Sun orbits the galaxy?
-
Whoa whoa whoa whoa. There it is. You just said it. The Quran is not interpreted by what it says, it's interpreted by reality. So any new discovery immediately gets attached to the Quran. WOW !! I've been saying this more than once, and it indeed displays faulty, skewed logic. Anyway, the connection lies in the fact that they are all referenced in the same verse or adjoining verse multiple times in the Quran. If the point were in your favor, you'd be telling me that this was a clear "contextual" truth of the Quran. But now, it's the old "how do you know for sure"? Then again, how could i possibly expect any objectivity? Am I crazy? I guess I am if I expect that.
It IS a clear contextual truth from the Quran. The basis of your argument is pure clutching at straws. The verse is right no matter whose perception is used, but you wish to attribute a 7th century understanding so you can claim it is "false" or "tales of old" and coincidentally, it is correct in modern times. This verse, is not something you can compare to reality and come out as truthful in. There are many other verses in the Quran you could have used, which do look incorrect according to reality, you could have chosen them.
Let's see, in reality
1.) The Sun doesn't overtake the Moon
2.) Day never overtakes night.
3.) Both the Sun and Moon take predefined paths.
Simple, eh? The verse is correct, no matter what.
Now, your ridiculous assumption that the Moon is associated with night, and Sun with day in the Quran, and they orbit Earth, both (which they do, relatively), is utter rubbish, because unless the moon is emitting "darkness", there is no way for it to happen. Clearly you wish to picture a moon opposing the Sun, with Earth between them, and them continually spinning around the Earth, never overtaking each other. Too bad for you, in 7116, 2561, and 105, it clearly states both are lights, and one (the Sun) is a source of light.
Oh. But you don't have a pre conceived notion the other way? Oh, OK.
Reading comprehension is a very useful skill to have.
Ummmmm...Would you care to explain to me how multiple moons all orbit around other planets? Is that active or passive? Seems like it's passive to me. So why wouldn't it be passive in the case of the sun and moon both orbiting the earth?
We are talking about the Earth/Moon/Sun and Day/Night/Month/Year system, not about other moons. It IS passive in the case of the Sun and Moon both orbiting the Earth, technically both the Sun and Moon orbit the Earth in any case - just not through the geodesic.
I want you to show the case for the word "impossible", OK? I'm not so sure about that.
When it says "It is not permitted", and then "the Moon is a light", then we can only say that genuinely is impossible for your system to work. Leaving, absolute passiveness.
Does the earth spin or is it all relative? Geostationary Satellites.
What are you talking about? Of course the Earth spins. It takes two to tango, and the Earth spins, the universe spins around it. Satellites would be included in that.
Well be sure about it because that's what it says, as opposed to what you can invent. AND, it says the MOON is used for counting years, not the sun. So you were wrong. Again.
The moon is not exclusively used for measuring years. It says the moon is used for counting years, but not "NOT THE SUN". There is a difference. See 696. But the moon is used for counting the months, which are twelve. See this http//free-minds.org/articles/science/timing.htm.
Didn't I link it? If not, I will . BTW, do you know what tafsir is? It's commentary on the "supposed" word of Allah. so why would you even mention brackets?
Thanks for the information.
Oh God, everything is tautological. Who drilled this into your head?
Strawman. Are you trying to see how many fallacies you can cram into one sentence? A tautology is self-evident, so the point stands.
But actually, we can also say that the sun and moon do the same path since the sun drags the moon along with it, right? Just thought I would show you a bit of your own creativity Grin Hey, it's possible, right? Grin
If I can invent it, and you can't disprove it, then you must respect it as legitimate, right? Grin
We can say it's possible, like I said my theory was possible and nothing more. Unfortunately for you, I already disproved that rubbish. You should go back to Klingons orbiting Pluto or Jesus water-skiing.
No, that is your obstacle. The Quran is reality for you, and then you go out and find examples of this reality. That is faulty and backwards. Yes, I am familiar with the term "axiomatic", and it's generally associated with undetected brainwashing.
The Quran is very specific about things. Here, it refers to the Sun and Moon and their orbits. There is no need to "go out and find" because everywhere in the Quran, they are shoved in our faces. Reality is the benchmark, and the logic is that if the Quran doesn't contradict reality in any way, it stands high.
So what? What was you're point?
A direction to see signs...
Show me this and link it.
About what, the thunder or the curvature? God forbid you use common sense. On a flat Earth, it would be sharp, not completely gradual, because the Sun's light "shadow" would hit exactly where it was aimed, aside from atmospheric things. With curvature, you get diffraction, distortion, absorption in the air, reflection, and so on, leading to it getting weaker and light diminishing from the greater dstances, and the end result being a completely gradual day/night cycle. By the way, we are comparing a crackle of electricity to a super sized ball of gas, I don't think a source is needed .
We were talking about how the visual observation was the same, which is why a book mentioning that night and day gradually transistion is no real indication that it understood roundness of the earth whatsoever. It was merely recounting what the naked eye saw.
The naked eye also sees a round Earth.
You are mentally all over the map.
You are baffled. An Arab could only have sat back and passively (;D) observed the gradual shift, today, we can actively go out and prove it, and manipulate it.
Yes, Simple. So leave Islam and explore what mystics have to say.
rotfl
Who would these mystics be? Let me guess, Starjade, the Doomsday Prophet??
rotfl
And i answered that, and you didn't answer it back, which is why you are now dealing with it again.
Where?
This is nothing but stupid, common sense observation.
Have you heard of a word called "tautology"?
-
What does yasbahoona mean?
It can mean to swim, which in this context means to orbit.
-
It can mean to swim, which in this context means to orbit.
Okay, so the Quran never tells us the things orbit at all. It tells us that these things swim in outer space. That does not denote a circular path in the least. So we have absolutely no mention of a circular path. Keep diggin that hole.
-
Okay, so the Quran never tells us the things orbit at all. It tells us that these things swim in outer space. That does not denote a circular path in the least. So we have absolutely no mention of a circular path. Keep diggin that hole.
It means to orbit as well.
-
Oh, so it means both words at the same time. Not a duel meaning word, but a word that means two things simultaneously. ;D ;D That's pretty cross eyed, wouldn't you say?
It has more than one meaning. To orbit, to run, to imagine, to swim etc...
-
More than one at the same time or same instance? ;D ;D
?
I have already told you that words can have several meanings. -
?
I have already told you that words can have several meanings.No, you are hiding. Can I mean two different things at the same time when i say a word? I know a word can have two different definitions. But can I simultaneously mean two different things when I utter one word one time? Am I telling you two different things at one time? And the answer is, no. Words can have two meanings, but an utterance of the word can only have one. It has to be ONE of the meanings for the word, not two at the same time.
So therefore, that verse cannot simultaneously reference orbit and outer space at the same time or in the same exact utterance. So you're going to have to pick one. Is it outer space or orbit?
-
The meaning of a word is modified by the object.
-
No, you are hiding. Can I mean two different things at the same time when i say a word? I know a word can have two different definitions. But can I simultaneously mean two different things when I utter one word one time? Am I telling you two different things at one time? And the answer is, no. Words can have two meanings, but an utterance of the word can only have one. It has to be ONE of the meanings for the word, not two at the same time.
I agree.
So therefore, that verse cannot simultaneously reference orbit and outer space at the same time or in the same exact utterance. So you're going to have to pick one. Is it outer space or orbit?
Which words?
I thinkFalak
means galaxy/universeYasbahon
means to orbit. -
Why can't one word mean two different things in the same sentence, at the same time? Why is this so impossible? I'm not talking about any sentences disscused here, but in general. If I say a sentence, and one of the words can have e.g. two different meanings, I can't see any reason why my sentence can't have two different, at the same time, valid meanings. At every instance in time, more than one thing is true, isn't it? Paris is the capital of France and strawberries are red. Both things are true. It must be possible, in some language, that two true things can be said in one and the same sentence, using a word with more than one meaning?
Or?
-
Just a off-topic (but on-core-problem) side remark I felt I had to make after reading this thread
The problem is not proving/showing things to people.
The problem lies in whether they want to be shown or not.
The problem is whether they are willing to change their mind or not.
The problem lies in their motives.
Do they wanna learn or are they just out to win, and prove someone else (and that person's faith and book) wrong.Sometimes it hard to tell which one of the following things is the real case in a debater brickwall
- Plain old stubborn and cramped rigidness. Doubtful motives.
- "child syndrome" Inexperience, naiveness, over-confidence in one's knowledge.
- Low IQ