If you read the Quran, why didn't you believe in it?

Argue for and against religions and philosophies which are not Christian

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
manofIslam

Post #51

Post by manofIslam »

Our HOLY QURAN can be read and studied in any language: as long as the Translation is a good one: I'm a Muslim Revert of almost 6 years, and I read the English Translation of THE HOLY QURAN: as translated by ABDULLAH YUSUF ALI: and in fact: I recommend all English-speaking people who are interested in perhaps Reverting to ISLAM, to read this version thoroughly and thoughtfully!

Also: It was only after I read THE HOLY QURAN: that GOD (ALLAH (SWT)) convinced me that THE HOLY QURAN IS THE ONLY TRUE AND FINAL WORD OF GOD, which, in turn, led me to become a Muslim (having been previously a Christian!).

So read THE HOLY QURAN slowly, and ponder over it's meanings, and I'm sure you will see that it is the True and Final Word of God.

User avatar
Purple Knight
Scholar
Posts: 452
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm

Post #52

Post by Purple Knight »

manofIslam wrote: Our HOLY QURAN can be read and studied in any language: as long as the Translation is a good one: I'm a Muslim Revert of almost 6 years, and I read the English Translation of THE HOLY QURAN: as translated by ABDULLAH YUSUF ALI: and in fact: I recommend all English-speaking people who are interested in perhaps Reverting to ISLAM, to read this version thoroughly and thoughtfully!

Also: It was only after I read THE HOLY QURAN: that GOD (ALLAH (SWT)) convinced me that THE HOLY QURAN IS THE ONLY TRUE AND FINAL WORD OF GOD, which, in turn, led me to become a Muslim (having been previously a Christian!).

So read THE HOLY QURAN slowly, and ponder over it's meanings, and I'm sure you will see that it is the True and Final Word of God.
Can you refute this asserion?
happy forever wrote:Arabic is the only complete straight language, any other language is 'Agam which means "not clear or accurate".

Quran is the words of Allah and His words are miraculous, that's why it is impossible for humans to translate it.
...I admit that I cannot refute it.

I can't see a way to defeat this claim.

The best I can hope for is a translation that explains every word used in a way that an English-speaker would understand.

However, if my language itself is that faulty I cannot reasonably ask that I be able to understand anything.

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18080
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 4 times

Post #53

Post by Divine Insight »

happy forever wrote:Arabic is the only complete straight language, any other language is 'Agam which means "not clear or accurate".

Quran is the words of Allah and His words are miraculous, that's why it is impossible for humans to translate it.
This claim guarantees to me right here that this religion is not the work or words of any God.

The mere fact that this apology needs to be given for this religion assures that is is indeed false.

With all due respect, it's these kinds of religious apologies that are the most compelling of all that demonstrate that a religion is indeed nothing more than man-made nonsense.

If you can't explain what the Qur'an is trying to say in English, then it clearly has nothing intelligible to convey.

Some claim that to tell a religious person this is an uncivil insult. But as far as I'm concerned the very idea that a theist expects me to buy into these kind of apologies is itself an uncivil insult.

If your God cannot communicate with me directly and easily, then he's an extremely inept God. Shame on him.

Not only this, but your argument clearly fails miserably anyway because there are a lot of a Arabs who speak Arabic and find the Qur'an to be utterly absurd and ridiculous.

So there you go. Proof positive that even many Arab speaking people don't find it to be compelling. Clearly the apology has no merit.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

User avatar
Purple Knight
Scholar
Posts: 452
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm

Post #54

Post by Purple Knight »

Divine Insight wrote:With all due respect, it's these kinds of religious apologies that are the most compelling of all that demonstrate that a religion is indeed nothing more than man-made nonsense.

If you can't explain what the Qur'an is trying to say in English, then it clearly has nothing intelligible to convey.

Some claim that to tell a religious person this is an uncivil insult. But as far as I'm concerned the very idea that a theist expects me to buy into these kind of apologies is itself an uncivil insult.

If your God cannot communicate with me directly and easily, then he's an extremely inept God. Shame on him.
A cat wouldn't understand the Qur'an either. You wouldn't be able to properly translate any book into meows that a cat could understand, and it is indeed because their very basic language fails at describing the things in books.

I find the "you are a cat" argument to be quite strong, actually.

I find myself wondering, well, what if I am? I certainly wouldn't understand things correctly, so the mere possibility that I am just a cat does indeed cast doubt on everything I think I understand.

There's simply no way to a true knockdown - a reductio - of the "you are a cat" argument, because any way I find myself able to burrow in and land that argument on its back is suspect of flaw if I am indeed only a cat meowing at the argument. I only think I have argued, when all I have done is play with a toy. Every argument I make becomes a straw man if my understanding or my language fails.

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18080
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 4 times

Post #55

Post by Divine Insight »

Purple Knight wrote: I find the "you are a cat" argument to be quite strong, actually.
okay so it works for you, but it doesn't work for me.

My reasoning is as follows?

Why in the world would a supposedly benevolently loving God be treating me like a cat? :-k

That argument makes absolutely no sense to me at all. Therefore I consider it to be an extremely weak argument unworthy of my consideration.

Moreover, consider the following:

Even I, as a mere human, wouldn't hold it against a cat for not being able to understand what I'm saying. Why should I think that a benevolent God would hold this against me?

Secondly, I didn't create the cat, nor am I responsible for my inability to communicate with a cat.

A God who had supposedly created me would be totally responsible for any inability to communicate with me directly.

So what kind of a hateful deceitful God are we talking about here? I suppose this could be a "strong argument" if you allow that the God is a total jerk who has no compassion or intention to reach out to anyone. But wouldn't that be utterly ridiculous for a God who is demanding to be worshiped lest he'll cast you into eternal hell?

In other words, you need to consider this in the context of what the entire theology is supposed to be about. You can't just make arguments that the God is a jerk and claim that to be a "strong argument".

What reason would I have to trust a God who would be so malevolent toward me?

So how to you justify that aspect of it?

This God would not be in any position to be claiming that anyone is rejecting him when he isn't even bright enough to make himself known without ambiguity first.

In short, to accept the argument you see as being a "strong augment" I would need to accept the idea that this God is a complete idiot, either that or he's extremely malevolent and untrustworthy. But this would then violate the whole premise of the theology.

I certainly can't be blamed or held responsible for not believing in a God that even theists claim I cannot understand. :roll:

So no, this argument is not only weak, but as far as I can see it's an argument that shoots the apologists in their own feet.

They need to claim extreme ineptitude or malevolence on the part of their God to try to make this argument work. And their God is not supposed to be inept, nor malevolent. So how exactly is this argument supposed to make any sense?

Please explain. O:)
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18080
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 4 times

Post #56

Post by Divine Insight »

By the way, even if the argument that the Qur'an only makes sense in Arabic was valid that still wouldn't help this religion.

I've only ever spoken English, although I have studied both French and Spanish to some very minor degree. However, even when studying those languages the only way to learn them is to understand what their words mean in English.

In short, if Arabic is a language that can say things that cannot even be conveyed in English, then it would be impossible for me to learn the language anyway.

Finally we know for certain that these kinds of arguments are totally bogus and clearly false. There have been many mathematical and scientific papers written in Arabic and there was no problem at all translating them into English.

So the claim that Arabic cannot be translated into English in a meaningful way is a clearly bogus argument.

So there we have it. The "cat" argument fails miserably. Arabic cannot be claimed to be a language that is so impossible to translate that it cannot be understand by humans using other languages. The argument is clearly an apologetics catastrophe.

Obviously an act of extreme desperation on the part of theists to try to make something out of a failed religion that makes no sense in any language including Arabic.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

User avatar
Purple Knight
Scholar
Posts: 452
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm

Post #57

Post by Purple Knight »

Divine Insight wrote: By the way, even if the argument that the Qur'an only makes sense in Arabic was valid that still wouldn't help this religion.

I've only ever spoken English, although I have studied both French and Spanish to some very minor degree. However, even when studying those languages the only way to learn them is to understand what their words mean in English.

In short, if Arabic is a language that can say things that cannot even be conveyed in English, then it would be impossible for me to learn the language anyway.
Correct, you would still be a cat.
Divine Insight wrote:Finally we know for certain that these kinds of arguments are totally bogus and clearly false. There have been many mathematical and scientific papers written in Arabic and there was no problem at all translating them into English.
You could dispense with this in many ways:

1. Math and science makes sense despite the language being Agam. This is because of the processes of math and science, not English. The English around the math and science is still nonsense, but intelligent readers read the numbers and statistics with only cursory glances to the language to inform the reader what is being proven. Math is a universal language, as they say. It would be impossible for math to be Agam.

2. The readers only think the papers still make sense; they no longer do.

3. English actually does have clear and precise words for many nonreligious terms; it is only when speaking philosophically or religiously that English is sure to fail.

4. The papers do make sense but they just happened to; it was not a sure thing that the translation could succeed.
Divine Insight wrote:So the claim that Arabic cannot be translated into English in a meaningful way is a clearly bogus argument.
It definitely seems to be a terrible argument but we can't know if we're just cats, meowing at the argument instead of actually understanding it.

That's the claim, and as far as I see, it can't be thrown out that easily.

Any attempt to throw it out would rely on the assumption on my part that my throwing arm is sound, when the very claim is that my throwing arm is defective.

I can't assume my claim to prove it; that would be assuming the conclusion - a circular argument. Thus, if he says, "your language is defective" he has me at a loss. I can't prove my language is good without assuming that my language is good, because I'm using it in the proving.

I wonder if an experiment could be designed by Arab speakers that would test English-speakers' ability to be clear and precise with each other, against a control of a group of Arabic speakers being given the same tests as to whether they can communicate clearly and precisely in their own language. (But again, here I am trying to use my throwing arm, and assuming my throwing arm is good, when the claim is that it's not good, so I can't assume it is good.)
Divine Insight wrote:So there we have it. The "cat" argument fails miserably. Arabic cannot be claimed to be a language that is so impossible to translate that it cannot be understand by humans using other languages. The argument is clearly an apologetics catastrophe.

Obviously an act of extreme desperation on the part of theists to try to make something out of a failed religion that makes no sense in any language including Arabic.
Technically this is an ad hominem.

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18080
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 4 times

Post #58

Post by Divine Insight »

Purple Knight wrote: Technically this is an ad hominem.
I don't see where truth equals an ad hominem. Especially when the theist's arguments are fundamentally an ad hominem aimed at degrading and belittling everyone who doesn't buy into their religion.

They are basically saying that we cannot understand our creator but they can't. :roll:

I see no reason to fall for such obvious nonsense.

Especially when the fallacy of their argument has already been proven by Arabic speaking people who don't believe in the Qur'an.

In their case that charge would need to be that they actually did understand it but even with the knowledge that this God is true they have purposefully chosen to reject him.

In short, this particular theistic argument is not only an ad hominem against non-Arabic speaking people, but it's actually an extremely hateful and degrading accusation against any Arabic speaking people who don't find the Qur'an compelling.

Keep mind mind that it's not only English speaking people who reject this religion.

So the argument fails is multiple ways.

All of these Abrahamic religions are basically hate-filled religion that do their very best to denigrate anyone who refuses to cower down to their demands. They are based on fables about a supposedly jealous God how doesn't even have the emotional maturity of many mortal humans.

Let's not forget that these religions are based upon the idea that this jealous God will do extremely diabolical and evil things to anyone who doesn't believe in him and worship him.

And based on this particular apologetic argument this God even goes to the additional level of malevolence by purposefully confusing people's language and hiding the very information he supposedly wants them to know.

I don't see how it can be considered an ad hominem to state the obvious, which is that this religion clearly makes no sense at all, and the apologies for it appear to be extremely desperate in light of the fact that there is obviously no sane or rational arguments that can be made for it.

I mean, if the best argument that can be put forward is that the God is so diabolical that he hides truth from people and keeps them in a state of ignorance and confusion, then I would say that's an extremely desperate theology.

As I say. I wouldn't even do that to a cat. Yet they have a God who would supposedly do this to innocent humans. That's a pretty sad argument for a religion.

"If only you could read Arabic you could know the truth of God"

EXCEPT, for the obvious fact that many people who can read Arabic don't find this mythology compelling.

So much for that argument.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

User avatar
Difflugia
Sage
Posts: 947
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 108 times
Been thanked: 77 times

Post #59

Post by Difflugia »

Purple Knight wrote:I find the "you are a cat" argument to be quite strong, actually.
If this is a correct analogy, then it has nothing to do with Arabic, English, or any other language. I've run into things that are unwieldy to translate, but I've never run into anything in one language that simply can't be explained in another. Some explanations are more economical with words in a particular language, but never impossible in another.

Hebrew often requires more words than English to express something precisely. The corollary is that short Hebrew phrases are often ambiguous. This leads to a number of Hebrew phrases that are intentional puns or double entendres that must be explained in English. An amusing example is Ruth 3:4. The phrase usually translated, "...go in, uncover his feet, and lie down..." is only four words: "[and go in] [and uncover] [at the feet] [and lie down]." It could also be correctly translated as "...go in, take your clothes off, then lie down next to his genitals...." Despite being awesome (and I think intentional), that ambiguity is rarely captured in English translations. It's not difficult to explain in English, though.

I don't know any Arabic, but my understanding is that it's very similar in form to Hebrew. The fact that it's prone to the same kind of ambiguity is evidenced by the sheer volume of commentary that exists, itself often contradictory, in Arabic! If readers in Arabic can't be sure what various passages mean, why should we believe that Arabic is in some sort of privileged position to supply meaning that other languages can't?

User avatar
Purple Knight
Scholar
Posts: 452
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm

Post #60

Post by Purple Knight »

Difflugia wrote:
Purple Knight wrote:I find the "you are a cat" argument to be quite strong, actually.
If this is a correct analogy, then it has nothing to do with Arabic, English, or any other language. I've run into things that are unwieldy to translate, but I've never run into anything in one language that simply can't be explained in another. Some explanations are more economical with words in a particular language, but never impossible in another.
Consider just for a moment that you only think you can translate it correctly because your native language is fundamentally faulty.

In other words, your operating system is based on a buggy language. There are some things you just can't do; they'll cause crashes. (This is why you're correct that it's not even really about the language. Fundamentally it's the "you can't understand that" argument with a brief explanation of why.)

Well, now anything you say, or even think, is suspect.

Personally I don't usually think in words. But I'm aware that most people do.
Difflugia wrote:Hebrew often requires more words than English to express something precisely. The corollary is that short Hebrew phrases are often ambiguous. This leads to a number of Hebrew phrases that are intentional puns or double entendres that must be explained in English. An amusing example is Ruth 3:4. The phrase usually translated, "...go in, uncover his feet, and lie down..." is only four words: "[and go in] [and uncover] [at the feet] [and lie down]." It could also be correctly translated as "...go in, take your clothes off, then lie down next to his genitals...." Despite being awesome (and I think intentional), that ambiguity is rarely captured in English translations. It's not difficult to explain in English, though.

I don't know any Arabic, but my understanding is that it's very similar in form to Hebrew. The fact that it's prone to the same kind of ambiguity is evidenced by the sheer volume of commentary that exists, itself often contradictory, in Arabic! If readers in Arabic can't be sure what various passages mean, why should we believe that Arabic is in some sort of privileged position to supply meaning that other languages can't?
Imagine you only think it's contradictory because when it's translated to another language, it becomes so.

Imagine that in its original language, it is pristine.

I actually imagined that and I legit can't get a lever under that argument to pry it up and toss it out, because my lever was called into question.

...And I can't assume my conclusion (that my lever is sound) in order to prove it.

So anything I try to pry under there just breaks at the outset.

The argument is pure genius.
Divine Insight wrote:I don't see where truth equals an ad hominem.
Where you're saying they're saying English speakers can't understand out of desperation.
Divine Insight wrote:Especially when the theist's arguments are fundamentally an ad hominem aimed at degrading and belittling everyone who doesn't buy into their religion.
I would say it's a rare case of potentially valid (and, quite unassailable) not-quite-ad-hominem. It relies on degrading and belittling non-Arabic speakers, true, but in doing so it actually presents something unassailable, because those being degraded and belittled are having their ability to understand the issue at hand attacked, rather than something that is even potentially irrelevant to the issue, like someone wearing dirty or stained clothes for example.

If I don't understand, and someone says, "You can't understand, because you're not smart enough to understand," (and to be fair, it is explained, just in another language I don't speak) there's just no leverage to get under this argument and toss it away.

Libertarians do the same thing with economics. And they're right. Yet the only argument they really need is, "You don't understand the free market," and they'll cite some economic theory everyone knows is true but no one really understands. They'll tell you go read, and when you do, they'll just say you misinterpreted.

If libertarians can win with this, so can religiosos.

I can even give examples where the "you are a cat" argument is absolutely the case. There are many scientific fields that are beyond many people. They say quantum mechanics is beyond most people. So if I give you the equation, and you simply don't understand the math (which is the language in this case) then you simply have to accept the result.
Divine Insight wrote:Especially when the fallacy of their argument has already been proven by Arabic speaking people who don't believe in the Qur'an.

In their case that charge would need to be that they actually did understand it but even with the knowledge that this God is true they have purposefully chosen to reject him.
Correct. But it's not beyond possibility. That, or they lied and said they read the Qur'an when they didn't.
Divine Insight wrote:In short, this particular theistic argument is not only an ad hominem against non-Arabic speaking people, but it's actually an extremely hateful and degrading accusation against any Arabic speaking people who don't find the Qur'an compelling.

Keep mind mind that it's not only English speaking people who reject this religion.

So the argument fails is multiple ways.
It doesn't fail; it just needs the ad hoc that the Arabic speakers rejecting it aren't being completely honest.

According to Wikipedia, 93% of Arabs are Muslims (not sure how many of them read Arabic, just assuming the 93% holds) while only 0.4% of China is Muslim.

Can I believe 7% of a random group of people are dishonest? Yes.
Divine Insight wrote:All of these Abrahamic religions are basically hate-filled religion that do their very best to denigrate anyone who refuses to cower down to their demands. They are based on fables about a supposedly jealous God how doesn't even have the emotional maturity of many mortal humans.

Let's not forget that these religions are based upon the idea that this jealous God will do extremely diabolical and evil things to anyone who doesn't believe in him and worship him.

And based on this particular apologetic argument this God even goes to the additional level of malevolence by purposefully confusing people's language and hiding the very information he supposedly wants them to know.
Well, that's basically my sig, so I can't really disagree.
Divine Insight wrote:I don't see how it can be considered an ad hominem to state the obvious, which is that this religion clearly makes no sense at all, and the apologies for it appear to be extremely desperate in light of the fact that there is obviously no sane or rational arguments that can be made for it.

I mean, if the best argument that can be put forward is that the God is so diabolical that he hides truth from people and keeps them in a state of ignorance and confusion, then I would say that's an extremely desperate theology.
No, not desperate, just not truthful, specifically where it hails their god entity as benevolent.

But I always found the idea of a malevolent or spiteful God more compelling than a benevolent one.

Where religious people seem to lose logical consistency is only when they try to make that entity benevolent.

And yet, that there are billions of people worshiping it and saying it's benevolent, well knowing what it does (because it's... it's in the lore; you can read the books), I would argue, would be the ultimate achievement of a malevolent, spiteful deceiver.

Imagine the meanest, most spiteful entity you can. Imagine the most vile, perverse motives and goals you can. Imagine it's omnipotent. Ask yourself: What would that entity do? Now go over the check boxes: What does the god entity do? You might start to think it could very well exist.
Divine Insight wrote:"If only you could read Arabic you could know the truth of God"

EXCEPT, for the obvious fact that many people who can read Arabic don't find this mythology compelling.

So much for that argument.
Well, no, not really, it just requires us to accept that 7% of some group of people are being dishonest.

If you're correct and it's all hooey, then 90% of all people are being dishonest (I mean, maybe with themselves first, but still).
If there is an ultimate act of God's cruelty, it is to provide us with only limited understanding, thrust us into a world in which we must rely on it, and then expect us to ignore it and choose faith. - Purple Knight

Post Reply