WikiIslam:Sandbox/Lowest Point on Earth Miracle: Difference between revisions

WikiIslam:Sandbox/Lowest Point on Earth Miracle (view source)

Revision as of 10:25, 22 December 2019

1,953 bytes removed , 22 December 2019

better form, less rants

Prekladator

Editors, em-bypass-2

4,744

edits

@@ Line 38: / Line 38: @@
 it is clearly an invalid argument .. its obvious invalidity in reasoning comes from the second premise, which says that the word adna "can mean" lowest .. not "necessarily mean" , just "can mean" , yet we have another meaning which is "nearest" , so how we "know" for sure which translation was meant by the author?  we simply can't, and the argument unfortunately dos not help us in doing so, the argument dose not prove its conclusion at all.
-It is a fundamental of logic that the argument to be valid, it must necessarily prove its conclusion, yet a presence of a counterexample (a possible situation in which the premises are true and the conclusion isn't)  will always render the argument invalid, an unproven assertion, in our situation, the two premises still can be true while the conclusion is not true, simply if mohamed only meant "nearest" , as all commentators and translators has understood all over the time, and among them there was prominent experts in the arabic language .
+It is a fundamental of logic that the argument to be valid, it must necessarily prove its conclusion, yet a presence of a counterexample (a possible situation in which the premises are true and the conclusion isn't)  will always render the argument invalid, an unproven assertion, in our situation, the two premises still can be true while the conclusion is not true, simply if Muhammad only meant "nearest" , as all commentators and translators has understood all over the time, and among them there was prominent experts in the Arabic language .
-__________________________________________________________________
+So, first of all, Muslims have to prove that the Quran's writer  "necessarily" meant "lowest" when he said "adna", since its more obvious meaning is "nearest", and that's because, having another and a more obvious , used by all translators_  meaning of the word is a counterexample which makes it impossible to prove that he the writer "necessarily" meant "lowest"! it is just a possibility, actually an improbable one!
-So ,first of all, Muslims have to prove that the Quran's writer  "necessarily" meant "lowest" when he said "adna", since its more obvious meaning is "nearest", and that's because, having another _and a more obvious , used by all translators_  meaning of the word is a counterexample which makes it impossible to prove that he _the writer_ "necessarily" meant "lowest" !! it is just a possibility , actually an improbable one !! .
+It's improbable because the writer could say it plainly, in non-equivocal statement, obvious for any one to notice, instead of no one in the whole 14 centuries.
-Its improbable because the writer could say it plainly, in non-equivocal statement, obvious for any one to notice, instead of no one in the whole 14 centuries .
+In this case we can say  that it is a re-interpretation after the discovery, dependent upon equivocation, which is easy to do in a rich-semantic language like the Arabic language with any text.
-In this case we can say  that it is a re-interpretation after the discovery, dependent upon equivocation, how easy _ in a rich-semantic language like arabic language _ to do that with any text .
+Muslims have no choice to accept this, since we can very easily in the same way find variable different meanings of the Quranic words that renders the Quranic statements erroneous, would they then accept that the Quran is false? Or would they immediately appeal to counterexamples (other equally valid meanings), and, even to metaphors ?!
-Muslims have no choice to accept this, since we can _very easily in the same way_ find variable different meanings of the quranic words that renders the quranic statements erroneous, would they then accept that the quran is false ? or would they immediately appeal to counterexamples (other equally valid meanings) , and , even to metaphors ?!!
+Actually, in many other cases, the obvious meaning of the Quranic words render the verses false, and Muslim apologists then appeal to improbable counterexamples to save situations, if not found, metaphors are always present to save situations.
-Actually, in many other cases, the obvious meaning of the quranic words render the verses false, and muslim apologists,then, appeal to improbable counterexamples to save  situations, if not found, metaphors are always present to save situations .
+Some muslim say "we do accept all the "true" meanings of the quranic words, apply this rule to the whole quran .." yet it is a fallacious rule, it begs the question, it presupposes that the quran is true, hence the true meanings is the only to be accepted, it uses circular reasoning, by using the veracity of the quran to prove the veracity of the quran.
-So, if counterexamples can refute the claims of scientific errors, it can also refute the claims of scientific miracles,or it would not refute both, you have the choice, but there must be one rule by which we judge on all quranic verses, not to apply it when you like .and ignore it when you like .
+===Occam's razor===
+But shall we be pure agnostics regarding what is the real meaning of the word?
+No, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor Occam's razor] which is a principle of parsimony, economy, or succinctness used in problem-solving, states that among competing hypotheses, the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected. It tells us that our suppositions should not go beyond the need,we should seek simplicity,so if we have two explainations for something ,equal in the explanatory power, the explanation that postulates less unproven assumption is the one we should accept.
-________________________________________________________
+Generally in the discussion about miracles in the Quran, the two explanations differ in the number of suppositions they postulate, apologetic one implies a miraculous case in which there is a supernatural intervention, consequently implies a whole supernatural world ,there is a population in heavens then ,god,angels,gardens,hell also ,resurrection,judgement,satan,winged donkeys are true things, also all the quranic miracles of the prophets occurred, mouses split the sea, jesus created real birds by the mud, a she-camel was born from a rock .. etc .. endless list of supernatural stuff, truly this is the most extraordinary claim in the world, so it requires the most extraordinary evidence in the world, but what we have ?  , an invalid argument ! to accept all this exceptional metaphysics, what they provide as exceptional evidence ? an unproven assertion ! how great !! truly it's an exceptional evidence , why we do object ?!
-Some muslim say "we do accept all the "true" meanings of the quranic words, apply this rule to the whole quran .."
+This clear logical stupidity follows directly from ignoring occam's razor, that the other explanation postulates nothing special, he was just a man of his time, saying what everybody else could say, what could be more simpler , with equal explanatory power since the two meanings of the word _in most of cases_ are equally valid .(for this case im going to show that even if he meant "lowest land" it is not a miracle).
-yet it is a fallacious rule, it begs the question, it presupposes that the quran is true, hence the true meanings is the only to be accepted, it uses circular reasoning, by using the veracity of the quran to prove the veracity of the quran .
-________________________________________________________
-But shall we be pure agnostics regarding what is the real meaning of the word ?
-No, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor Occam's razor] which is a principle of parsimony, economy, or succinctness used in problem-solving, states that among competing hypotheses, the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected.
-it tells us that our suppositions should not go beyond the need,we should seek simplicity,so if we have two explainations for something ,equal in the explanatory power, the explanation that postulates less unproven assumption is the one we should accept .
-Generally in the discussion about miracles in the quran, the two explanations differ in the number of suppositions they postulate, apologetic one implies a miraculous case in which there is a supernatural intervention, consequently implies a whole supernatural world ,there is a population in heavens then ,god,angels,gardens,hell also ,resurrection,judgement,satan,winged donkeys are true things, also all the quranic miracles of the prophets occurred, mouses split the sea, jesus created real birds by the mud, a she-camel was born from a rock .. etc .. endless list of supernatural stuff, truly this is the most extraordinary claim in the world, so it requires the most extraordinary evidence in the world, but what we have ?  , an invalid argument ! to accept all this exceptional metaphysics, what they provide as exceptional evidence ? an unproven assertion ! how great !! truly it's an exceptional evidence , why we do object ?!
-This clear logical stupidity follows directly from ignoring occam's razor, that the other explanation postulates nothing special, he was just a man of his time, saying what everybody else could say, what could be more simpler , with equal explanatory power since the two meanings of the word _in most of cases_ are equally valid .(for this case im going to show that even if he meant "lowest land" it is not a miracle) .
-______________________________________________________________
-Again muslims have no choice to accept this, since if we accepted invalid arguments as evidence for claims . how the world would become then ? if unproven assertions is ok , where is the advantage of proven ones ? if we ignored occam's razor, consequently accepted the supernatural in explaining things that nature can fully explain , what is left for nature to do then ? and, in this way how miracles now we can find in all texts ? how many verses that can be reinterpreted after discoveries to fit them ? endless ones as [[http://wikiislam.net/wiki/NATVRAE_MIRABILIS_ORIGINISQVE_DIVINAE_GEORGICAE_VERGILII|miracles miracles every where]] for just one example , and how many errors in the quran now we shall find ? infinity !
-It is the same logic when i say, if a quranic word "can mean" any nonsense, we can say that the quran is nonsensical, why not ? i repeat, IT IS THE SAME LOGIC, since u accept unproven assertions .
-verily the claim can not be evidence for the veracity of the quran, since it needs evidence for itself in the first place .
-_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
 However there is no room for all of this since the lingual argument is unsound ..
 the second premise is false ..
-the word "adna" in the arabic language has nothing to do with meaning "low in elevation" it can mean "nearest" , "vile" , "less" and "cheap", it can mean low distance in between, low value of a thing, or low price, low position of a man,or low morality, but it HAS NO THING TO DO WITH "low elevation of places" meaning, it is similar meaning as obvious, but SEMANTICS IS NOT PROVED BY SUCH SIMILARITY, to prove that you must mention a NATIVE LITERATURE using the word in the meaning of "low elevation of land" .
+===Dictionaries===
+The word "adna" in the arabic language has nothing to do with meaning "low in elevation" it can mean "nearest" , "vile" , "less" and "cheap", it can mean low distance in between, low value of a thing, or low price, low position of a man,or low morality, but it HAS NO THING TO DO WITH "low elevation of places" meaning, it is similar meaning as obvious, but SEMANTICS IS NOT PROVED BY SUCH SIMILARITY, to prove that you must mention a NATIVE LITERATURE using the word in the meaning of "low elevation of land".
 The meaning "lowest" may be felt in the modern use of the word only, NO OLD DICTIONARY at all states the claimed "low elevation of a land" , NO ANY OLD USE in that meaning to.
@@ Line 171: / Line 153: @@
-This lingual argument is unsound invalid argument ! how bad ! could it be worse ?
+This lingual argument is unsound and invalid.
-No god _whatever low IQ he has_ would do such a bad logic "miracle" .
-_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
 [[File:Dead-sea 2.jpg|thumbnail]]