Hello, I am a new member of this site and this group as well. I hope that I succeed being a good member through the passage of time. The first topic I would like to discuss is the one you see in the title. The Qur'anic miracles, specifically the scientific ones.
Many Islamic scholars, including Dr. Zakir Naik(wiki page) and Adnan Oktar(wiki page) refer these to be the proof of the claim 'There is a God'.
The claims, however, are that many Qur'anic verses mention scientific facts, which are recently discovered, 1400 years before. If you are new to this, you can visit this site for taking a look at the claim.
To me, it is a ruthless attempt to relate some vague verses of the book to some scientific facts(and theories) anyway.
However, I wanted to hear you view on this. Thanks for understanding if you did.
That's exactly correct, they are all vague. If you are going to make a prediction, specially implying that you are a god, your predictions need to be spot on and full of details.
Saying there will be wars, it's like saying there will be meteor collisions. Now if they would have provided the exact speed of light, the nature of quantum physics or the details of evolution, i'd be impressed. Saying there are streams of water under the ocean, is something anyone could have noticed by simply looking at the ocean currents, which any good sailor would do.
All the other claims are just as silly.
The problem is that it is misguiding people all along. Actually, refuting nonsense is hard, isn't it?
If you were to refute all the claims particularly point to point, it would have been like a punishment, wouldn't it?
lol, yeah, I suppose so.
There are sites that have already debunked all this. Just give them the links.
What kind of terrible task they have completed(maybe)! *salutes*
I still want to know how the salt and fresh waters somehow maintain their separation, never mind how the mountains are not moved. Whoever wrote that 1) never did a chemistry experiment and 2) doesn't know thing one about seismology.
Like that's news...
Actually when you say the exact same thing to them. They begin to say,'Sorry, I don't want to discuss anything with you, your knowledge of science is too weak!'. Believe me, I suffered from the same dogmatism.
[chuckle] My knowledge of science is too weak, eh? Do I have to drag out my diploma from Case Tech (B.S.E.E.), which included four semesters in physics, plus one of nuclear physics, two in chemistry, and 30 years experience in electronics? I've had those conversations elsewhere, and they didn't go very well ... for them!
Well, where did you have those conversations?
It was a few years ago on another discussion board. It was there where I learned the almost invariant nature of such "discussions," if you can call them that. They bring up their points, I counter them, they bring up more points which also get countered, and in the end, they either go silent or get VERY upset and start in with ad hominems or other suchlike specious input.
One quality I can't help remembering about those conversations is that the other parties were, I suspect, rather on the young end of the spectrum, early 20s, if I had to guess. Me? I have a few more miles on my odometer (I'm 64), and I don't think their book-learned quran was ready to collide with someone who had a touch more real-world under his belt, if you'll pardon my blowing my own horn a bit.
Disprove god to them with simple logic. i.e., if there were a god it would have freewill. In having freewill it would be able to become immoral. Having the potential to become immoral would prevent it from fulfilling the definition of god. Therefore, there cannot be a god. It would only take 15 seconds or so to make this point with them.
P.S.: Welcome to Atheist Nexus and this group.