Re: God Thread, Pt. III

[rwo power]

Gilgamesh (Epic of Gilgamesh) is very interesting though. Mainly because it's like the oldest story out there. I don't think Bible was plagiarized from it but that the author was the same. Can't be proved though

Well, in the Epic of Gilgamesh (sorry, I used the German term "Gilgamesh Epos") you still have a polytheist background, while in the Bible you have a monotheist background. So if that was the same author, s/he appears to be somewhat confused

(Although the Bible does start with "elohim" who created the world in 6 days, with "elohim" apparently originally being a plural form, too.)

[Potential]

'elohim' (אלוהים) is a name for god, what's interesting though that the last two letter is used for multiplying, like the 's' in English. 'eloh' into 'elohem' is equilivent to god into gods.

I don't know if it's clear if not, I can try to explain better (I don't remember what it's called in English)

[rwo power]

'elohim' (אלוהים) is a name for god, what's interesting though that the last two letter is used for multiplying, like the 's' in English. 'eloh' into 'elohem' is equilivent to god into gods.

I don't know if it's clear if not, I can try to explain better (I don't remember what it's called in English)

A plural suffix?

[Potential]

'elohim' (אלוהים) is a name for god, what's interesting though that the last two letter is used for multiplying, like the 's' in English. 'eloh' into 'elohem' is equilivent to god into gods.

I don't know if it's clear if not, I can try to explain better (I don't remember what it's called in English)

A plural suffix?

Exactly! Everytime you are reading a translated version of the bible, you better change that god into gods, that he into they. Because in the original bible, the word is gods and not god.

[RealGunner]

Gilgamesh (Epic of Gilgamesh) is very interesting though. Mainly because it's like the oldest story out there. I don't think Bible was plagiarized from it but that the author was the same. Can't be proved though

Well, in the Epic of Gilgamesh (sorry, I used the German term "Gilgamesh Epos") you still have a polytheist background, while in the Bible you have a monotheist background. So if that was the same author, s/he appears to be somewhat confused

(Although the Bible does start with "elohim" who created the world in 6 days, with "elohim" apparently originally being a plural form, too.)

I said they share the same author not that the both text are intact

Things from that far back can't be taken literally unless there is evidence of the text being well preserved.

[RealGunner]

'elohim' (אלוהים) is a name for god, what's interesting though that the last two letter is used for multiplying, like the 's' in English. 'eloh' into 'elohem' is equilivent to god into gods.

I don't know if it's clear if not, I can try to explain better (I don't remember what it's called in English)

A plural suffix?

Exactly! Everytime you are reading a translated version of the bible, you better change that god into gods, that he into they. Because in the original bible, the word is gods and not god.

It's not literally translated into "gods" but something like "we" if you know what i mean. It's the same in the Quran

[rwo power]

It's not literally translated into "gods" but something like "we" if you know what i mean. It's the same in the Quran

Actually this is not the pluralis majestatis (like Kings say "we" instead of "I") - this "elohim" is not God talking of himself, but a narrator talking about God(s), and in that respect it really points to an even older version of the story coming from some older polytheistic myth. Even though it nowadays it is a singular name of the God-entity, obviously the etymology is different.

[VivaStPauli]

Historical evidence of the existence of Jesus, Moses and Muhammad all there. You can find the tomb of Muhammad with his grave inside in Saudi Arabia. There is every detail of where they all came from and when and how they died and how they all spent their life.

The prime source for the existence of all three of those are their own holy books, though. There are little to no independent accounts for the existence of either of Jesus or Moses, I'm agnostic towards the existence of Moses and Jesus, though I think Jesus probably existed. I just don't think any of the miracles attributed to either of them are real, hell, the Jews most likely never even were in Egpyt.

Mohammed might have existed, but he sure as hell ain't magic.

The details you mention, mostly come from the Bible and the Quran. Which aren't historical sources.

Compared to that, Greek mythology looks like Harry potter.

I don't see the distinction TBH, it's equally ridiculous to me.

There is ample evidence for large parts of Greek mythology, at least for the non-supernatural parts of it. Which is the same with all the Jesus-y stuff. There is plenty of evidence that there might have been a preacher named Jesus of Nazareth, but there's even more evidence of Alexander the Great, just no evidence of his supposed demigod status.

We've found the ruins of Troy now, so by bible-thumper logic, it should follow that Apollo is real, no?
After all, the existence of historical accounts of biblical figures supposedly means that miracles are true, don't they?

of course i understand that, i have been in that situation many times. But common sense always prevails though

How so? What part of common sense makes you go "yeah, of course that dead guy stood up again", and at the same time say "no way Achilles was only vulnerable at his heels!"?

Why is one more believable than the other?
I really never have heard a satisfying answer to this.

[Potential]

A plural suffix?

Exactly! Everytime you are reading a translated version of the bible, you better change that god into gods, that he into they. Because in the original bible, the word is gods and not god.

It's not literally translated into "gods" but something like "we" if you know what i mean. It's the same in the Quran

Perhaps an example from Arabic would elaborate more, you know I speak Arabic and Hebrew as a mother-tongue so I would be able to provide accurate tranlsations.

[McLewis]

I would add to Viva's point that the ruins for the Oracle at Delphi have also been found and are a major attraction in Greece.

[RealGunner]

It's not literally translated into "gods" but something like "we" if you know what i mean. It's the same in the Quran

Actually this is not the pluralis majestatis (like Kings say "we" instead of "I") - this "elohim" is not God talking of himself, but a narrator talking about God(s), and in that respect it really points to an even older version of the story coming from some older polytheistic myth. Even though it nowadays it is a singular name of the God-entity, obviously the etymology is different.

Yea i was thinking of the wrong analogy.

Therefore never mind potential, i was thinking of something else.

@Viva i will reply to you tomorrow as i have to go out

[stevieg8]

RG, there are major discrepancies between the origin myths, attributes of god (aside from unity), and ethics of all of those groups. If you want to claim they're all the same thing, that's fine by me - and actually fits my personal view better. But how can you possibly claim that Islam is "right" or that religious texts are word of God? Under that formulation, there are major contradictions that God specifically gave, things that do not match up and work. The only way Schmidt's theory is workable is if we're discussing human expression of spirituality, rather than divine word.

Also, to claim "Gods are not "born" or "raised" nor "killed"" is working with YOUR definition of a god, not a universal one. Just because it doesn't fit the Islamic definition of god does not mean it's not a god.

I am not talking from Islamic point of view mate but rather a general theist one. I personally (i.e not other Muslims ) believe in one God for every religion. It's the same God whether it's Judaism or Christianity. With Abrahamic religions it gets even more close. I have not said anything against Judaism or Christianity. Think we both touched on this a bit before, I respect the old testament a lot. I am nearly at the end of it now and if you ever get the chance of reading the Quran, you will see that the views are 80% alike. My apologies if i offended you or your beliefs in any way since i thought i wasn't saying anything diabolical. If you are interested i can PM you some of the ideas i have and we can talk about it related to Judaism and Islam

Schmidt's theory works when we are talking in a general sense about God. For example talking about his characteristics. Of course i can't sit here and say that most of the world believes in that same god which isn't true however what i am saying is that The idea of that same God which we worship now was not all of a sudden invented by Abraham but that it was there before and was not exclusive to Middle East.

Finally, the general definition of God can be said as "the one Supreme Being" I don't think it's wrong is it ?

You didn't offend me at all, I was simply pointing out that what you're saying is incompatible with typical interpretations. It seems like we agree very closely on these points, I'd love for you to PM me with those specifics. Like I said earlier, I don't know nearly as much about Islam as I'd like to.

[stevieg8]

It's not literally translated into "gods" but something like "we" if you know what i mean. It's the same in the Quran

Actually this is not the pluralis majestatis (like Kings say "we" instead of "I") - this "elohim" is not God talking of himself, but a narrator talking about God(s), and in that respect it really points to an even older version of the story coming from some older polytheistic myth. Even though it nowadays it is a singular name of the God-entity, obviously the etymology is different.

To clarify some misconceptions about the word "elohim": first of all, it is not even close to the only name of God used in the original Hebrew, so you wouldn't have to correct all of the translations, just some.

Secondly, it is not used as the royal "we." At least not in the Hebrew.

Third, the problem with this is that although Potential is correct that the suffix typically denotes plural, it isn't quite that simple in this case. The problem is that the singular "god" as it relates to elohim doesn't quite exist. You don't see the term "eloho" (which is what the male singular would be) or any variations of that.

This topic is actually directly discussed in numerous Jewish commentaries, and is thought to reference the multifaceted nature of God. Just like Muslims have the various names of God, Jews also consider God to have many different "forms." This is the wrong word to describe it, because it's a human conception. God is one in truth, but we perceive God in numerous different ways - it is the only way we can comprehend the concept which extends beyond the human intellect. By adding the suffix to the end, the text is teaching its readers, not indicating polytheism.

At least that's the explanation presented. Considering none of the other names of God used in the original Hebrew are plural, it makes more sense than thinking its a historical hint to polytheism. It's only an inconsistency when taken at absolutely pure face value, but even the historical approaches to explaining why the contradiction is there aren't particularly satisfying.

[stevieg8]

Historical evidence of the existence of Jesus, Moses and Muhammad all there. You can find the tomb of Muhammad with his grave inside in Saudi Arabia. There is every detail of where they all came from and when and how they died and how they all spent their life.

The prime source for the existence of all three of those are their own holy books, though. There are little to no independent accounts for the existence of either of Jesus or Moses, I'm agnostic towards the existence of Moses and Jesus, though I think Jesus probably existed. I just don't think any of the miracles attributed to either of them are real, hell, the Jews most likely never even were in Egpyt.

I agree with your conclusions, which is why I cut out the rest of this quote, but there is information out there you should be conscious of. Jesus's existence HAS been corroborated by outside sources, ranging from the Gemara (Jewish texts of law, which were written contemporary with Jesus' supposed time) to Roman historians who also were writing histories, both at the time and shortly afterwards. None of these attribute supernatural powers to him - so like I said, I agree with your conclusions - but there is external corroboration.

The same is true for the Jews in Egypt. Although the evidence does not specify what we would consider modern day Jews, there are records found in Egypt of a large slave population during the timeframe referenced by the Old Testament, as well as an uprising occurring.

There is also geographical reason to believe that there was a large flood in the Mediterranean basin, concurrent with the descriptions of the great flood from the Old Testament and (I believe) the Quran.

This not only doesn't prove anything, but it actually makes MORE sense from a historiography point of view. If you think these texts are origin myths from ancient peoples written down by their shamans or doctors or whatever, then it would make sense that they're communicating warped and changed versions of the oral histories they've heard for generations. There was particularly heavy rainfall one year which caused massive flooding and wiped out much of the population, so 500 years later, we have a story of a vengeful God bringing a deluge that lasted for 40 straight days, and the Earth was only repopulated because of the one holy man who survived it.

It's just better to have your facts straight for debating purposes.

[rwo power]

To clarify some misconceptions about the word "elohim": first of all, it is not even close to the only name of God used in the original Hebrew, so you wouldn't have to correct all of the translations, just some.

Secondly, it is not used as the royal "we." At least not in the Hebrew.

Third, the problem with this is that although Potential is correct that the suffix typically denotes plural, it isn't quite that simple in this case. The problem is that the singular "god" as it relates to elohim doesn't quite exist. You don't see the term "eloho" (which is what the male singular would be) or any variations of that.

This topic is actually directly discussed in numerous Jewish commentaries, and is thought to reference the multifaceted nature of God. Just like Muslims have the various names of God, Jews also consider God to have many different "forms." This is the wrong word to describe it, because it's a human conception. God is one in truth, but we perceive God in numerous different ways - it is the only way we can comprehend the concept which extends beyond the human intellect. By adding the suffix to the end, the text is teaching its readers, not indicating polytheism.

At least that's the explanation presented. Considering none of the other names of God used in the original Hebrew are plural, it makes more sense than thinking its a historical hint to polytheism. It's only an inconsistency when taken at absolutely pure face value, but even the historical approaches to explaining why the contradiction is there aren't particularly satisfying.

On the other hand, that use of "elohim" appears in the very first part of the Bible in a storyline that has quite some similarities with the Sumerian myth. So IMO one can't absolutely discount the possibility that this word is a remnant of the older myth which was later incorporated into the newer mythology with the possible root meaning of the word then redefined to a given name.

I'm looking at this from a linguistic point of view, btw. Such changes of meaning of words appear ever so often in living languages, so why not there, too? (Look for example at the word "gay" which only 50 or so years ago was completely innocent and meant "happy", while today it got a completely different connotation. Or a word like "nice" which in medieval times used to mean "naive, somewhat stupid" while today the meaning became astonishingly positive.)

[stevieg8]

To clarify some misconceptions about the word "elohim": first of all, it is not even close to the only name of God used in the original Hebrew, so you wouldn't have to correct all of the translations, just some.

Secondly, it is not used as the royal "we." At least not in the Hebrew.

Third, the problem with this is that although Potential is correct that the suffix typically denotes plural, it isn't quite that simple in this case. The problem is that the singular "god" as it relates to elohim doesn't quite exist. You don't see the term "eloho" (which is what the male singular would be) or any variations of that.

This topic is actually directly discussed in numerous Jewish commentaries, and is thought to reference the multifaceted nature of God. Just like Muslims have the various names of God, Jews also consider God to have many different "forms." This is the wrong word to describe it, because it's a human conception. God is one in truth, but we perceive God in numerous different ways - it is the only way we can comprehend the concept which extends beyond the human intellect. By adding the suffix to the end, the text is teaching its readers, not indicating polytheism.

At least that's the explanation presented. Considering none of the other names of God used in the original Hebrew are plural, it makes more sense than thinking its a historical hint to polytheism. It's only an inconsistency when taken at absolutely pure face value, but even the historical approaches to explaining why the contradiction is there aren't particularly satisfying.

On the other hand, that use of "elohim" appears in the very first part of the Bible in a storyline that has quite some similarities with the Sumerian myth. So IMO one can't absolutely discount the possibility that this word is a remnant of the older myth which was later incorporated into the newer mythology with the possible root meaning of the word then redefined to a given name.

I'm looking at this from a linguistic point of view, btw. Such changes of meaning of words appear ever so often in living languages, so why not there, too? (Look for example at the word "gay" which only 50 or so years ago was completely innocent and meant "happy", while today it got a completely different connotation. Or a word like "nice" which in medieval times used to mean "naive, somewhat stupid" while today the meaning became astonishingly positive.)

The problem is that Elohim is used very commonly throughout the text, not just in sections that relate to the Sumerian myths. I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just trying to find an explanation that doesn't have logical inconsistencies. Personally, I feel that the Bible can be viewed in the same manner as philosophical texts - that it was written with both surface and deeper meanings intended, and that it was put together by very knowledgeable people. There is much to learn from these texts and the things written afterwards, even if you don't take them as the word of God. In this manner, it makes perfect sense to me that this seeming contradiction exists in order to indicate that there is something deeper.

[rwo power]

The problem is that Elohim is used very commonly throughout the text, not just in sections that relate to the Sumerian myths.

Well, the Bible is a transcription of a vast corpus of oral traditions and the version in use nowadays was reworked several times by priests and other people in power (just look at the Councils of Nicaea where a bunch of bishops decided what to put in and throw out of the Bible canon). So it is very likely that a lot of the original material was re-written in a way those editors considered the most appropriate at that time.

One possibility for the elohim conundrum is that originally it really came from a word for Gods in a plural form, but while it changed the meaning from a term for "gods" to "one of the names of God", it was then inserted and used with just the latter meaning in mind in the following texts.

Moreover, another problem other than language change is that orthography wasn't fixed at all in the past, so of course there can always be irregularities and even plain errors.

I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just trying to find an explanation that doesn't have logical inconsistencies.

The biggest problem is that natural languages can't really be dissected only by logical analysis as they have lots of inconsistencies in themselves. It is not as easy as using a mathematical code which can only be interpreted in one way. Moreover, language can only be viewed in relation to the culture it was used in as every word has an accompanying word field that was defined by the culture and speaker (as a matter of fact, word fields can even differ between speakers of the same language within the same time). Thus it is extremely difficult for any modern reader of the bible to be really sure about how things originally were meant. That is why in theology there is a huge department only concerned with exegesis, that is trying to understand what the texts in the bible actually mean. (I have worked together with a professor of catholic theology for a while, assisting in the development of an ICR system to scan texts in Hebrew and Old Greek, so I heard a bit about that subject from him )

Personally, I feel that the Bible can be viewed in the same manner as philosophical texts - that it was written with both surface and deeper meanings intended, and that it was put together by very knowledgeable people. There is much to learn from these texts and the things written afterwards, even if you don't take them as the word of God. In this manner, it makes perfect sense to me that this seeming contradiction exists in order to indicate that there is something deeper.

Well, in my understanding it was actually put together by a bunch of people who wanted to unify the Christian religion and who tried to compromise at best as they could to accommodate the different flavours of Christianity in the early centuries after the texts were actually written down. (Another problem of the Bible was that the OT was a very late transcription of an old oral tradition, while the NT was written down 80-200 years after the events actually transpired. Moreover, if you look at the gospels, you can see that each of the authors had their own particular view of the event, and if you add the recently found gospel of Judas which belonged to the texts thrown out by Constantine and his fellows, you get even another version of the stories.)

In my eyes the content of the Bible is much less "written with both surface and deeper meanings intended", but far more a pile of texts that was the smallest denominator between Constatine and the bishops in the Council of Nicaea.

[Potential]

http://www.fxp.co.il/showthread.php?t=5781053

Don't mind with google translate, it'll not help you.

Apparently, elohim is a plural.
לֹא-יִהְיֶה לְךָ אֱלֹהִים אֲחֵרִים, עַל-פָּנָי

The word in italic is only used for sets and cannot be used for non-plural, with the word in bold being elohim.

Sentence translation: You shall have no other gods before me.

A person on the forum also argues that it's used as a plural because of having so much powers, and there is a non-plural word for elohim being eloah אלוה

[VivaStPauli]

I agree with your conclusions, which is why I cut out the rest of this quote, but there is information out there you should be conscious of. Jesus's existence HAS been corroborated by outside sources, ranging from the Gemara (Jewish texts of law, which were written contemporary with Jesus' supposed time) to Roman historians who also were writing histories, both at the time and shortly afterwards. None of these attribute supernatural powers to him - so like I said, I agree with your conclusions - but there is external corroboration.

I love to be nitpicky, so I'll just interject: that's why I said the holy books are their prime sources, not their only sources.

[Casciavit]

Since, I love reading about others beliefs, and opinions, and why they think that or this way. Can you Atheists give me a reason, on why you think, that God does not exist?

[Potential]

Since, I love reading about others beliefs, and opinions, and why they think that or this way. Can you Atheists give me a reason, on why you think, that God does not exist?

Because there is no evidence supporting god's existence whatsoever!

[Casciavit]

Since, I love reading about others beliefs, and opinions, and why they think that or this way. Can you Atheists give me a reason, on why you think, that God does not exist?

Because there is no evidence supporting God's existence whatsoever!

Holy books, prophets and messengers, countless signs that were said in the Quran that have come true, ex- When it will be hot in winter (and vice versa). When the length of days is stretched, i.e. a journey of a few days is covered in a matter of hours. When lies prevail over the truth. Various wines will be consumed excessively. All of these have come true.There's more signs on this
website:http://www.freewebs.com/proofofislam/predictionsinislam.htm.

And one of the biggest signs of gods existence? The cracking of the moon. Disbelievers believed Muhammad was a fraud, and they told Muhammad show us an action from god, Muhammad said he will swipe his finger and by the power of God the moon will split by two. It did. It talks more about it on this website http://www.answering-christianity.com/moon_split.htm and that website also talks about other scientific discoveries said in the Quran that have been backed by science.



Yup but there is no evidence of Gods existence

And btw a lot of you seem to say that if God does exist why does he not show himself. The whole point is to test the believers and to see whether they will be loyal to God and who will not be. It's a greater sign of faith to believe in something without ever seeing it. Our life is a test. Those who pass the test will go to Heaven, those who fail will go to Hell.

Saying that there is no evidence supporting God's existence is rubbish. When there is.

[Casciavit]

Stumbled across this, thought it was interesting.

CONGRATULATING AN ATHEIST

Normally, when I meet an atheist, the first thing I like to do is to congratulate him and say, " My special congratulations to you", because most of the people who believe in God are doing blind belief - he is a Christian, because his father is a Christian; he is a Hindu, because his father is a Hindu; the majority of the people in the world are blindly following the religion of their fathers. An atheist, on the other hand, even though he may belong to a religious family, uses his intellect to deny the existence of God; what ever concept or qualities of God he may have learnt in his religion may not seem to be logical to him.

My Muslim brothers may question me, "Zakir, why are you congratulating an atheist?" The reason that I am congratulating an atheist is because he agrees with the first part of the Shahada i.e. the Islamic Creed, ‘La ilaaha’ - meaning ‘there is no God’. So half my job is already done; now the only part left is ‘il lallah’ i.e. ‘BUT ALLAH’ which I shall do Insha Allah. With others (who are not atheists) I have to first remove from their minds the wrong concept of God they may have and then put the correct concept of one true God.


LOGICAL CONCEPT OF GOD


My first question to the atheist will be: "What is the definition of God?" For a person to say there is no God, he should know what is the meaning of God. If I hold a book and say that ‘this is a pen’, for the opposite person to say, ‘it is not a pen’, he should know what is the definition of a pen, even if he does not know nor is able to recognise or identify the object I am holding in my hand. For him to say this is not a pen, he should at least know what a pen means. Similarly for an atheist to say ‘there is no God’, he should at least know the concept of God. His concept of God would be derived from the surroundings in which he lives. The god that a large number of people worship has got human qualities - therefore he does not believe in such a god. Similarly a Muslim too does not and should not believe in such false gods.

If a non-Muslim believes that Islam is a merciless religion with something to do with terrorism; a religion which does not give rights to women; a religion which contradicts science; in his limited sense that non-Muslim is correct to reject such Islam. The problem is he has a wrong picture of Islam. Even I reject such a false picture of Islam, but at the same time, it becomes my duty as a Muslim to present the correct picture of Islam to that non-Muslim i.e. Islam is a merciful religion, it gives equal rights to the women, it is not incompatible with logic, reason and science; if I present the correct facts about Islam, that non-Muslim may Inshallah accept Islam.

Similarly the atheist rejects the false gods and the duty of every Muslim is to present the correct concept of God which he shall Insha Allah not refuse.

(You may refer to my article, ‘Concept of God in Islam’, for more details)


QUR’AN AND MODERN SCIENCE

The methods of proving the existence of God with usage of the material provided in the ‘Concept of God in Islam’ to an atheist may satisfy some but not all.

Many atheists demand a scientific proof for the existence of God. I agree that today is the age of science and technology. Let us use scientific knowledge to kill two birds with one stone, i.e. to prove the existence of God and simultaneously prove that the Qur’an is a revelation of God.

If a new object or a machine, which no one in the world has ever seen or heard of before, is shown to an atheist or any person and then a question is asked, " Who is the first person who will be able to provide details of the mechanism of this unknown object? After little bit of thinking, he will reply, ‘the creator of that object.’ Some may say ‘the producer’ while others may say ‘the manufacturer.’ What ever answer the person gives, keep it in your mind, the answer will always be either the creator, the producer, the manufacturer or some what of the same meaning, i.e. the person who has made it or created it. Don’t grapple with words, whatever answer he gives, the meaning will be same, therefore accept it.

SCIENTIFIC FACTS MENTIONED IN THE QUR’AN: for details on this subject please refer to my book, ‘THE QUR’AN AND MODERN SCIENCE – COMPATIBLE OR INCOMPATIBLE?


THEORY OF PROBABILITY


In mathematics there is a theory known as ‘Theory of Probability’. If you have two options, out of which one is right, and one is wrong, the chances that you will chose the right one is half, i.e. one out of the two will be correct. You have 50% chances of being correct. Similarly if you toss a coin the chances that your guess will be correct is 50% (1 out of 2) i.e. 1/2. If you toss a coin the second time, the chances that you will be correct in the second toss is again 50% i.e. half. But the chances that you will be correct in both the tosses is half multiplied by half (1/2 x 1/2) which is equal to 1/4 i.e. 50% of 50% which is equal to 25%. If you toss a coin the third time, chances that you will be correct all three times is (1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2) that is 1/8 or 50% of 50% of 50% that is 12½%.

A dice has got six sides. If you throw a dice and guess any number between 1 to 6, the chances that your guess will be correct is 1/6. If you throw the dice the second time, the chances that your guess will be correct in both the throws is (1/6 x 1/6) which is equal to 1/36. If you throw the dice the third time, the chances that all your three guesses are correct is (1/6 x 1/6 x 1/6) is equal to 1/216 that is less than 0.5 %.

Let us apply this theory of probability to the Qur’an, and assume that a person has guessed all the information that is mentioned in the Qur’an which was unknown at that time. Let us discuss the probability of all the guesses being simultaneously correct.

At the time when the Qur’an was revealed, people thought the world was flat, there are several other options for the shape of the earth. It could be triangular, it could be quadrangular, pentagonal, hexagonal, heptagonal, octagonal, spherical, etc. Lets assume there are about 30 different options for the shape of the earth. The Qur’an rightly says it is spherical, if it was a guess the chances of the guess being correct is 1/30.

The light of the moon can be its own light or a reflected light. The Qur’an rightly says it is a reflected light. If it is a guess, the chances that it will be correct is 1/2 and the probability that both the guesses i.e the earth is spherical and the light of the moon is reflected light is 1/30 x 1/2 = 1/60.

Further, the Qur’an also mentions every living thing is made of water. Every living thing can be made up of either wood, stone, copper, aluminum, steel, silver, gold, oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen, oil, water, cement, concrete, etc. The options are say about 10,000. The Qur’an rightly says that everything is made up of water. If it is a guess, the chances that it will be correct is 1/10,000 and the probability of all the three guesses i.e. the earth is spherical, light of moon is reflected light and everything is created from water being correct is 1/30 x 1/2 x 1/10,000 = 1/60,000 which is equal to about .0017%.



The Qur’an speaks about hundreds of things that were not known to men at the time of its revelation. Only in three options the result is .0017%. I leave it upto you, to work out the probability if all the hundreds of the unknown facts were guesses, the chances of all of them being correct guesses simultaneously and there being not a single wrong guess. It is beyond human capacity to make all correct guesses without a single mistake, which itself is sufficient to prove to a logical person that the origin of the Qur’an is Divine.


CREATOR IS THE AUTHOR OF THE QUR’AN


The only logical answer to the question as to who could have mentioned all these scientific facts 1400 years ago before they were discovered, is exactly the same answer initially given by the atheist or any person, to the question who will be the first person who will be able to tell the mechanism of the unknown object. It is the ‘CREATOR’, the producer, the Manufacturer of the whole universe and its contents. In the English language He is ‘God’, or more appropriate in the Arabic language, ‘ALLAH’.


QUR’AN IS A BOOK OF SIGNS AND NOT SCIENCE


Let me remind you that the Qur’an is not a book of Science, ‘S-C-I-E-N-C-E’ but a book of Signs ‘S-I-G-N-S’ i.e. a book of ayaats. The Qur’an contains more than 6,000 ayaats, i.e. ‘signs’, out of which more than a thousand speak about Science. I am not trying to prove that the Qur’an is the word of God using scientific knowledge as a yard stick because any yardstick is supposed to be more superior than what is being checked or verified. For us Muslims the Qur’an is the Furqan i.e. criteria to judge right from wrong and the ultimate yardstick which is more superior to scientific knowledge.

But for an educated man who is an atheist, scientific knowledge is the ultimate test which he believes in. We do know that science many a times takes ‘U’ turns, therefore I have restricted the examples only to scientific facts which have sufficient proof and evidence and not scientific theories based on assumptions. Using the ultimate yardstick of the atheist, I am trying to prove to him that the Qur’an is the word of God and it contains the scientific knowledge which is his yardstick which was discovered recently, while the Qur’an was revealed 1400 year ago. At the end of the discussion, we both come to the same conclusion that God though superior to science, is not incompatible with it.


SCIENCE IS ELIMINATING MODELS OF GOD BUT NOT GOD


Francis Bacon, the famous philosopher, has rightly said that a little knowledge of science makes man an atheist, but an in-depth study of science makes him a believer in God. Scientists today are eliminating models of God, but they are not eliminating God. If you translate this into Arabic, it is La illaha illal la, There is no god, (god with a small ‘g’ that is fake god) but God (with a capital ‘G’).

Surah Fussilat:

"Soon We will show them our signs in the (farthest) regions (of the earth), and in their own souls, until it becomes manifest to them that this is the Truth. Is it not enough that thy Lord doth witness all things?"

[Al-Quran 41]

http://www.islam101.com/tauheed/provingGodExists.htm

[Mamad]

Its interesting Despite all this anti Islam activity in media Islam is The Fastest Growing Religion In US and Europe. any one can honestly answer why is that?

[RealGunner]

Its interesting Despite all this anti Islam activity in media Islam is The Fastest Growing Religion In US and Europe. any one can honestly answer why is that?

Birth rate

[Mamad]

Is there any reliable convert rate for religions?

[Sponsored content]