
i dont even know the meaning of "nu". could you prove it means
water.
also
the text whether it is new or old is wrong about having the earth
and
heaven
from water. if this really is pre-islamic isnt it interesting that
the
quran
repeat the true part but leave out the error?
You can look it up, can't you?
so you assert nu mean water but you dont have to prove it?
Your choice to be ignorant is not my problem or responsibility.
it is your responsibility to bring evidence for your claims. you make a
claim and when you are asked for evidence of your claim you call other
people ignorant. ad hominem is all you got now?
As for error or not, you do not know what is true and what is error.
For
starters all such creation myth is simply allegory.
you expect me to believe that quran get this idea from previous beliefs
or
writings but you cannot even prove these beliefs existed before the
quran
and even if it were true how funny that quran keep the accurate part but
discard the inaccurate part. i ask you again if quran copy from earlier
beliefs how it know to say all life come from water but leave out part
about
heaven and earth come from water? it seems you have no answer.
I can prove these myths were pre-quranic, I choose to let you confirm.
right. you assert but you leave it up to me to prove it right or wrong.
I have not made the assertion that the quran got these ideas from Egyption
mythology.
sorry. maybe i read that in your text. i thought that was what you saying
when you say first that egyptians say it before quran and then follow by
saying quran not from god. i assume you mean quran is not from god because
egyptian say it before so i thought you mean quran got it from egyptians.
maybe i make mistake.
My point, which you are unable to comprehend, apparently, because you want
to argue that which was not even eluded, was that another creation myth
also
uses water as a source for life. Your position is that since this is in
the
qu'ran, that it is evideince of devine origin. Thus, another source, not
influenced by islam, must also be of devine origin. Thus, Ra and your
allah
can not both exist or you must claim they are the same thing. Which of
course will negate your allah as the definition must be changed.
suppose pre-islamic text say it. the question still stands how author of
quran knew to take out the wrong part. but again you have not proven it is
pre-islamic. you only assert it.
If you do not like the Egyption one, we can find a few others, most
noteably
a classification of creation myths known as "earth divers". Face it,
your
quran is not from your god.
why because you thow out the word "earth divers"? you should present
evidence of pre-islamic writing saying this not just assert such and
expect
me to believe you.
Your choice to be ignorant is not my problem or responsibility.
right you make assertion but when you asked for proof you call others
ignorant. it make me assume you have no evidence only ad hominem
--
saab siddiqui al mujahed
email me at saab_siddiqui(a)palestinemail.com
but you have to change the "(a)" to "@" for it to work
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Holy Kafir" |
|
| Title: Re: Life originated from water in the Noble Quran |
29 Dec 2003 03:52:33 PM |
|
|
"Saab Siddiqui" <p@O.g> wrote in message
news:vv1518ksa6mee5@corp.supernews.com...
The Holy Kafir <x@x.x> wrote in message
news:bsq1t6$d4el$1@news3.infoave.net...
"Saab Siddiqui" <p@O.g> wrote in message
news:vv11t1a3j9bt59@corp.supernews.com...
The Holy Kafir <x@x.x> wrote in message
news:bsnqvi$c118$1@news3.infoave.net...
Egyption creation myths, that predate your qu'ran, also say
life
came
from
water, Atun (AKA Ra, AKA, Khepri) arose from Nu (watery
chaos):
"Heaven
and
earth did not exist. And the things of the earth did not yet
exist.
I
raised
them out of Nu, from their stagnant state. I have made
things
out
of
that
which I have already made, and they came from my mouth.".
can you cite a pre-islamic text that actually say what you
write
above?
I did.
no you didnt. you gave a quote with no citation. i have no idea
when
that
was written. it could have been written last week or 50,000,000
years
ago.
is there a pre-islamic text that say that?
Yes, it is from Egyption Creation Mythology. Much much older than
your
book.
no you just claim it is there. you want me to just believe what you
say
at
face value? i dont think so. like i say above "it could have been
written
last week or 50,000,000 years ago." present evidence that it was said
before
before quran was written. surely there is pre-islamic manuscript or
inscription right? if you cant present no evidence that the quote is
pre-islamic why should i believe you?
If you wan | | | | | | | | | | | |
