Sun orbits the galaxy?
-
If you read, I said "stereotypical" quite clearly. Many Christans don't see God as a man in the sky, and it's good for them.
None of them think about God that way. You're thinking of Zeus.
Also, please read the last part of that sentence instead of nitpicking.
Finally, some logic )
Now, the verse denotes a very simple, and self-evident concept. The Sun is not permitted, i.e. it is impossible, for it to "overtake" the Moon, because each runs on its own computed path. Nothing more than that.
It's an insignificant statement if it meant the sun orbits the galaxy and the moon orbits the earth. A given. A wasted sentence that need not even be mentioned But it becomes a very significant if it's talking about the sun and moon both orbiting the earth. Then, it would clearly be a sign of allah's continuing power that continually prevents the two from catching up to each other.
It does not say "God holds them apart", this comes from the (Biblical?) anthropomorphic concept of God. It says simply enough, that the laws of God just don't allow for it to happen.
The Quran is a book full of tautology, it's a common theme.
Tautology
2) Logic An empty or vacuous statement composed of simpler statements in a fashion that makes it logically true whether the simpler statements are factually true or false; for example, the statement Either it will rain tomorrow or it will not rain tomorrow.The Quran is a tautology????
What appears to us as tautology today would have been at the forefront of science thousands of years ago.
Yeah? So what?
It is tautological that everything is made of different, discrete, substances. That didn't stop the Greeks from believing it was a mixture of earth, fire, air and water.
I don't believe that tautology is the word you want to use here.
If it is perceived that they orbit the same thing (earth) then it would be possible for one to overtake the other, MEANING THAT VERSE WOULD BE FALSE.
No it wouldn't because it meant that the two CAN overtake each other, but that Allah prevents this. you conveniently forgot to mention the "Allah prevents this" part of the equation. Why?
The reason being, that verse states they will never overtake each other. Comprende?
Yes, because Allah's power prevent this, and otherwise, they might overtake each other, which is why the issue was even mentioned at all. Comprende?
So in reality, when one contemplates this verse, it makes the case only against geocentrism. To look for allegorical meaning in a clear, tautological verse is just idiotic, sorry to say.
It would appear that you are not even using the word tautology correctly. And who's looking for an allegory? Where did i ever say that? Why are you now throwing allegory into the equation?
If a Quranic verse says "water can only be wet", it is not saying "water can be un-wet", it is saying "water can only be wet". Likewise. People whose vocal processor runs faster by degrees of magnitude than their brain's processor generally fall into that trap.
036040
036040 Khan It is not for the sun to overtake the moon, nor does the night outstrip the day. They all float, each in an orbit.
036040 Maulana Neither is it for the sun to overtake the moon, nor can the night outstrip the day. And all float on in an orbit.
036040 Pickthal It is not for the sun to overtake the moon, nor doth the night outstrip the day. They float each in an orbit.
036040 Rashad The sun is never to catch up with the moon - the night and the day never deviate - each of them is floating in its own orbit.
036040 Sarwar how the sun is not supposed to catch-up with the moon, nor is the night to precede the day. All of them are to float in a certain orbit;
036040 Shakir Neither is it allowable to the sun that it should overtake the moon, nor can the night outstrip the day; and all float on in a sphere.
036040 Sherali It is not for the sun to overtake the moon, nor can the night outstrip the day. All of them float smoothly in an orbit.
036040 Yusufali It is not permitted to the Sun to catch up the Moon, nor can the Night outstrip the Day Each (just) swims along in (its own) orbit (according to Law).
Here, it mentions the moon cannot catch up with the sun, just as the night cannot catch up with the day. Do you see here how the sun's and moon's movement is also related to night and day? Moon doesn't catch the sun, and night never catches the day. Is an orbit around the galaxy related to night and day in the least? So why do we find the concepts of night and day and the sun's and moon's orbit right next to each other in the same exact verse? Come on, it's obvious.
In reality, the entire universe revolves around the Earth, every 24 hours.
That's not what I've heard. How can the sun revolve around the earth in 24 hours? Are you just playing a little game of relativity between the earth spinning or everything else moving?
In reality, the solar system orbits around the Earth every 365 days.
So everything orbits the earth in 24 hours and a subset of the everything (the solar system) orbits the earth in 356 days?
In reality, the moon orbits the galaxy as well. Some people struggle with the idea of no absolute space, but it happens. Generally, these are the same people whose vocal chords run at higher frequencies. Ahem.
Nope. Nice try with the grey area diversion, but it didn't work. This relativity stuff is nothing but a poor mask or excuse. Go on a space shuttle and tell me how everything is orbiting the earth, but the earth is not spinning. Show me the sun doing on full revolution around the earth in 24 hours from the perspective of a space shuttle. So this relativity excuse is overused and useless. So how can the universe do a full revolutuion around the earth in 24 hours when the sun can't even do that?
I've seen this before. When the questions get tough, one technique is to make the issue as complex, grey and confusing as possible so that it gets so confusing, the issue goes away. I've seen this technique before. It doesn't work.
-
This is just your own projection. It's not there.
Ironically, your whole argument is based on projecting your own view onto the verses
Can anybody tell us why we are supposed to think that the Quran tells us the sun orbits the galaxy and not the earth? Why should we think that in the case of the moon, it's telling us about an orbit around the earth, but in the case of the sun, it's telling us about an orbit around the galaxy? Why shouldn't we think it's also telling us that the moon orbits the galaxy as well? Why shouldn't we think it's telling us that the sun orbits the earth as well?
Why? You already said it... because it's not there.
http//free-islam.com/extraimages/slamdunk.gif
-
Now you just need the O0 and the high tops Wakas.
-
Some humans have issues with reverse-deriving the concept of God from the Quran, instead of fitting the Quran to their preconceptions and claiming it is false, because their preconceptions are false.
There is no correct system of logic in the world, be that religious or non religious, that says when searching for the truth, one must first assume something is true and THEN go out and find truths that match the thing. That is simply backwards from any reasoning perspective. It is the logical fallacy of "self fulfilling prophecy". It means that one merely sees things the way they want to see or or sees them in a way that will confirm their pre-existing notions rather than attempting to see them for what they really are, with no personal desires or considerations involved. Hasn't anybody ever taught you the meaning of objective reasoning? It would appear not.
Where? Take the words out of that verse and show me? This is just your own projection. It's not there.
All it says is that they will never catch one another and they follow certain paths.
And, in the same exact verse, right next to it, it says the night will never catch the day either. So do you think it's possible that the sun's and moon's orbit is being related to the day and night?
Please note that there is only a passive implication in this verse, you have to bring evidence of active (i.e. expending energy) involvement. Good luck.
What does passive have yo do with anything?
Anthropomorphism is a deep hole. Your problem is not with the Quran, but your own brain for failing you in terms of logical thinking, and by attempting to apply its own delusions to reality
I am using standard, accepted, objective logic. It is YOU who breach the rules of logic for your own personal whims.
Your concept of God has no basis in the Quran
Good. Maybe I'm doing something right.
and God rejects anthropomorphism repeatedly.
You don't know that. All you know is what the Quran tells you.
God, again, is completely passive. This is summed up in 2117. Be, and it is, it just doesn't get simpler than that. God's decree is absolute, and God doesn't need to expend any energy to keep order, as the simple laws of physics show here.
Right, so God merely makes the sun and moon orbit at the right speed so that they don't catch up with each other. So your answer did nothing to answer the two of them orbiting the earth.
Are you familiar with the term "hypocrisy"? Please research it because you'll find that you are more familiar with it than you realize because you were practicing it, hence me being able to copy and paste your own arguments against you.
But you haven't used them against me. You simply didn't think things through very thoroughly.
Incorrect. The Quran states each of those follows its decreed path and nothing more. If the moon orbits the galaxy, then the moon orbits the galaxy.
Would you be ok with that if the Quran said the moon orbits the galaxy?
-
None of them think about God that way. You're thinking of Zeus.
It's an insignificant statement if it meant the sun orbits the galaxy and the moon orbits the earth. A given. A wasted sentence that need not even be mentioned But it becomes a very significant if it's talking about the sun and moon both orbiting the earth. Then, it would clearly be a sign of allah's continuing power that continually prevents the two from catching up to each other.
It does not say "God holds them apart", this comes from the (Biblical?) anthropomorphic concept of God. It says simply enough, that the laws of God just don't allow for it to happen.
The Quran is a book full of tautology, it's a common theme.
Tautology
2) Logic An empty or vacuous statement composed of simpler statements in a fashion that makes it logically true whether the simpler statements are factually true or false; for example, the statement Either it will rain tomorrow or it will not rain tomorrow.The Quran is a tautology????
Yeah? So what?
I don't believe that tautology is the word you want to use here.
No it wouldn't because it meant that the two CAN overtake each other, but that Allah prevents this. you conveniently forgot to mention the "Allah prevents this" part of the equation. Why?
Yes, because Allah's power prevent this, and otherwise, they might overtake each other, which is why the issue was even mentioned at all. Comprende?
It would appear that you are not even using the word tautology correctly. And who's looking for an allegory? Where did i ever say that? Why are you now throwing allegory into the equation?
036040
036040 Khan It is not for the sun to overtake the moon, nor does the night outstrip the day. They all float, each in an orbit.
036040 Maulana Neither is it for the sun to overtake the moon, nor can the night outstrip the day. And all float on in an orbit.
036040 Pickthal It is not for the sun to overtake the moon, nor doth the night outstrip the day. They float each in an orbit.
036040 Rashad The sun is never to catch up with the moon - the night and the day never deviate - each of them is floating in its own orbit.
036040 Sarwar how the sun is not supposed to catch-up with the moon, nor is the night to precede the day. All of them are to float in a certain orbit;
036040 Shakir Neither is it allowable to the sun that it should overtake the moon, nor can the night outstrip the day; and all float on in a sphere.
036040 Sherali It is not for the sun to overtake the moon, nor can the night outstrip the day. All of them float smoothly in an orbit.
036040 Yusufali It is not permitted to the Sun to catch up the Moon, nor can the Night outstrip the Day Each (just) swims along in (its own) orbit (according to Law).
Here, it mentions the moon cannot catch up with the sun, just as the night cannot catch up with the day. Do you see here how the sun's and moon's movement is also related to night and day? Moon doesn't catch the sun, and night never catches the day. Is an orbit around the galaxy related to night and day in the least? So why do we find the concepts of night and day and the sun's and moon's orbit right next to each other in the same exact verse? Come on, it's obvious.
That's not what I've heard. How can the sun revolve around the earth in 24 hours? Are you just playing a little game of relativity between the earth spinning or everything else moving?
So everything orbits the earth in 24 hours and a subset of the everything (the solar system) orbits the earth in 356 days?
Nope. Nice try with the grey area diversion, but it didn't work. This relativity stuff is nothing but a poor mask or excuse. Go on a space shuttle and tell me how everything is orbiting the earth, but the earth is not spinning. Show me the sun doing on full revolution around the earth in 24 hours from the perspective of a space shuttle. So this relativity excuse is overused and useless. So how can the universe do a full revolutuion around the earth in 24 hours when the sun can't even do that?
I've seen this before. When the questions get tough, one technique is to make the issue as complex, grey and confusing as possible so that it gets so confusing, the issue goes away. I've seen this technique before. It doesn't work.
http//webexhibits.org/colorart/i/michelangelo-creation-adam-.jpg
http//free-islam.com/extraimages/slamdunk.gif
;D
It's an insignificant statement if it meant the sun orbits the galaxy and the moon orbits the earth. A given. A wasted sentence that need not even be mentioned But it becomes a very significant if it's talking about the sun and moon both orbiting the earth. Then, it would clearly be a sign of allah's continuing power that continually prevents the two from catching up to each other.
Insignificant, really?
This is what you, yourself, acknowledged
Yeah? So what?
So, to people who studied the Quran objectively in the days of old, they would have came to the same conclusion.
But it becomes a very significant if it's talking about the sun and moon both orbiting the earth. Then, it would clearly be a sign of allah's continuing power that continually prevents the two from catching up to each other.
Apparently, you are oblivious to reality which is described by the Quran as "Be and it is" meaning there is no need for "continuing power that continually prevents... blah blah blah". In your obliviousness, you also failed to understand what "passive" meant.
The Quran is a tautology????
Book full of tautology. Please read your own definition. Your cherry picking of definitions is also pathetic.
http//www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=define%3Atautology&btnG=Google+Search&meta=
I don't believe that tautology is the word you want to use here.
Your belief and reality are literally worlds apart.
No it wouldn't because it meant that the two CAN overtake each other, but that Allah prevents this. you conveniently forgot to mention the "Allah prevents this" part of the equation. Why?
Because it isn't there.
Yes, because Allah's power prevent this, and otherwise, they might overtake each other, which is why the issue was even mentioned at all. Comprende?
What the hell are you talking about? "otherwise, they might overtake each other,"? The issue was mentioned, because a while back, it was not so much of a tautology as the forefront of science. Again, you apply your own ridiculous notions to it, and fail to grasp why I don't even mention the "Allah prevents this" part of the equation.
Here, it mentions the moon cannot catch up with the sun, just as the night cannot catch up with the day. Do you see here how the sun's and moon's movement is also related to night and day? Moon doesn't catch the sun, and night never catches the day. Is an orbit around the galaxy related to night and day in the least? So why do we find the concepts of night and day and the sun's and moon's orbit right next to each other in the same exact verse? Come on, it's obvious.
Exactly. The moon and sun never catch each other out, and they follow their predefined courses. As for their orbits, it can not mean Earth because as the verse itself states, it is impossible for the day to overtake night, sun to overtake moon, meaning that your reversed definition which allows for the possibility is false. There is no room for your definition in this verse, simple as that. In surah 51, many things are mentioned side by side in the same sentence (though not ayah). 517 even states that there are many paths through the heaven. It isn't obvious, it's false. If the Quran wished to state that the Sun orbited around the Earth and so did the Moon, both through their geodesics, then it would have had active denial (God prevents), not passive denial (it is not allowed).
That's not what I've heard. How can the sun revolve around the earth in 24 hours? Are you just playing a little game of relativity between the earth spinning or everything else moving?
Well, whoever you heard has no grasp of reality. Of course the sun can revolve around the Earth in 24 hours, just not through the geodesic. And yes, it's relative. You caught on fast.
So everything orbits the earth in 24 hours and a subset of the everything (the solar system) orbits the earth in 356 days?
Please find your local neurosurgeon and donate your brain to science... You just cannot be serious. To be blunt, everything orbits the Earth, relative to the Earth, in 24 hours. The solar system orbits the Earth, relative to the Earth, in 365 days, as does everything else. It depends on your origin, reference point, etc, etc. The reference point for 24 hours is the centre of the Earth's rotating axis, as for 365 days, I'd imagine somewhere else...
I've seen this before. When the questions get tough, one technique is to make the issue as complex, grey and confusing as possible so that it gets so confusing, the issue goes away. I've seen this technique before. It doesn't work.
If you are being confused by things my young nephew could understand, I feel for you.
-
There is no correct system of logic in the world, be that religious or non religious, that says when searching for the truth, one must first assume something is true and THEN go out and find truths that match the thing. That is simply backwards from any reasoning perspective. It is the logical fallacy of "self fulfilling prophecy". It means that one merely sees things the way they want to see or or sees them in a way that will confirm their pre-existing notions rather than attempting to see them for what they really are, with no personal desires or considerations involved. Hasn't anybody ever taught you the meaning of objective reasoning? It would appear not.
And, in the same exact verse, right next to it, it says the night will never catch the day either. So do you think it's possible that the sun's and moon's orbit is being related to the day and night?
What does passive have yo do with anything?
I am using standard, accepted, objective logic. It is YOU who breach the rules of logic for your own personal whims.
Good. Maybe I'm doing something right.
You don't know that. All you know is what the Quran tells you.
Right, so God merely makes the sun and moon orbit at the right speed so that they don't catch up with each other. So your answer did nothing to answer the two of them orbiting the earth.
But you haven't used them against me. You simply didn't think things through very thoroughly.
Would you be ok with that if the Quran said the moon orbits the galaxy?
To be objective means to derive everything realistically, from reality. If the Quran allows for a complete description of reality in it then you simply cannot argue against it. THAT would be backwards thinking. If it allows it, and the theme of the book regards it, then there is a pretty high chance that the interpretation of the statement pertaining to "it" is correct, namely 100%.
And, in the same exact verse, right next to it, it says the night will never catch the day either. So do you think it's possible that the sun's and moon's orbit is being related to the day and night?
Of course it is. The thing is, these never overlap, because it isn't part of their courses to do so. It is physically impossible for day to overlap night, by the very essence of reality. No active deity is needed to hold the Earth while slowing down the Sun with the other hand, so it doesn't overtake the Moon.
What does passive have yo do with anything?
Pretty much everything, when we talk about God. Active = expending energy to do something, Passive = "Be and it is".
I am using standard, accepted, objective logic. It is YOU who breach the rules of logic for your own personal whims.
If we used your logic, we would still be burning scientists for telling the truth.
Good. Maybe I'm doing something right.
I don't know about your real concept of God, I am talking about your pathetically erroneous understanding of "Allah" in the Quran. There, I used separate words, hopefully you may understand if I use "Allah" instead of "God".
You don't know that. All you know is what the Quran tells you.
I posted the verses in another thread. 17111, 123-4, there are many others but it requires a detailed study of the Quran (though not time consuming). Those are the most obvious verses pointing towards it. Please note that I use "God" synonymously with "Allah", and by those terms, I mean "the entity, set of laws, or any other construct that created or resulted in the creation of human beings and the present universe". Our creator, whether that is a man in the sky, or the laws of physics themselves.
Right, so God merely makes the sun and moon orbit at the right speed so that they don't catch up with each other. So your answer did nothing to answer the two of them orbiting the earth.
The verse states that it is impossible for such a scenario to happen, meaning it rules out the possibility. God does things in absolute terms. Regardless, as the theme of my posts, and my understanding of Quran goes, this all relates to God and his passiveness.
But you haven't used them against me. You simply didn't think things through very thoroughly.
Please show where it says "allah prevents" or rather, whatever I quoted you saying. This was a completely valid usage, I believe I placed that question in italics because it was a verbatim copy from your post. There is no "thinking things through very thoroughly", spits, there is a simple request for evidence of active (i.e. expending energy) involvement (though the request itself is actually for you to prove what I quoted you saying).
Would you be ok with that if the Quran said the moon orbits the galaxy?
It doesn't. The moon does follow a predefined path through the galaxy.
-
So, to people who studied the Quran objectively in the days of old, they would have came to the same conclusion.
Ummm, people of old DID think the sun orbited the earth, and we find this concept in the hadiths as well. The prophet himself was supposed to have spoken about the sun going somewhere every night and the returning every day and one day, it will return from the opposite direction. If that's not talking about a sun orbiting the earth, I don't know what is.
Apparently, you are oblivious to reality which is described by the Quran as "Be and it is" meaning there is no need for "continuing power that continually prevents... blah blah blah". In your obliviousness, you also failed to understand what "passive" meant.
No, I understood it, and I said that Allah set the orbits of the earth and moon at the right speed so that one wouldn't catch the other. AND I mentioned the clear relation ion the verse between the sun and moon and night and day.
Book full of tautology. Please read your own definition. Your cherry picking of definitions is also pathetic.
http//www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=define%3Atautology&btnG=Google+Search&meta=
Here's from your link. Same thing my dictionary definition says, so what are you talking about?
n logic, a tautology is a proposition that is already true by definition, not because of any logical deduction. Usually, it is a non-sensical statement. For instance, "All triangles have three sides" is an inherently true proposition, but it doesn't tell us anything new.
Your belief and reality are literally worlds apart.
Beliefs have no place or are pointless in a conversation. only logical deduction, which you are not doing very well at so far.
Because it isn't there.
What the hell are you talking about? "otherwise, they might overtake each other,"?
Sure. Why mention that Allah prevents something from happening, unless it was something that could possibly happen if Allah didn't prevent it? If I travel east and you travel west, does it need to be mentioned that one will not catch up with the other? Of course not. It's a given. But if we both do a circle around the same thing, then it is no longer a given that one would never catch the other, and therefore the statement that the two cannot catch each other (due to allah's control) suddenly becomes very neaningful and worth mentioning. and, to make it even more clear, it tells us that the night cannot catch the day, in the very same verse where it says the moon can't catch the sun. So why are the movements sun and moon and night and day related so closely in the same exact verse?
The issue was mentioned, because a while back, it was not so much of a tautology as the forefront of science. Again, you apply your own ridiculous notions to it, and fail to grasp why I don't even mention the "Allah prevents this" part of the equation.
It's ridiculous to think that Allah prevents the moon from catching up to the sun? Isn't allah responsible for everything?
Exactly. The moon and sun never catch each other out, and they follow their predefined courses. As for their orbits, it can not mean Earth because as the verse itself states, it is impossible for the day to overtake night, sun to overtake moon, meaning that your reversed definition which allows for the possibility is false
Doesn't the day and night refer to the earth? So why shouldn't the sun and moon refer to the earth as well, especially since they are all right next to each other in the same verse. And they are all right next to each other in other verses as well.
There is no room for your definition in this verse, simple as that.
Boy, wouldn't you love it to be as simple as that.
In surah 51, many things are mentioned side by side in the same sentence (though not ayah).
What? Please quote verses and explain.
517 even states that there are many paths through the heaven.
So?
It isn't obvious, it's false. If the Quran wished to state that the Sun orbited around the Earth and so did the Moon, both through their geodesics, then it would have had active denial (God prevents), not passive denial (it is not allowed).
Passive denial can also simply mean setting the orbit speed for both correctly so that one doesn't catch the other. The concept of one catching the other isn't even relevant if it was talking about two totally unrelated orbits where the sun orbits the galaxy and the moon orbits the earth. But boy, is it ever relevant if it was talking about both orbiting the earth
Well, whoever you heard has no grasp of reality. Of course the sun can revolve around the Earth in 24 hours, just not through the geodesic. And yes, it's relative. You caught on fast.
Yeah, been there, done that. It's an often used excuse, but it never really works. So how fast does the sun travel do to a full circle around the earth?
Please find your local neurosurgeon and donate your brain to science... You just cannot be serious.
Then why don't you pay attention to what you write? Didn't you say everything orbits the earth in 24 hours and also say that the solar sytem orbits the earth in 365 days? Go back and read it. Hey, so far, you've been the guy with the holes in your statements, and I don't just make the claim, I show you exactly why.
To be blunt, everything orbits the Earth, relative to the Earth, in 24 hours. The solar system orbits the Earth, relative to the Earth, in 365 days, as does everything else. It depends on your origin, reference point, etc, etc. The reference point for 24 hours is the centre of the Earth's rotating axis, as for 365 days, I'd imagine somewhere else...If you are being confused by things my young nephew could understand, I feel for you.
There you go. you just said it again. Clearly you said that everything orbits the earth in 24 hours, relative to the earth and also said everything orbits the earth in 365 days, relative to the earth. That's what you said. Look at it again. It's not my problem that you can't communicate clearly. If you explain things this way, then you're nephew will not understand you as nobody is supposed to understand a contradictory sentence such as that. Would you care to reword this? Thank you.
-
3640 It is not permitted to the Sun to catch up the Moon, nor can the Night outstrip the Day Each (just) swims along in (its own) orbit (according to Law). - English
Topics discussed in this Verse
La alshshamsu yanbaghee laha an tudrika alqamara wala allaylu sabiqu alnnahari wakullun fee falakin yasbahoona
2133 It is He Who created the Night and the Day, and the sun and the moon all (the celestial bodies) swim along, each in its rounded course. - English
Topics discussed in this Verse
Wahuwa allathee khalaqa allayla waalnnahara waalshshamsa waalqamara kullun fee falakin yasbahoona
- The Sun does not collide with the moon.
- The night cannot outstrip the day.
- They swim in thier own orbits.
What's your problem with that?
-
- The Sun does not collide with the moon.
- The night cannot outstrip the day.
- They swim in thier own orbits.
What's your problem with that?
Because it is relating the motion of the sun and moon to day and night. The moon cannot outstrip the sun and the night cannot outstrip the day. Both right there, in the same sentence, right next to each other as if they were even said in the same exact breath. Seems far more likely that the Quran thought the sun orbited the earth, as the naked eye told 7th century people, then it thought the sun orbited the galaxy. If the repercussions of this weren't so bad, you'd have no problems seeing this clear relationship.
-
Because I am relating the motion of the sun and moon to day and night. The moon cannot outstrip the sun and the night cannot outstrip the day. Both right there, in the same sentence, right next to each other as if they were even said in the same exact breath. Seems far more likely to me that the Quran thought the sun orbited the earth, as the naked eye told 7th century people, then it thought the sun orbited the galaxy. If the repercussions of this weren't so bad, you'd have no problems seeing this clear relationship.
I took the liberty of proofreading and enhancing your post for you.
-
Because it is relating the motion of the sun and moon to day and night. The moon cannot outstrip the sun and the night cannot outstrip the day. Both right there, in the same sentence, right next to each other as if they were even said in the same exact breath. Seems far more likely that the Quran thought the sun orbited the earth, as the naked eye told 7th century people, then it thought the sun orbited the galaxy. If the repercussions of this weren't so bad, you'd have no problems seeing this clear relationship.
It can refer to them both orbiting the galaxy.
-
It can refer to them both orbiting the galaxy.
Oh, so the sun drags the moon around the galaxy and yet the Quran needs to mention that the moon can't catch up to the sun? Hmmmm....What about the earth? How come it didn't tell us that the earth can't catch up to the sun either? Hmmmm.....Maybe it should have told us that no celestial bodies can catch up to the sun, right? But curiously, it only mentions the moon, and it mentions it right next to the mention of the night never catching up to or outstripping the day. But no. Oh no no no. My interpretation is impossible. ;D Hardly. There's only one thing wrong with my interpretation. and that is, that it puts the Quran at odds with modern science. But believe me, i know full well that a Muslim simply is not capable of acknowldging things like this, which is how the Quran remains perfect in their world.
-
Ummm
Ummm, people of old DID think the sun orbited the earth, and we find this concept in the hadiths as well. The prophet himself was supposed to have spoken about the sun going somewhere every night and the returning every day and one day, it will return from the opposite direction. If that's not talking about a sun orbiting the earth, I don't know what is.
rotfl
By the way, the first emboldened statement is correct, and the people there are correct, the Sun does and did orbit the Earth, just not through the geodesic.
No, I understood it, and I said that Allah set the orbits of the earth and moon at the right speed so that one wouldn't catch the other. AND I mentioned the clear relation ion the verse between the sun and moon and night and day.
Velocity is a vector. Too bad for you. Yes, there is a clear relation in the verse. You are relating "speed" to the relation. The Quran is relating "direction" or "path" to the relation, as seen in the last part of the verse that clearly states they move on predefined courses, not predefined speeds.
Book full of tautology. Please read your own definition. Your cherry picking of definitions is also pathetic.
You have issues with logic. Generally, one definition of "tautology" does not invalidate the rest. They are all true, which is the whole purpose of a dictionary, to show the possible meanings of a word. Drop this, it's leading nowhere, aside from being convenient to you, because you cannot refute as above, and prefer to talk about an irrelevant definition. You are probably going to point out that the definition is not irrelevant because I mentioned it earlier, but that shows your mindset.
Here are the used definitions
1.) the repetitious or unnecessary use of words that do not provide new information in an utterance, as Hear, hear! or I myself said... Note Tautologies occur commonly in everyday speech. adj. tautologous.
2.) In logic, a tautology is a proposition that is already true by definition, not because of any logical deduction. Usually, it is a non-sensical statement. For instance, "All triangles have three sides" is an inherently true proposition, but it doesn't tell us anything new.
3.) A sentence is said to be a tautology if it cannot be false, or if a truth-table for it contains only Ts (True) in the column under the sentence. For example, If today is Monday and I am wearing a red sweater, then I'm wearing a red sweater, Either the moon is made of green cheese or it's not the case that the moon is made of green cheese. The contrast is a self-contradiction, a sentence which is always false; one whose truth table contains only Fs (False). ...
Definition 3.) is the best one here, because the truth table for that verse is exactly so, made up of all truths. Part of the Quran's aim is to be clear and make everything distinct, and nothing does that better than a tautology.
Beliefs have no place or are pointless in a conversation. only logical deduction, which you are not doing very well at so far.
I was talking about your ridiculously restrictive definition of tautology, and your belief that tautology could only mean what is in that definition. Which has no basis in reality as evidenced by items 1, 2, and 3 above.
What the hell are you talking about? "otherwise, they might overtake each other,"?
I am talking about you saying that the verse states "God/Allah/Zeus/Ra has prevented/disallowed".
Sure. Why mention that Allah prevents something from happening, unless it was something that could possibly happen if Allah didn't prevent it? If I travel east and you travel west, does it need to be mentioned that one will not catch up with the other? Of course not. It's a given. But if we both do a circle around the same thing, then it is no longer a given that one would never catch the other, and therefore the statement that the two cannot catch each other (due to allah's control) suddenly becomes very neaningful and worth mentioning. and, to make it even more clear, it tells us that the night cannot catch the day, in the very same verse where it says the moon can't catch the sun. So why are the movements sun and moon and night and day related so closely in the same exact verse?
Take your issue up with the idiots who wanted to burn Galileo, not me. There is no intended meaning, but clarity. The verse does have its meaning, but only when one considers its nature (tautological), implications (refutes the previous geocentricity POV) and context, and not just its content.
It's ridiculous to think that Allah prevents the moon from catching up to the sun? Isn't allah responsible for everything?
Not at all, that isn't ridiculous whatsoever, it is true, in fact. The issue, is again, whether this is active, or passive denial. Activeness requires a subject, passive denial does not require a subject in the sentence. That verse has no subject, meaning it states it passively. In other words, the difference between "possible but prevented", i.e. "active", and "impossible", i.e. "passive". I am arguing for the latter. The simple fact is, that God's will could have been either way, and God, Allah, Zeus, Ra, the creator, chose the passive method. God has power over all things (yet another common theme in the Quran).
Doesn't the day and night refer to the earth? So why shouldn't the sun and moon refer to the earth as well, especially since they are all right next to each other in the same verse. And they are all right next to each other in other verses as well.
They are related, but you are taking the wrong component of the vector, simple as that. In the verse itself, the direction, not the magnitude, is emphasised. So, by your logic, you have to concede that since it relates a vector or two (motions of sun and moon) to day and night, then in the same verse, states they are on a predefined direction, then it is referring to the direction, not speed. Comprende? Your relation between day and night and sun and moon is correct, but not the factors involved.
Passive denial can also simply mean setting the orbit speed for both correctly so that one doesn't catch the other. The concept of one catching the other isn't even relevant if it was talking about two totally unrelated orbits where the sun orbits the galaxy and the moon orbits the earth. But boy, is it ever relevant if it was talking about both orbiting the earth
Correct. Unfortunately for you, the verse tends towards completely passive denial, i.e. tautology. See above, the direction is mentioned, not the speed. It is noteworthy, that the Sun and Moon trace close paths to each other in the alternations of the day and night. In either possible instance of passive denial (absolute and otherwise), the verse is correct. From either reference point, the verse is correct. So, the verse is correct for BOTH the previous, 7th century understanding, and also the modern understanding, but nowhere does it say both orbit the Earth through the geodesic, but says they go in their own courses. Great, isn't it?
Yeah, been there, done that. It's an often used excuse, but it never really works. So how fast does the sun travel do to a full circle around the earth?
Roughly 1037 miles per hour (circumference of Earth at Equator * length of day). This is true for the whole universe, in the period of 24 hours.
Then why don't you pay attention to what you write? Didn't you say everything orbits the earth in 24 hours and also say that the solar sytem orbits the earth in 365 days? Go back and read it. Hey, so far, you've been the guy with the holes in your statements, and I don't just make the claim, I show you exactly why.
Both statements are true, and you cannot refute either.
There you go. you just said it again. Clearly you said that everything orbits the earth in 24 hours, relative to the earth and also said everything orbits the earth in 365 days, relative to the earth. That's what you said. Look at it again. It's not my problem that you can't communicate clearly. If you explain things this way, then you're nephew will not understand you as nobody is supposed to understand a contradictory sentence such as that. Would you care to reword this? Thank you.
I stated specifically that it depends on your origin/reference point.
Hardly. There's only one thing wrong with my interpretation. and that is, that it puts the Quran at odds with modern science.
No it doesn't. From our perception, that interpretation is correct, in reality, the other interpretation is correct. Choose as you will, I prefer the reality option.
-
Oh, so the sun drags the moon around the galaxy and yet the Quran needs to mention that the moon can't catch up to the sun? Hmmmm....What about the earth? How come it didn't tell us that the earth can't catch up to the sun either? Hmmmm.....Maybe it should have told us that no celestial bodies can catch up to the sun, right? But curiously, it only mentions the moon, and it mentions it right next to the mention of the night never catching up to or outstripping the day. But no. Oh no no no. My interpretation is impossible. ;D Hardly. There's only one thing wrong with my interpretation. and that is, that it puts the Quran at odds with modern science. But believe me, i know full well that a Muslim simply is not capable of acknowldging things like this, which is how the Quran remains perfect in their world.
It says the moon does not catch up to the sun. Simple isn't it? Where is the problem here?
-
I've already explained it many times over. You are merely in stonewalling mode now. Gee, why didn't you just do this is the first place?
Where does it say that both the moon and the sun orbit the earth?
-
Where does it say that both the moon and the sun orbit the earth?
It doesn't. So why should we think it's talking about something else, when it also mentions day and night right next to it? What reason do we have to think that it's talking about an orbit around the galaxy? In fact, the concept of the galaxy is never really found in the Quran, but the earth is all over the Quran. But yet, we're supposed to think that the Quran was speaking about an orbit around something it never even mentions rather than the earth which it mentions all of the time and is related to night and day? Hardly. What would be the reason for thinking it's talking about an orbit around the galaxy? If it was, then perhaps scholars would have made reference to this before science recently discovered the sun orbits a galaxy. But that is nowhere to be found. But only after science discovers this does the Quran NOW talk about an orbit around the galaxy. See what happens? It's such blatant subjectivity that it might as well be called outright logical cheating.
-
It doesn't. So why should we think it's talking about something else, when it also mentions day and night right next to it? What reason do we have to think that it's talking about an orbit around the galaxy? In fact, the concept of the galaxy is never really found in the Quran, but the earth is all over the Quran. But yet, we're supposed to think that the Quran was speaking about an orbit around something it never even mentions rather than the earth which it mentions all of the time and is related to night and day? Hardly. What would be the reason for thinking it's talking about an orbit around the galaxy? If it was, then perhaps scholars would have made reference to this before science recently discovered the sun orbits a galaxy. But that is nowhere to be found. But only after science discovers this does the Quran NOW talk about an orbit around the galaxy. See what happens? It's such blatant subjectivity that it might as well be called outright logical cheating.
The concept of universe is found in the Quran, and galaxies are part of universe, so it can mean they orbit around the universe. And what's got day and night to do with the moon and the sun orbiting around the earth as you want to put it? You are simply adding to the Quran.
