Fallacy of the argument that “You believe the Qur’an is true because it says it is true, therefore you are false”.
If something says it is true you can either accept it, reject it or challenge it. 3 things can be done. In a challenge one makes the decision to accept the claim if a certain concept within it can be shown to be false. i.e. Provably wrong. So no one is presenting you the Qur’an as truth because it says so … that is actually the fallacy in your argument. Rather they are presenting you arguments from the Qur’an that they wish for you to entertain and try to debunk - being unable to do so would necessarily put you at the door to accept its truth unless the block of your own ego or other emotional barriers get in the way.
Not being able to debunk the Qur’an is not the same as proof of the truth of the Qur’an I admit that. This is because the one who cannot debunk it may not be proficient in the art of critical thought. So although this line cannot possibly provide you deductive evidence - it certainly can help remove certain barriers. At the end Islam does require “faith” but it must always be based on reasoning.
Glad you asked.
Quran give falsification test. I am pretty sure the only religious text who provide a way to prove it self wrong.
Can you think of any other ?
Now if consider quran so below you, that you wont consider it seriously, then my brother congratulation, you are the sarda in the story.
Considering the state of some Muslims today, I would say that some apes have evolved out of Muslims… Who said the arrow of evolution was always in the direction of progress?
Not this again. If tomorrow we handcode the genetic code of a virus in lab and put it into a protein coat, will you admit your god ideas is all bogus? Yes or No?
I dont know why you theists even bother with your bag of 3 cheap tricks that wont even stand up to a 6 year old kid’s logical abilities.
You really want to get all logical and argumentative - pick a topic you understand. You say you understand your god - i see you didnt answer my question. Where is your proof that there is just one god, not like 20 of them?
pal, let me break it down for you - using a test from a book to test itself - is like saying hey i am the robber, also i am the policeman, and oh i am the judge too.
For starter, can you please explain what material will you use to create building blocks of a cell, let alone organizing them into functional life? Or you just being blind believer of so called science?
Actually that is absurd. I believe its not possible. Even scientist believe that only artificial life can be created. Life as we see cannot be created from scratch.
If you were not dishonest, you would say since I dont know details so I am not sure we will be able to create life from scratch.
20 or 1 is none of you business, unless you accept there is someone who created life and universe as you see.
If I wrote a 3 page book with 3 equations, and claimed all these seemingly different equation draw straight line, when plugged real numbers. as 1<2<3<4
Falsification:
I would be wrong, if you put value as I suggested , and got any other shape then a line. Or got no shape.
Now I can package this all in one book. Cant I ???
Einstein give his theory and gave I think, 3 falsification, it took people i think 6 years to test, and it cleared all the falsification test.
Same man Einstein gave theory same man Einstein gave falsification.
What you are thinking is, that if claim is in the book, proof should come from some where else ?
In that case I would ask you , open any mathematics book, they make claim and give proof.
If you pick an analysis book, all you need to know, (or they can even prove) that
1<2<3<4
and they would prove all sort of thing with in that book.
Let me know if I need to make it more clear.
So I ask again is their any religious text you know, which provide a way to prove it self wrong ???
Are you even reading what I wrote? Firstly to address your comment.
Pink and invisible are paradoxical. Note: I said earlier that paradoxes are not permitted in this discourse. And you have presented a paradox that means the idea of a “pink invisible unicorn” is not cogent and not self-consistent. It is similar to the idea of many gods. So yes it is easily refuted on grounds of contradictory defining conditions.
Secondly it is absolutely not what I am saying. I am not saying since you can’t prove me wrong therefore I am right … and if you had a better memory I was merely responding to your argument about “the Qur’an is true because it says so” … We don’t assert the Qur’an is true because it says so. We assert it is true because it can be tested to be so.
The honesty of the one (SAW) who delivered the Qur’an to us was impeccable.
The testable ideas in the Qur’an pass each time.
The challenges it puts to disbelieving minds cannot be met by them and are so philosophically appropriate that an argument of red-herring cannot be used either.
However, it is your dishonesty that makes you accuse us of claiming that “the Qur’an is true because it says so” … When we present you with verses from the Qur’an we are not giving them to you in that instance as snippets of belief, but as concepts for you to entertain as a mechanism of logically arriving at truth. Believe it not the Qur’an is a discourse and begs us to assume a line of thought. Since you close your mind from entertaining the questions it poses you (probably out of fear that they will make sense) you end up saying things that don’t address the verse, rather accuse us of placing belief in the verses. And again with the shift towards unicorns you have artfully avoided the question of multiple gods.
Do you admit philosophically the concept of One God is superior to many gods and if not then argue with sound logic and/or reasoning as to why and if you do admit to it then you are in agreement with the argument raised by the Qur’an. So be aware of that too.
The manner in which people support evolution is the fault of the people not of the theory. I don’t judge Islamic scripture based on how people follow it. Flawed logic.
You go to very deep lengths to defend the common scholars with elaborations they themselves fail to provide. Most Islamic scholars don’t know the difference between ethanol and sorbitol (both are alcohols). Only a very few scholars I’ve come across who are actually educated enough to make this distinction, and they put it out clearly. The average scholar will say “don’t wear perfume that has alcohol”, not even knowing the alcohol in the perfume isn’t the one found in beverages. You can pretend to defend them by saying what they haven’t said themselves but that makes no difference.
I see no qualm. The evolutionary theory suggests evolution from common ancestors; in the case of the human evolution, the theory is completely inline with the Islamic scripture that states that all humans descended from Adam (the common ancestor).
What’s the problem?
You are in the same boat; your posts on this thread indicate knowing next-to-nothing of science. How does, for example, cladistic homoplasy against phenetic algorithms comply with your statement of “nothing … makes sense without evolution”. Good quandary for you to chew over.
If tomorrow we handcode the genetic code of a virus in lab and put it into a protein coat, will you admit your god ideas is all bogus? Yes or No?