Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Splitting Of Moon!

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member

Yes there is. We have evidence for the rupture on the surface of the moon.

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap021029.html

The incident relating to King Chakrawati Farmas is documented in an old manuscript in the India Office Library, London, which has reference number: Arabic, 2807, 152-173. It was quoted in the book "Muhammad Rasulullah," by M. Hamidullah:

"There is a very old tradition in Malabar, South-West Coast of India, that Chakrawati Farmas, one of their kings, had observed the splitting of the moon, the celebrated miracle of the Holy Prophet (pbuh) at Mecca, and learning on inquiry that there was a prediction of the coming of a Messanger of God from Arabia (Detail given bellow), he appointed his son as regent and set out to meet him. He embraced Islam at the hand of the Prophet, and when returning home, at the direction of the Prophet, died at the port of Zafar, Yemen, where the tomb of the "Indian king" was piously visited for many centuries."

The old manuscript in the 'India Office Library' contains several other details about King Chakrawati Farmas and his travel.

http://www.defence.pk/forums/members-club/14390-nasa-splitting-moon.html

InshAllah I hope that helped.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Yes there is. We have evidence for the rupture on the surface of the moon.

http://apod.nasa.gov...d/ap021029.html

The incident relating to King Chakrawati Farmas is documented in an old manuscript in the India Office Library, London, which has reference number: Arabic, 2807, 152-173. It was quoted in the book "Muhammad Rasulullah," by M. Hamidullah:

"There is a very old tradition in Malabar, South-West Coast of India, that Chakrawati Farmas, one of their kings, had observed the splitting of the moon, the celebrated miracle of the Holy Prophet (pbuh) at Mecca, and learning on inquiry that there was a prediction of the coming of a Messanger of God from Arabia (Detail given bellow), he appointed his son as regent and set out to meet him. He embraced Islam at the hand of the Prophet, and when returning home, at the direction of the Prophet, died at the port of Zafar, Yemen, where the tomb of the "Indian king" was piously visited for many centuries."

The old manuscript in the 'India Office Library' contains several other details about King Chakrawati Farmas and his travel.

http://www.defence.p...tting-moon.html

InshAllah I hope that helped.

thanx bro

but i wanted to know that y there isnt any relevant or validating proof so the whole world accept it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

There is validating proofs. NASA photos, analysis, museum artifacts...lol What more do you want.

As for the world accepting it, there is a whole lot the world did not accept. Are you only thinking of this situation/event?

no! i aint thinkin of this only.

is just wanted to know that whether the world knows it or just cz of lack of knowledge its not famous.

thanks guys

w/s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

no! i aint thinkin of this only.

is just wanted to know that whether the world knows it or just cz of lack of knowledge its not famous.

thanks guys

w/s.

(salam)

I believe even if it was famous, it would still be denied. Like many other famous incidents which were denied by many people, like the Prophet (pbuh) is prophesized in the Old Testament but christians say that is not true, when the evidence is clearly there. They are too blind in their hearts to see it, its sad.

As Imam Ali [as] said "there is enough light for one who wants to see"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

is there any proof of splitting of moon in the contemporary world[the prophets(saww) miracle], more specifically the non arab world.?

As a geologist, i will say, no there is not. There is no credible research for any of this.

The pictures in the initial link of "rilles" are just spots where magma has been in the past. And what imaan=faith said is simply false.

Many of these pictures actually just appear to be surface features. Theyre not "structural", and are meerly surface features.

If the moon were split in half, there would presumably be far more evidence than a small line formed by magma. Also, you would find stratigraphic and sedimentological evidences. You wouldnt find felsic rocks in such an area. Unless the evidences were deliberately hidden from us, it would be greatly obvious to us all that it were split. You wouldnt even need to ask anyone.

Also, you can consider concepts behind the...thermodynamics of it all. How much energy and heat would such an event generate? surely enough to turn the whole thing into molten lava, we wouldnt find water features and you wouldnt find felsic moon rocks in such a place. The time of the occurance is also a problem, if such energy were placed in the moon to split it, the energy would have to have left the moon at some sort of unspeakable rate.

So yea, trust me, there is no evidence for the entire moon splitting in half, and actually i would say there is evidence for the contrary. However it is possible that small pieces have broken off from the moon. For example, we bring moon rocks back to earth with us, which is seperation of pieces of the moon.

What there is evidence for though, is for a moon developed over time in space, by the compilation of meteorites and asteroids. While in space, gravity pulls materials together, hence the reason the moon and planets are round. The chunks are pulled to the center of the moons gravity, and during this process, the heat and energy they bring melts them down. The moon being so small cannot develop convection in its cool core and so it cannot develop any protective magnetic field, hence the ancient impact craters all over it. The rocks on the moon are representative of low temperature rock cooling. No meyhem, just calm collection over time. Much like earths developmet.

However there are computer simulations that demonstrate the concept that the moon is a broken fragment of the earth, or a proto earth, however if this did occur, it would have occured billions of years ago, not any time recently. And it would be the splitting of proto earth, not splitting of the moon.

Edited by iDevonian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

(salam)

I believe even if it was famous, it would still be denied. Like many other famous incidents which were denied by many people, like the Prophet (pbuh) is prophesized in the Old Testament but christians say that is not true, when the evidence is clearly there. They are too blind in their hearts to see it, its sad.

As Imam Ali [as] said "there is enough light for one who wants to see"

And SD, you too should trust me. Im not denying any apparent evidence. The evidence in all honesty is not there. With all that i know about how rocks form and what they do when placed under certain situations and environments, as of right now, even if i wanted to, i could not argue in favor of a splitting moon. Nothing as massive as some of these people are saying anyway.

Logically speaking, if such a thing occured, then it would be very easy to see. For example, when magma pops up from deep under the earth, its very easy to recognize, it will have certain tell tail traits, certain colors and textures. But none of these things are existent on the surface of the moon, and so, its more likely that no such thing occurred on the moon. If the moon did split, then all the evidence has been hidden from us. And the moon has been rebuilt with the appearance as though it never happened.

Edited by iDevonian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

(bismillah)

054.001

YUSUFALI: The Hour (of Judgment) is nigh, and the moon is cleft asunder.

PICKTHAL: The hour drew nigh and the moon was rent in twain.

SHAKIR: The hour drew nigh and the moon did rend asunder.

054.002

YUSUFALI: But if they see a Sign, they turn away, and say, "This is (but) transient magic."

PICKTHAL: And if they behold a portent they turn away and say: Prolonged illusion.

SHAKIR: And if they see a miracle they turn aside and say: Transient magic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

And SD, you too should trust me. Im not denying any apparent evidence. The evidence in all honesty is not there. With all that i know about how rocks form and what they do when placed under certain situations and environments, as of right now, even if i wanted to, i could not argue in favor of a splitting moon. Nothing as massive as some of these people are saying anyway.

Logically speaking, if such a thing occured, then it would be very easy to see. For example, when magma pops up from deep under the earth, its very easy to recognize, it will have certain tell tail traits, certain colors and textures. But none of these things are existent on the surface of the moon, and so, its more likely that no such thing occurred on the moon. If the moon did split, then all the evidence has been hidden from us. And the moon has been rebuilt with the appearance as though it never happened.

ur interest and religion goes wd ur answer and is pertinent............

thats what i've asked !

if it wd be so important then all the atheists wd have accepted it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ur interest and religion goes wd ur answer and is pertinent............

thats what i've asked !

if it wd be so important then all the atheists wd have accepted it.

My religion is based on my science, my science not based around my religion. What I observe is what eyes can visually see. It holds little to no relation to my faith. And im sure any geologist (muslim, christian atheist etc)...would agree with me. So dont pay any mind to me being agnostic. My words are a product of science.

Edited by iDevonian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

My religion is based on my science, my science not based around my religion. What I observe is what eyes can visually see. It holds little to no relation to my faith. And im sure any geologist (muslim, christian atheist etc)...would agree with me. So dont pay any mind to me being agnostic. My words are a product of science.

thats y i said "pertinent"

dont take it in oppressive manner.

hope u have not...

w/s

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

My father told me that the Prophet (pbuh) split the moon with his two fingers. I searched it up:

The Last Hour has drawn near, and the moon has split. But whenever they see a sign, they turn away and say, ‘This is evident magic.’ (54:1-2)

"The splitting of the moon was demonstrated before a certain gathering who contradicted the Prophet Muhammad in his cause as an evidence of his Prophethood"

(Source: http://www.islamansw...racles/moon.htm_)

Guess science can't answer everything yet, otherwise all the scientists would be Muslims now..S

Scientists are discovering everything bit by bit, and even then it's wrong. Just look at the discoveries made until now which are in accordance with the Quran ;)

Edited by Najib
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

And SD, you too should trust me. Im not denying any apparent evidence. The evidence in all honesty is not there. With all that i know about how rocks form and what they do when placed under certain situations and environments, as of right now, even if i wanted to, i could not argue in favor of a splitting moon. Nothing as massive as some of these people are saying anyway.

If we should trust you, we should distrust the Quran, which is not possible..therefore trust the Quran and believe in it, because it's a miracle above that of the splitting moon. If you see it's wonders, it will amaze you and attract you. There has been no one who has researched the Quran and who found a mistake. If that is the case, it means it's perfect in all it's essence. Therefore, the verse saying the moon split, is certainly the truth, whether you studied it or not.

There have been numerous miracles, and people said: This is not possible, your Quran is fake..only to wait for another few years before they said: We were wrong and your Quran was right..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

'The Last Hour has drawn near'...what is that refering to?

Judgement day I presume.

I know it may seem far from the end of the world, as the Prophet (pbuh) came over 1400 years ago, however when you put into perspective that he was the last prophet from 124,000 and that the earth has been here for many many years [i have no idea the exact amount] before him, then a few thousand years seems like nothing in comparison to that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

My religion is based on my science, my science not based around my religion. What I observe is what eyes can visually see. It holds little to no relation to my faith. And im sure any geologist (muslim, christian atheist etc)...would agree with me. So dont pay any mind to me being agnostic. My words are a product of science.

I don't think you have as much evidence as you think. It's not like you've been to the moon yourself and it's not like there isn't more than one explanation for why the moon looks this way or that way. It's useless for people who believe in divine intervention and those who don't believe in divine intervention to argue about such topics as these and expect to get anywhere with the other side, unless the argument is of whether or not the splitting of the moon mentioned in the Quran is meant to be taken as describing a miracle wrought by the Prophet (as) during his lifetime. Otherwise, It just becomes a gloating session of how much "in the know" each party feels it is. It's useless to ask you to believe the moon was cleft in half, or split in some fashion, some 1400 years ago if you don't believe in a force that could split it and form it back together in the course of a day anyway. And though your explanation is not a scientific impossibility, someone such as myself who believes in both possibilities must be given harder evidence that it could not be anything other than your explanation. The only way to do that is to prove to me that there is no mind behind the universe that controls all the scientific phenomenon present in this world and beyond to begin with that could either accelerate a physical process or enact a improbable (not impossible) process at will or to at least prove that the historical accounts I adhere to are unreliable, if not just my interpretation of them, in regards to a particular supposed historical event is wrong. And that's a whole 'nother debate.

Edited by Saintly_Jinn23
Link to comment
Share on other sites

thats y i said "pertinent"

dont take it in oppressive manner.

hope u have not...

w/s

ok no worries

If we should trust you, we should distrust the Quran, which is not possible..therefore trust the Quran and believe in it, because it's a miracle above that of the splitting moon. If you see it's wonders, it will amaze you and attract you. There has been no one who has researched the Quran and who found a mistake. If that is the case, it means it's perfect in all it's essence. Therefore, the verse saying the moon split, is certainly the truth, whether you studied it or not.

When you trust me, youre trusting the eyes of mankind (which includes your own eyes). Look at the moon, it does not have large fractures, nor any large melted regions as it would if it were split. It is made of rocks with a low cooling temperature, the rocks of volcanoes like those on earth. When I ask everyone to trust me, im simply saying that you should trust that what you see, is what you see. Im asking you to trust that what you feel with your hands, is what you feel with your hands. Im simply describing what appears to our senses. It doesnt mean to distrust the Quran, Maybe the Quran is talking about another moon? Maybe its metaphorical? I dont know, and it being not my religion, im not too inclined to find out. It simply means, what we see with our eyes is what we see with our eyes. What that means to you, is entirely up to you. I for one see that the moon does not have evidence for having been split, therefore, it is what I believe.

There have been numerous miracles, and people said: This is not possible, your Quran is fake..only to wait for another few years before they said: We were wrong and your Quran was right..

Well, in my lifetime i have never stated that the Quran was unarguably false, im simply stateing what we know through studies. I have no interest in disproving any scripture, im just here to talk about reality. What you make of it, is up to you.

I don't think you have as much evidence as you think. It's not like you've been to the moon yourself and it's not like there isn't more than one

Well, there is the moon that is in the sky that we all see. I assume that is the one we are talking about. And i personally have not been to the moon, but we do have moon rocks, and we do have telescopes and advanced technology which allows us to clearly see what the moon is. If i lay a piece of cheese on the table in front of you, and i even hand you a piece of it. You can examine it and say "yes it is a piece of cheese". Thats all im doing, you have the evidence you need "your eyes and the piece of cheese ive given you". You do not need much more to rationally conclude that it is cheese. And again, im not here to disprove scripture, im just telling you that the piece of cheese is a piece of cheese. It sounds like you guys believe that the piece of cheese is actually a piece of beef, and im saying no, we can see that it is cheese. It has the consistancy of cheese, therefore i believe its safe to say that it is not a piece of beef, it is indeed cheese. Thats all there is to it.

explanation for why the moon looks this way or that way. It's useless for people who believe in divine intervention and those who don't believe in divine intervention to argue about such topics as these and expect to get anywhere with the other side, unless the argument is of whether or not the splitting of the moon mentioned in the Quran is meant to be taken as describing a miracle wrought by the Prophet (as) during his lifetime.

The problem here is, i would like to know why the piece of cheese appears to simply be a piece of cheese. Why doesnt it appear to be a piece of beef like you claim it is? Know what i mean? Why does the moon look as if it were never split if it were? I do not consider my conclusion irrational, if it looks like a dog, walks like a dog, barks like a dog, smells and is furry like a dog, then i see no reason we should not call it a dog. Im not the bad guy here, not trying to disprove anyones scripture. Someone asked a legitimate question, and I answered. No, there is no evidence for a split moon, as a matter of fact there is evidence to the contrary. Im not makeing this up, im simply saying that the dog is a dog. The cheese is cheese. Thats all.

Edited by iDevonian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

slightly off topic, but your post is making me wanna eat some beef with cheese :lol:

ah yes :P

And another thing, in this topic we have kaali daal and imaam=faith, both makeing false statements. I dont see anyone calling them out saying theyre untrust worthy. Why not? imaam faith posts pictures of a volcanic sill, and claimed it to be evidence. Thats simply not true, its far from it, so why isnt anyone speaking out against him?

When a random person starts talking about "evidence" and saying it supports the Quran, everyones all satisfied, but then when somone who actually knows about what theyre talking about comes along and says "hey thats not true", all of a suddon everyones against me. Theres nothing wrong with a little criticism people. Feel free to debate with your own team now and again, its good for the mind.

Edited by iDevonian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

There is validating proofs. NASA photos, analysis, museum artifacts...lol What more do you want.

As for the world accepting it, there is a whole lot the world did not accept. Are you only thinking of this situation/event?

salam Alaikum

This is the pictures NASA has captured many years ago and discovered that once the whole moon is divided many years after its estimated creation time.

moon1.jpg

moon2.jpg

moon3.jpg

ah yes :P

And another thing, in this topic we have kaali daal and imaam=faith, both makeing false statements. I dont see anyone calling them out saying theyre untrust worthy. Why not? imaam faith posts pictures of a volcanic sill, and claimed it to be evidence. Thats simply not true, its far from it, so why isnt anyone speaking out against him?

When a random person starts talking about "evidence" and saying it supports the Quran, everyones all satisfied, but then when somone who actually knows about what theyre talking about comes along and says "hey thats not true", all of a suddon everyones against me. Theres nothing wrong with a little criticism people. Feel free to debate with your own team now and again, its good for the mind.

(I quoted kaali, and imaan, so they see your message incase they didnt, and can respond to you)

(wasalam)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(I quoted kaali, and imaan, so they see your message incase they didnt, and can respond to you)

(wasalam)

Thanks, thats fine. And for the record, i have good friends who work for NASA, I know what they have published and what they have not. What kaali daal and imam faith are saying is false. People need to give honest responses, and quit making stuff up.

Edited by iDevonian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alright, i actually went out of my way to look some of this stuff up.

Kaali Daals link is of a graben known as "Rima Ariadaeus". Its about a third the width of texas. Now, last i checked, the moon was a bit bigger than a third the width of a single state. So, the picture in Kaali Daals link is misleading.

Edited by iDevonian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

It seems like the proof of the pictures is based on faulty reasoning. It's the wrong kind of reasoning. You start out by assuming the moon split in half then look for things and say, Ah! This confirms it. Wouldn't it be better to go in reverse, look at these features and ask, what do these mean?

It seems a little premature to just assume since it looks like a crack it must be one. I'm sure valleys on earth look like that from space too.

This explains its a bit, i don't like the tone of the article but it mentions some of the important things ( http://www.wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Moon_Split_Images&oldid=64144 ). When linking wiki's i'd encourage everyone to use the permanant links as well. Just incase the content changes in a couple days and its not what you're referring to or someone decides to go and edit it. If you look to the right of most wikis you'll see "toolbox" and inside that is permanant link. This seems like a much more likely explaination than the moon simply splitting in half.

Roughly half the world is in some kind of dusk or night time right, i find it hard to believe such a stupendous event was only recorded by two sources in two locations in two traditions. It indicates to me that it just might not of happened. Also, it doesn't need to split, it could of just been the appearance of an eclipse for example This ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Splitting_of_the_moon&oldid=469058018 ) talks about alternate interpretations such as eclipse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Well, there is the moon that is in the sky that we all see. I assume that is the one we are talking about. And i personally have not been to the moon, but we do have moon rocks, and we do have telescopes and advanced technology which allows us to clearly see what the moon is. If i lay a piece of cheese on the table in front of you, and i even hand you a piece of it. You can examine it and say "yes it is a piece of cheese". Thats all im doing, you have the evidence you need "your eyes and the piece of cheese ive given you". You do not need much more to rationally conclude that it is cheese. And again, im not here to disprove scripture, im just telling you that the piece of cheese is a piece of cheese. It sounds like you guys believe that the piece of cheese is actually a piece of beef, and im saying no, we can see that it is cheese. It has the consistancy of cheese, therefore i believe its safe to say that it is not a piece of beef, it is indeed cheese. Thats all there is to it.

This has NOTHING to do with what I was arguing. I'm not arguing standard geological laws of nature and the universe as we know them. What the argument is in this case of the tradition of the moon being split by the Prophet (as) is an argument of a history, not necessarily an argument of geological laws. If it was such, then your analogy of someone saying this piece of cheese is actually beef based on the merits of scripture, despite the obvious, would fit, but this is not the point I was trying to make. What I was pointing out was that this argument has much more to do with discussing historical events than it does discussing geology. This is not to say that geological studies and facts can't play a part in determining the historicity of an event related by an individual or the nature in which said event occurred (if it occurred) just that many times, evidence for one theory can be seen as evidence for another theory and this continues and continues until the smoking gun is discovered. Let me put it this way:

You park your car and leave it, only to come back and see there is a dent in it. Now just because it is possible that somebody's foot could have caused the dent in question doesn't mean that was the cause. How does one know it wasn't a rock, or a tree branch, or another car? Until one examines the scene and discovers evidence that this was the case, it is only one possibility of a certain number of possibilities you accept as potentially happening. Once all the logical possibilities are taken into account, it no longer becomes a question of a certain potentiality of physics ( eg.Can someone dent my car door by kicking it?) but a question of history given the understood physical possibilities (eg. Did someone kick my car door?).

Likewise with this "splitting of the moon" tradition in which some people, both common laymen and more educated, high class, individuals, might point out the strange formations visible on the moon and ask themselves... what caused this? Just as you see the dent on your car in which you were not present to see the formation of and ask "What caused this?" Calculating in your mind the possibilities given the knowledge you have personally obtained in your life on what causes dents in cars.

But now let us imagine that you are with a friend and he says "Obviously someone must have kicked it cause when people kick car doors, dents happen. So that must be it, no ifs, ands, or buts about it" But you point out to your friend in such an exchange.

"Well, what if somebody threw a rock at it, like this one right over here. Or what if another car door hit it or something? That could cause a dent"

"No, it couldn't. Rocks and other car doors can't cause a dent in a car door. That's silly."

"Yes, they can."

"No, they can't. I've never seen any evidence to suggest that anything but people kicking a car door can cause a dent in them."

In this situation, if hypothetically speaking it was not caused by someone's foot but by a rock being thrown at the car door, then in order for your friend to accept this fact, he must first be convinced that it is possible for a rock to dent a car door and thus, also by default, that a person's foot is not the only means that a car door may become dented.

In a discussion such as this, keep in mind we are discussing whether or not the standard scientific course of events pertaining to the moon of our planet was interrupted and thrown in a dramatically different direction, from our perspective you are like the friend in the above analogy who could not be convinced that the dent he sees in the car door was caused by anything other than a person's foot and thus if someone such as myself expects to convince you otherwise we must first make sure that you are convinced that something else could have caused the dent you see. If you cannot be adequately convinced that there is a force capable of interrupting the natural, scientific, course of events of the moon that have persisted to this day, and then able to revert it back to the typical course within the passing of a few hours. If you cannot be convinced that there is a force capable of this, then you cannot be expected to become convinced that a certain trait of the moon's appearance may have been the cause of this, just as in the analogy above one cannot be convinced that the dent in a car was caused by a rock unless he is already convinced that a rock could create dents in a car, and if we go further in order to be convinced that a rock could cause a dent in a car, he must first be convinced that there are objects present in real life called "rocks." I say that you are like this friend in the analogy not to insult your intelligence, but just to point out how people like myself might perceive your or anyone else's saying that such an event as this splitting of the moon in our religious tradition is "not possible." Whether you are simply arguing against the historical course of events as they are told (eg.Did the moon split in half and form back together in the course of a few hours?) or against the very physical possibility ( eg. Can the moon split in half and form back together in the course of a few hours?) either way you must convince the other side that it is not possible, either indefinitely (physical possibility) or just in this case (historical possibility), for this event to occur in order for them to accept that the explanation you have given is the only solution.

Again, no one, or at least I'm not, is arguing over the geological laws of the universe or the standard geological course of events as we know them, but rather are discussing whether historically there was a brief period of a few hours in which this standard that was in place was interrupted and then reverted back to normal, by the will of a supreme intelligence. If you are not adequately convinced there is a supreme intelligence that could do this, then I can't expect you to accept the possibility that such an event some 1400 years ago happened. And that's just that.

The problem here is, i would like to know why the piece of cheese appears to simply be a piece of cheese. Why doesnt it appear to be a piece of beef like you claim it is? Know what i mean? Why does the moon look as if it were never split if it were? I do not consider my conclusion irrational, if it looks like a dog, walks like a dog, barks like a dog, smells and is furry like a dog, then i see no reason we should not call it a dog. Im not the bad guy here, not trying to disprove anyones scripture. Someone asked a legitimate question, and I answered. No, there is no evidence for a split moon, as a matter of fact there is evidence to the contrary. Im not makeing this up, im simply saying that the dog is a dog. The cheese is cheese. Thats all.

But again, this is not what we're arguing or discussing. As I said in my post before, I acknowledge, metaphorically speaking, that both a rock and a foot could cause the dent I see in the car, but I do not know which one it actually was that did it. But, again, metaphorically speaking, I have a friend who has come up to me and said that he saw that someone kicked it. I have not the means to determine which it was, and my friend has not given me reason to doubt what he says, so based on his merits, I accept what he says as truth and move on.

I often think that many so called "men of logic" as they like to boast to others look down on this approach, but to be honest I sincerely believe most so called "men of science and rational thought" are no different than those religious individuals that they look down upon (not to say, necessarily, that you are such an individual) in that much of the beliefs they adhere to as fact are accepted as facts based on the merits of scholars who are said to have proven them, not necessarily because these individuals have put into effect all the experiments themselves that yielded the results the said results transmitted to have actually happened by this or that scholar, but simply because they see no reason to not trust that the scholar(s) in question would have transmitted, either intentionally or unintentionally, false information. And I'm not saying that I don't believe in most scientific theories and conclusions in today's society, I'm only saying that I accept that whether or not I'm studying the physical sciences or religious scriptures and traditions, that either way there are things that are factual that I will never be able to confirm are fact by seeing them with my own eyes and I have to learn that I must accept that there are things which are true that I must learn to accept as truth based on merits of scholars rather than hands on experimentation because with the limitations of being human, I can't be expected to experience everything first hand that there is to experience first hand in the world. I accept that the American Civil War happened, not because I was there, but because I trust the merits of the various scholars who tell me it happened. I accept that the planet we live on is a round shape, not because I've been to outer space to see it for myself, but because I trust the scholars who relate to me that it is round to not be lying to me and giving me fake pictures and testimonies based on their merits. I trust that there's a nation China not because I've been there, but because I trust the merits of people who claim to have been there and claim its existed for such and such period of time until this day. When people show me a moon rock, I don't trust that it's a moon rock based on the fact that I've been to the moon myself and took it from there to know for certain it is a moon rock, I trust that it's a moon rock because I trust the person who has shown me the picture or rock itself to not be lying to me when they say "This is a moon rock."

Likewise, I've never been to the moon, I don't have a time machine to go back in time and see the moon splitting myself, and I never will. I just notice a strange look to the moon and have some scholars tell me that the moon was for a very, very, short period of time split apart and then subsequently formed back together some 1400 years ago. Because I already believe in a force present and real capable of doing this, if scholars whose merits I trust to know what they are saying tell me that indeed it happened, I see nothing wrong with accepting it. After all, there are so many other things that I accept today as true and factual, based on the merits of scholars I have read, that I have never experienced or seen first hand (and most likely never will) but yet I still believe they happened (or happen) whether the field of the scholars in question is religion, geology, history, biology, etc. or some combination of these fields.

Sorry if the following seems off topic, and this is not directed at anyone in particular on this board or in this discussion, but it just irritates me when the so called "men of science and reasoning" as they like to call themselves fancy themselves to be somehow fundamentally different from the rest of us humans who are just trying to make sense of what is at many times a confusing and frightening world around us and, in worst cases, try to present themselves as some distinguished class of noblemen whose words must be treated as gold by anyone whose anyone. Yet, like all the rest of us, half of the facts they claim to know they have discovered not through their own unique first hand experiences but through the pages of books in public libraries, reading the words of those other people who actually did have some first hand experiences, but unlike those who humble themselves, they would act like those experiences of the knowledgeable men of older times were their own experiences and thus their own achievements. As though they were some sort of distinguished and chosen prophetic individuals themselves, which is just their way of hiding, even from themselves the truth that they are just as weak and fragile as the rest of the world, including the religious people they criticize, even going so far as to pretend that they do not trust in things they cannot see or have not seen themselves unlike the "uneducated rabble" of religious people they criticize when common logic (that which is experienced by all,whether the most noble or common of men) dictates that they do everyday of their lives and by this same common logic trust many things to be true based on the mere merits of reputable men who have claimed to have experienced these truths first hand, but have not themselves experienced them first hand.

It's always been supposed men of logic and reasoning of this persuasion who have wrought the greatest devastation upon this world. Yet for all their supposed higher learning, they ironically enough lack even the most fundamental human reasoning. :dry:

Just felt like I had to vent right there.

Edited by Saintly_Jinn23
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has NOTHING to do with what I was arguing. I'm not arguing standard geological laws of nature and the universe as we know them. What the argument is in this case of the tradition of the moon being split by the Prophet (as) is an argument of a history, not necessarily an argument of geological laws. If it was such, then your analogy of someone saying this piece of cheese is actually beef based on the merits of scripture, despite the obvious, would fit, but this is not the point I was trying to make. What I was pointing out was that this argument has much more to do with discussing historical events than it does discussing geology. This is not to say that geological studies and facts can't play a part in determining the historicity of an event related by an individual or the nature in which said event occurred (if it occurred) just that many times, evidence for one theory can be seen as evidence for another theory and this continues and continues until the smoking gun is discovered. Let me put it this way:

You park your car and leave it, only to come back and see there is a dent in it. Now just because it is possible that somebody's foot could have caused the dent in question doesn't mean that was the cause. How does one know it wasn't a rock, or a tree branch, or another car? Until one examines the scene and discovers evidence that this was the case, it is only one possibility of a certain number of possibilities you accept as potentially happening. Once all the logical possibilities are taken into account, it no longer becomes a question of a certain potentiality of physics ( eg.Can someone dent my car door by kicking it?) but a question of history given the understood physical possibilities (eg. Did someone kick my car door?).

Likewise with this "splitting of the moon" tradition in which some people, both common laymen and more educated, high class, individuals, might point out the strange formations visible on the moon and ask themselves... what caused this? Just as you see the dent on your car in which you were not present to see the formation of and ask "What caused this?" Calculating in your mind the possibilities given the knowledge you have personally obtained in your life on what causes dents in cars.

But now let us imagine that you are with a friend and he says "Obviously someone must have kicked it cause when people kick car doors, dents happen. So that must be it, no ifs, ands, or buts about it" But you point out to your friend in such an exchange.

"Well, what if somebody threw a rock at it, like this one right over here. Or what if another car door hit it or something? That could cause a dent"

"No, it couldn't. Rocks and other car doors can't cause a dent in a car door. That's silly."

"Yes, they can."

"No, they can't. I've never seen any evidence to suggest that anything but people kicking a car door can cause a dent in them."

In this situation, if hypothetically speaking it was not caused by someone's foot but by a rock being thrown at the car door, then in order for your friend to accept this fact, he must first be convinced that it is possible for a rock to dent a car door and thus, also by default, that a person's foot is not the only means that a car door may become dented.

From how i am interpretting your statement, ill say that i disagree. A moon splitting in half, there isnt question as to how it could or could not happen because we know it simply isnt possible unless you invoke miracles. Which i guess you are. Not only that but we then continue on to my next point, why would such a miracle occur and have it A. not abide by the common laws that we understand B. not have any evidence by the common laws that we understand and C. appear as if it never did occur. So lets see what your response to that is.

If i were to associate this discussion to your car dent concept, it would be more along the lines of...every night for a billion nights, i saw a kid, the same kid every night kick the same car door over and over and he would make the same dent every night for a billion nights in a row. Then the following day, you came to me during daylight, looked at the dent and said "hey idevonian, how do you know that a kid formed that dent and not a rock?". And i would say, maybe i didnt see the kid do it last night, but ive seen him a billion other times kick that same car in that same spot, his shoe print is still there and everything, so even if a shoe shaped rock did make that dent, its still more likely that the same kid kicked the same door as he has every day for the past billion years.

Why are you even proposing that a rock made this dent? What evidence do you have that a rock made this dent? I have a billion years worth of eye witnessing, i have a shoeprint, what do you have? scripture? Scripture or not, supposedly holy or not, probability and logic and reason are on my side. Even if it were possible that a shoe shaped rock did make the dent that 1/1,000,000,000th time, its still far more likely that the kid simply kicked the door like he has the other 999,999,999 times before this. So why not stand with probability and reason?

In a discussion such as this, keep in mind we are discussing whether or not the standard scientific course of events pertaining to the moon of our planet was interrupted and thrown in a dramatically different direction, from our perspective you are like the friend in the above analogy who could not be convinced that the dent he sees in the car door was caused by anything other than a person's foot and thus if someone such as myself expects to convince you otherwise we must first make sure that you are convinced that something else could have caused the dent you see. If you cannot be adequately convinced that there is a force capable of interrupting the natural, scientific, course of events of the moon that have persisted to this day, and then able to revert it back to the typical course within the passing of a few hours. If you cannot be convinced that there is a force capable of this, then you cannot be expected to become convinced that a certain trait of the moon's appearance may have been the cause of this, just as in the analogy above one cannot be convinced that the dent in a car was caused by a rock unless he is already convinced that a rock could create dents in a car, and if we go further in order to be convinced that a rock could cause a dent in a car, he must first be convinced that there are objects present in real life called "rocks." I say that you are like this friend in the analogy not to insult your intelligence, but just to point out how people like myself might perceive your or anyone else's saying that such an event as this splitting of the moon in our religious tradition is "not possible." Whether you are simply arguing against the historical course of events as they are told (eg.Did the moon split in half and form back together in the course of a few hours?) or against the very physical possibility ( eg. Can the moon split in half and form back together in the course of a few hours?) either way you must convince the other side that it is not possible, either indefinitely (physical possibility) or just in this case (historical possibility), for this event to occur in order for them to accept that the explanation you have given is the only solution.

And in reality, i shouldnt be convincing you that a miracle isnt possible (i shouldnt be trying to explain to you why a rock didnt make the dent), you should be convincing me that it is (you should be trying to say why a rock did make the dent), and on top of that explain why it appears as though it never occured (explain why it isnt just a kid and why its shaped like a shoeprint). Moving forward...

Again, no one, or at least I'm not, is arguing over the geological laws of the universe or the standard geological course of events as we know them, but rather are discussing whether historically there was a brief period of a few hours in which this standard that was in place was interrupted and then reverted back to normal, by the will of a supreme intelligence. If you are not adequately convinced there is a supreme intelligence that could do this, then I can't expect you to accept the possibility that such an event some 1400 years ago happened. And that's just that.

But again, this is not what we're arguing or discussing. As I said in my post before, I acknowledge, metaphorically speaking, that both a rock and a foot could cause the dent I see in the car, but I do not know which one it actually was that did it. But, again, metaphorically speaking, I have a friend who has come up to me and said that he saw that someone kicked it. I have not the means to determine which it was, and my friend has not given me reason to doubt what he says, so based on his merits, I accept what he says as truth and move on.

You never answered my one question. If i see that a piece of cheese is a piece of cheese 99.99% of the time, then when i look one more piece of cheese...logically speaking, it most likely is a piece of cheese. Which is why i am saying, no the moon did not split. It holds traits of a very large number of other rocks and planets, and none of them have split, so why believe this one has? Not only that but there is no physical evidence for their splitting, and not only that, but there is evidence demonstrating that they havent split.

Not only am i not acknowledging miracles, but im also acknowledging evidence that no miracle occured. So I ask you, why does it appear as though it hasnt happened? Wouldnt it be more reasonable to just accept the 99.99% probability that the moon never split? Rather than attempting to explain the impossible and the improbable and in my opinion, the unreasonable?

Why believe in the improbility and logical issues behind scriptural explanations (theres no evidence, why does physical nature demonstrate the opposition), rather than believing in the highly probable and logically consistant and greatly common physical nature of the universe?

To me, this is a fairly easy decision when i ask myself which is more likely correct.

"The problem here is, i would like to know why the piece of cheese appears to simply be a piece of cheese. Why doesnt it appear to be a piece of beef like you claim it is? Know what i mean? Why does the moon look as if it were never split if it were? I do not consider my conclusion irrational, if it looks like a dog, walks like a dog, barks like a dog, smells and is furry like a dog, then i see no reason we should not call it a dog."

I am calling it a dog, why arent you? There are no other options to what creates an image of a dog. There is no option B as to why an animal looks smells sounds and feels like a dog. Its either a dog, or its some sort of false trickery. I say its a dog, if you dont think it is, then tell me what it is. If you cant tell me what it is and you have no physical evidence for it not being a dog, then why even challange the idea that its a dog? Also, even if you challange this, you still cant say that its more probable that its a false image rather than simply being a dog. Because in reality, false image or not, it most likely is a dog.

And most likely, false image or not, that moon did not split in half.

Maybe we are arguing for different things, but this is my position that i am poseing against others before me, nobody in this room should disagree with me. If you are against a different position and actually agree with this one, im sorry, im not sure what that position is and thanks.

Edited by iDevonian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Thanks, thats fine. And for the record, i have good friends who work for NASA, I know what they have published and what they have not. What kaali daal and imam faith are saying is false. People need to give honest responses, and quit making stuff up.

Sorry for the late reply.

InshAllah I'll be Honest here. The photo I searched and furnished on this thread, was the same photo I had seen on a TV show where qualified professionals from the field of chemistry, some other modern science (I forget which one), and several other professionals had attested to the splitting of the moon. So now, I am not a professional like iDevonian who has studied rocks in depth and what not. However, the photo which I saw on TV and professionals I heard from, I expect them to be right.

In that show we were also told personal accounts of individuals who had seen the moon in two pieces and I attempted to furnish that information as well. The information was linked to the British Museum archives and a reference number was provided in the TV show.

All in all what I'm trying to say is that I furnished information based on what I expected to be trust worthy sources. In all Honesty I hope the claim of calling my statements false and 'making stuff up' was just jumping the gun a bit. I had not intention to mislead the original poster or make things up.

I thank iDevonian to applying some critical thinking to the statements made by me, I don't mind one bit. Certainly the opinion of a geologist speaking from their own experience and understanding is a whole another perspective and should be considered without any friction in such matters regardless of an individuals religious beliefs. However, it also should be noted that the conclusions made by modern astronomical and geological studies have a great probability of changing at any time in the future and by this statement I mean no disrespect to any individuals of such professionals.

However, as for the little astronomical knowledge that I have, there use to be a lot of volcanic activity on the surface of the moon at one point, right iDevonian?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry for the late reply.

InshAllah I'll be Honest here. The photo I searched and furnished on this thread, was the same photo I had seen on a TV show where qualified professionals from the field of chemistry, some other modern science (I forget which one), and several other professionals had attested to the splitting of the moon. So now, I am not a professional like iDevonian who has studied rocks in depth and what not. However, the photo which I saw on TV and professionals I heard from, I expect them to be right.

In that show we were also told personal accounts of individuals who had seen the moon in two pieces and I attempted to furnish that information as well. The information was linked to the British Museum archives and a reference number was provided in the TV show.

All in all what I'm trying to say is that I furnished information based on what I expected to be trust worthy sources. In all Honesty I hope the claim of calling my statements false and 'making stuff up' was just jumping the gun a bit. I had not intention to mislead the original poster or make things up.

I thank iDevonian to applying some critical thinking to the statements made by me, I don't mind one bit. Certainly the opinion of a geologist speaking from their own experience and understanding is a whole another perspective and should be considered without any friction in such matters regardless of an individuals religious beliefs. However, it also should be noted that the conclusions made by modern astronomical and geological studies have a great probability of changing at any time in the future and by this statement I mean no disrespect to any individuals of such professionals.

However, as for the little astronomical knowledge that I have, there use to be a lot of volcanic activity on the surface of the moon at one point, right iDevonian?

Ah, sorry if ive ever come off as a bit harsh, i am truly a nice guy. Sometimes i get a bit gungho. Thankyou for your honesty, and If i could i would redirect my criticism at the creators of this show you speak of. And yes, the rocks of the moon are in many cases "volcanic", or they have formed from a number of magma based origins. As opposed to forming from depositional environments or metamorphic environments. The moon tectonically and geographically is pretty dull.

And, a bit off topic, and i mean this in the nicest way, would it be possible if i could get the name of this show and may i ask what country you are from? I know that every country supplies a number of things on television (good and bad), I am curious as to who is producing this. I would be quite surprised if you were in the US (ive never seen such a show in the states ive been in) or the UK (You said the information was linked to a museum in the UK, im very skeptical of how they have done this, from my understanding, the science guys of the UK would not be interested in producing nor pronouncing such concepts).

Edited by iDevonian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

From how i am interpretting your statement, ill say that i disagree. A moon splitting in half, there isnt question as to how it could or could not happen because we know it simply isnt possible unless you invoke miracles. Which i guess you are. Not only that but we then continue on to my next point, why would such a miracle occur and have it A. not abide by the common laws that we understand B. not have any evidence by the common laws that we understand and C. appear as if it never did occur. So lets see what your response to that is.

I see no shame in saying the word "miracle" Why not? That's exactly my point, that I believe a rare occurrence that would appear to defy the standard course of events and/or conventional laws upheld actually happened (without disrupting the entire universe) and then things were put back into place as they were before. I already believe in a lot of things, and not just in terms of things specific to my particular religious persuasion, that at other periods in history people, even the great men of reason and scholarship in a society, would have fancied to be "miracles." Which i would say they still are, albeit from a certain point of view.

But to answer your question in regards to each of your inquiries:

A.) The key to this question are the words "common laws" and "we understand." Throughout history there have always been the men who say things happened or happen this way or that way in regards to things like nature, science, and theology and who, by the more distinguished and supposedly educated noblemen of society, are mocked at as believing in "fantasy," "primitive fairy tales," "superstition" or "things that defy common sense" only to have their ideas embraced and made the stable "common sense" as time goes one, often by the very societies that denied them and even persecuted them. History is full of these individuals: Jesus Christ, Muhammad, Gregor Mendel, Galileo etc. I'm not using this an excuse to believe in something without sufficient evidence to satisfy me, I really am not, I'm only saying that, especially in regards to your question on this tradition of the miraculous splitting of the moon, the fact that it appears to not "abide by the common laws that we understand," is not sufficient enough for me to not believe it happened. From my experiences, I have noticed that we humans have this tendency every generation to reject things under the pretense of them "not making common sense" only to find out we're wrong and adopt those very same logical fallacies as the new common sense for following generations, so much so that I often feel that the term "common sense" has very little bearing on many things. At least those are my feelings.

B.) I would say that sometimes, actually a lot of times, it can be presumptuous of us to assume we have all the evidence we can obtain by the "common laws we understand." Of course the evidence that is obtained, whether it is all that can be or only some that can be obtained, is not insignificant, but to your question of how such a miracle could happen with little physical evidence left behind to attest to it, aside from historical accounts, geologically speaking, let me put it this way:

There's a film by one director I admire, John Carpenter, called Prince of Darkness, not my favorite of his films and certainly not the best film he could make, though it was a fairly well directed film. The film deals with a group of college physicists and their professor accompanying a Catholic priest to investigate a strange and ancient container in alter beneath an old and run down church. What the group finds through their research that the container contains a fluid that is actually a conscious organism that is the creature known to religious people as "Satan." At one point in the movie, through research of an ancient text and the occurrence various strange phenomenon and research results, the team concludes that there exists a conscious mind that is capable of manipulating the entire universe, but instead of a benevolent mind like the god of the priest's religion, this god is actually malevolent and evil, manipulating and influencing antiparticles. Like I said, this is not the best movie by Carpenter, but one scene in the film I find relevant to this discussion is a scene where upon this discovery the Quantum Physics professor and the Catholic priest are discussing the results. In the movie, there was a brotherhood of monks who, unbeknownst to even the Vatican, from the time of Jesus, who in the story warned of this malevolent god and his son Satan, had kept watch and hidden the container that housed Satan for the day in which this malevolent god's influence would begin to attempt takeover the universe by the necessity of a released Satan and until the day when a means would be developed to prove what Christ was saying was true to the general masses. The one scene I'm speaking of in particular has the Catholic priest (played by Donald Pleasence) asking the professor (played by Victor Wong) why they in the church were not told the truth. The professor scoffs and says "Without the technology to confirm...it would have been another legend..."

Though obviously this is a work of fiction, one realistic point is made throughout the course of the film, and that is that there still exists many things we don't know due to the limitations of our present understanding, but often, as I stated previously, as we develop mentally and technologically, as time passes and new discoveries are made, what was once just the things of legends becomes the "common sense" of the present age and become standard facets of our education. Our Prophet himself faced the rejection of "men of common sense" himself. When he recited tales of judgement bringing angels and an omnipotent, self-sufficient, and eternal deity capable of bringing all the dead back to life, his detractors, the supposed men of reason of that age, men who didn't believe (perhaps in any god as atheism wasn't non-existent in those times) said "tales of the ancients." Before the renaissance of the dinosaur fossil discoveries, many men before might have laughed at the notion of the world once being populated by giant reptiles before the the coming of man, and if a person like our prophet had said something to the effect of that, detractors might have been tempted to say "Pfft, what more proof do we need this man is crazy? He's saying the entire world was once populated by giant monsters." And before the renaissance of dinosaur excavations many people might have said to him "Where is the evidence of this great age of sea monsters and dragons! He's just saying random nonsense to get people's attention and sway the weak minded!" Now, being taught that the world was populated for millions of years by virtually nothing but "fearfully great lizards/reptiles of ginormous size" is now staple of pretty much every child's education and to not acknowledge this fact as obvious and apparent receives tremendous criticism and/or ridicule as a delusional way of thinking.

My point is that there have been many things that people considered or would have considered unreal or fantastical or hard to swallow that have been proven factual as time progressed. Yes, there is not much evidence from a modern geologist's perspective to suggest the moon splitting, as in the moon literal splitting forming back together, did happen, but as time progresses, who knows what new discoveries we'll find? Maybe as time goes on, new evidence will be discovered, and the idea will be staple in all public schools, religious or non-religious, and those that didn't believe the moon was ever split, albeit for a short time, will go the way of those who would have upon hearing that world was once populated for millions of years, not by humans, but by giant lizards and reptiles, might have laughed and think those who believed in such things were nuts.

C.) If a man walks through the desert sands and the wind blows the sands over his tracks, does this mean he never made the journey? Of course not. Things are aren't always what they appear to be. And sometimes when we simply accept things "as they appear to be" we often may find that we wrong in our judgement, despite that judgement "appearing" to be reasonable to us at the time. I'm not saying that if it walks like a duck, quacks like duck, and looks like a duck, we shouldn't assume that it isn't a duck, but we must be careful to not overlook something that gives away the fact that it isn't really a duck. You can't very well call the "ducks" in your dreams really ducks, can you? Though sometimes, in your dreams, you may not initially perceive that the image you see that walks,quacks, and looks like a duck is not really a duck. We may pride ourselves at times to recognize the obvious truth, and sometimes it's justified, but we humans also have a tendency to overlook a thing or two, though you may not be able to blame us as much for doing so, and profess something to be true that may not exactly or entirely such.

If i were to associate this discussion to your car dent concept, it would be more along the lines of...every night for a billion nights, i saw a kid, the same kid every night kick the same car door over and over and he would make the same dent every night for a billion nights in a row. Then the following day, you came to me during daylight, looked at the dent and said "hey idevonian, how do you know that a kid formed that dent and not a rock?". And i would say, maybe i didnt see the kid do it last night, but ive seen him a billion other times kick that same car in that same spot, his shoe print is still there and everything, so even if a shoe shaped rock did make that dent, its still more likely that the same kid kicked the same door as he has every day for the past billion years.

Why are you even proposing that a rock made this dent? What evidence do you have that a rock made this dent? I have a billion years worth of eye witnessing, i have a shoeprint, what do you have? scripture? Scripture or not, supposedly holy or not, probability and logic and reason are on my side. Even if it were possible that a shoe shaped rock did make the dent that 1/1,000,000,000th time, its still far more likely that the kid simply kicked the door like he has the other 999,999,999 times before this. So why not stand with probability and reason?

I'm not in any way trying to imply you wouldn't have what one might call "good" reason to perhaps believe the kid indeed kicked the car in question. But "good reason" is not always the same as RIGHT reason. And probability, no matter how high, is not the same as certainty, especially when a concept such as "will" and "choice" are thrown into the picture. But I must say, if you are going to take the kid to court, you'll have to be able to say "I know for certain he did this" not "Well,he probably did this" cause in a (good) justice system, people don't get convicted for just probably having done something.

And also, to add to the concept of probability, we determine probability by our knowledge, which I must reiterate, may be lacking or false in a crucial area when it comes to determining the possibility or probability of something. And of course when we add the factor of "choice" (when possible) to the equation, a concept that can favor the least probable, as we onlookers may see it, of two probable courses of action, this can drastically affect the outcomes of certain series of events, once we add to the equation our potential and probability to lack proper knowledge to deliver the most accurate rate of probability, in the direction we might see as the "least probable."

To summarize, if one knows what it is to happen, then he no longer believes in the probability of an occurrence (I think might happen), he believes in a fact (I know it will happen). The latter is a bolder statement and must be thought over carefully.

Maybe we are arguing for different things, but this is my position that i am poseing against others before me, nobody in this room should disagree with me. If you are against a different position and actually agree with this one, im sorry, im not sure what that position is and thanks.

I'm only arguing that we as humans often lack knowledge where we may think we have all the answers, or even just some of them. Heck, on the subject of the moon, the scientific community of the world is not even in unanimous agreement as to how it came reside in our orbit (I was always taught at least two to three different prominent theories) And often the poor reasoning of one age becomes a trait of higher reasoning and education of another. Because humanity's ideas on "logic" "reasoning" "common sense or knowledge" and understandings of the "laws of nature" are so often changing, often to the anti-thesis of previous ideas and concepts held under these banners, or to accommodate previously expressed ideas seen by most others of a bygone time as complete balderdash or tales and exploits of eccentric charlatans, that I find for one, as human being, to profess his or herself an adherent to "rational thought" or "science" has very little weight in convincing me he or she is such when one considers the pure subjectivity of these concepts in the eyes and hands of man and womankind.

Edited by Saintly_Jinn23
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see no shame in saying the word "miracle" Why not? That's exactly my point, that I believe a rare occurrence that would appear to defy the standard course of events and/or conventional laws upheld actually happened (without disrupting the entire universe) and then things were put back into place as they were before. I already believe in a lot of things, and not just in terms of things specific to my particular religious persuasion, that at other periods in history people, even the great men of reason and scholarship in a society, would have fancied to be "miracles." Which i would say they still are, albeit from a certain point of view.

But to answer your question in regards to each of your inquiries:

A.) The key to this question are the words "common laws" and "we understand." Throughout history there have always been the men who say things happened or happen this way or that way in regards to things like nature, science, and theology and who, by the more distinguished and supposedly educated noblemen of society, are mocked at as believing in "fantasy," "primitive fairy tales," "superstition" or "things that defy common sense" only to have their ideas embraced and made the stable "common sense" as time goes one, often by the very societies that denied them and even persecuted them. History is full of these individuals: Jesus Christ, Muhammad, Gregor Mendel, Galileo etc. I'm not using this an excuse to believe in something without sufficient evidence to satisfy me, I really am not, I'm only saying that, especially in regards to your question on this tradition of the miraculous splitting of the moon, the fact that it appears to not "abide by the common laws that we understand," is not sufficient enough for me to not believe it happened. From my experiences, I have noticed that we humans have this tendency every generation to reject things under the pretense of them "not making common sense" only to find out we're wrong and adopt those very same logical fallacies as the new common sense for following generations, so much so that I often feel that the term "common sense" has very little bearing on many things. At least those are my feelings.

I thought my responses were beefy :P, i will take this a piece at a time, and it may take me a bit. one moment.

Well, the difference between scientists of today saying something and scientists of 200 years ago saying something, is a vast one. Science of today is very...methodologically advanced compared to before. There was no scientific method back in the day. And so, its nice to hear this response, but i personally cannot agree with this. The concepts I am using today, here and now are very very well established in comparison to those of the past. But you know this, and i know this, so we can go ahead and move on to your next point. And thankyou for reitterating that you are not specifically here to challange any particular status quo. And im not being sarcastic, i think its an important thing to do.

B.) I would say that sometimes, actually a lot of times, it can be presumptuous of us to assume we have all the evidence we can obtain by the "common laws we understand." Of course the evidence that is obtained, whether it is all that can be or only some that can be obtained, is not insignificant, but to your question of how such a miracle could happen with little physical evidence left behind to attest to it, aside from historical accounts, geologically speaking, let me put it this way:

There's a film by one director I admire, John Carpenter, called Prince of Darkness, not my favorite of his films and certainly not the best film he could make, though it was a fairly well directed film. The film deals with a group of college physicists and their professor accompanying a Catholic priest to investigate a strange and ancient container in alter beneath an old and run down church. What the group finds through their research that the container contains a fluid that is actually a conscious organism that is the creature known to religious people as "Satan." At one point in the movie, through research of an ancient text and the occurrence various strange phenomenon and research results, the team concludes that there exists a conscious mind that is capable of manipulating the entire universe, but instead of a benevolent mind like the god of the priest's religion, this god is actually malevolent and evil, manipulating and influencing antiparticles. Like I said, this is not the best movie by Carpenter, but one scene in the film I find relevant to this discussion is a scene where upon this discovery the Quantum Physics professor and the Catholic priest are discussing the results. In the movie, there was a brotherhood of monks who, unbeknownst to even the Vatican, from the time of Jesus, who in the story warned of this malevolent god and his son Satan, had kept watch and hidden the container that housed Satan for the day in which this malevolent god's influence would begin to attempt takeover the universe by the necessity of a released Satan and until the day when a means would be developed to prove what Christ was saying was true to the general masses. The one scene I'm speaking of in particular has the Catholic priest (played by Donald Pleasence) asking the professor (played by Victor Wong) why they in the church were not told the truth. The professor scoffs and says "Without the technology to confirm...it would have been another legend..."

Though obviously this is a work of fiction, one realistic point is made throughout the course of the film, and that is that there still exists many things we don't know due to the limitations of our present understanding, but often, as I stated previously, as we develop mentally and technologically, as time passes and new discoveries are made, what was once just the things of legends becomes the "common sense" of the present age and become standard facets of our education. Our Prophet himself faced the rejection of "men of common sense" himself. When he recited tales of judgement bringing angels and an omnipotent, self-sufficient, and eternal deity capable of bringing all the dead back to life, his detractors, the supposed men of reason of that age, men who didn't believe (perhaps in any god as atheism wasn't non-existent in those times) said "tales of the ancients." Before the renaissance of the dinosaur fossil discoveries, many men before might have laughed at the notion of the world once being populated by giant reptiles before the the coming of man, and if a person like our prophet had said something to the effect of that, detractors might have been tempted to say "Pfft, what more proof do we need this man is crazy? He's saying the entire world was once populated by giant monsters." And before the renaissance of dinosaur excavations many people might have said to him "Where is the evidence of this great age of sea monsters and dragons! He's just saying random nonsense to get people's attention and sway the weak minded!" Now, being taught that the world was populated for millions of years by virtually nothing but "fearfully great lizards/reptiles of ginormous size" is now staple of pretty much every child's education and to not acknowledge this fact as obvious and apparent receives tremendous criticism and/or ridicule as a delusional way of thinking.

My point is that there have been many things that people considered or would have considered unreal or fantastical or hard to swallow that have been proven factual as time progressed. Yes, there is not much evidence from a modern geologist's perspective to suggest the moon splitting, as in the moon literal splitting forming back together, did happen, but as time progresses, who knows what new discoveries we'll find? Maybe as time goes on, new evidence will be discovered, and the idea will be staple in all public schools, religious or non-religious, and those that didn't believe the moon was ever split, albeit for a short time, will go the way of those who would have upon hearing that world was once populated for millions of years, not by humans, but by giant lizards and reptiles, might have laughed and think those who believed in such things were nuts.

I am always open to possibilities, but yes...You may as well believe that there was once a time that pigs had wings and flew. Its logically inconsistant with what we currently know, highly improbable, and what we do know now is not equivelant to the philosophical ideas of before. Now, our methodology is far more refined. And i agree, legends of yesterday are fact and truthful today, but you cant keep playing that same card, because technology cannot always advance to major mindboggling expanses beyond what they previously are.

In todays time, especially with concepts such as...how rocks form. It is so well understood. We arent talking about time machines and helicopters which may have been myths or legends in the past. We are talking about rocks. Plain and simple rocks. Sandy rocks are made of sand, lava rocks are made of cooled lava etc...its very very simple and very well established. Its just not the same as advanced concepts like the existence of dinosaurs to people who have never seen bones.

I understand your point, but i dont think it is sufficient to defy the odds nor do i believe it is sufficient to defy the logic of what we know to be true. I still believe that its far more reasonable to just say "the moon never physically split in half". alrighty, lets see whats next

C.) If a man walks through the desert sands and the wind blows the sands over his tracks, does this mean he never made the journey? Of course not. Things are aren't always what they appear to be. And sometimes when we simply accept things "as they appear to be" we often may find that we wrong in our judgement, despite that judgement "appearing" to be reasonable to us at the time. I'm not saying that if it walks like a duck, quacks like duck, and looks like a duck, we shouldn't assume that it isn't a duck, but we must be careful to not overlook something that gives away the fact that it isn't really a duck. You can't very well call the "ducks" in your dreams really ducks, can you? Though sometimes, in your dreams, you may not initially perceive that the image you see that walks,quacks, and looks like a duck is not really a duck. We may pride ourselves at times to recognize the obvious truth, and sometimes it's justified, but we humans also have a tendency to overlook a thing or two, though you may not be able to blame us as much for doing so, and profess something to be true that may not exactly or entirely such.

Yes we do often overlook things, however, this is something that weve taken time to rip apart intellectually. We have physics, we have chemistry, we have biology, practically all fields of natural science are applicable with this fundamental understanding of what rocks are, and the research is applicable because our knowledge is true. We do overlook things, still, its not particularly justifiable simply saying "well maybe you missed something". Well, i think we need a bit more than that to actually make such a statement reasonable. But im sure you agree, and i assume youre going to say that in your final statements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm only arguing that we as humans often lack knowledge where we may think we have all the answers, or even just some of them. Heck, on the subject of the moon, the scientific community of the world is not even in unanimous agreement as to how it came reside in our orbit (I was always taught at least two to three different prominent theories) And often the poor reasoning of one age becomes a trait of higher reasoning and education of another. Because humanity's ideas on "logic" "reasoning" "common sense or knowledge" and understandings of the "laws of nature" are so often changing, often to the anti-thesis of previous ideas and concepts held under these banners, or to accommodate previously expressed ideas seen by most others of a bygone time as complete balderdash or tales and exploits of eccentric charlatans, that I find for one, as human being, to profess his or herself an adherent to "rational thought" or "science" has very little weight in convincing me he or she is such when one considers the pure subjectivity of these concepts in the eyes and hands of man and womankind.

You may find scientists who are skeptics on how the moon came to revolve around the earth, however you wont find scientists sitting around debating on how rocks form. We have to differentiate between advanced concepts and simple ones. We arent talking about time travel here, were talking about well established, well understood, logically consistant applicable science. We arent talking about string theory, were talking about rocks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

[Fpr starters, Good to see you back iDevonian, i tried to message you but it seems you can't recieve them yet, still, good to see you back.]

Haven't read through all this (haven’t read any after my post but i will get around to it) but i'd like to point out one thing - Miracles are just that, miracles. Suspensions of what we know to be reality. We're talking about if a miracle happened or not but we should be asking if miracles are even possible.

I see here a reflection of the famous euthyphro dilemma (https://en.wikipedia...thyphro_dilemma). Are Good thing commanded and done by God because they are morally good or is it morally good simply because God does it? In the first instance, God is subject to a morality that already exists without him in a way, so, it lessens his moral authority and need but i guess if you just look at God as a transmitter of the universal moral good, this excuses him in my opinion. In the second case, if something is morally good simply because God does it or tells you it is, it suggests its just arbitrary and how do we know if what God commands is actually totally good?

Same with the laws of nature. You can see two contrasting positions arise here concerning the laws of nature. If they are just a simply basic truth of the universe and property of matter, chemical bonding, physics, ect as we know it, then not even God can really cancel out these laws. So for instance, he could not simply will to have the moon split in half, it would require a massive tearing apart of all the bonding between the atoms and other things like that, it won't just split on its own. It would of had to have something hugely massive effected upon it to cause this change, even then, it’s debateable if the moon would actually split right through the core and to the other side, such a process powerful enough to split it would probably simply destroy it. Even if something did act upon it to split it, it’s very hard to see how it could be more or less perfectly put back together again, especially instantly. Again, you can't just will for atoms to bond. Not even God. It's a physical property of the atoms themself, because of how they are constructed, they always act that way.

If he slammed a huge rock into it, it’s hard to believe only two cultures or people in two places really noticed this. Especially the whole splitting apart thing. For two, we would see massive evidence of this and for lastly, the trouble of it instantly just coming back together again as well. Even if he used some magical heat ray or something to splice it right down the middle, we'd probably clearly see evidence of this too. Like, there would be a cut that goes around the entire moon. Assuming he could just simply will for it to join back together, why would he only leave partial evidence? Such a cut, like i said, would go around the entire moon. Wouldn't he either cover it up completely or leave it totally evident for everyone to see? This seems like a much easier way of proving it and gaining followers.

I've been working on this assumption, whilst God might exist in a separate reality with separate laws (contentious in itself), we exist in our reality, with our laws. Like i said, these things result from intrinsic properties of physics, they just simply must occur. So, i've been assuming God can't violate these. That God can't change nature of any kind. Almost all deists hold this position and i think it is the much more defensible one, i will show why shortly. If things arise from purely natural interactions, they are just natural. They are not good or evil. Diseases and suffering, if they arise from purely naturalistic means are neither right nor evil. They may be good or bad but not right or evil. There's no real conscious agent causing them. A microbe isn't necessarily good or evil, it just is (as in it just is there, it just exists, it just IS). Maimonides was a proponent of this idea, that god can't or won't violate nature. If he is perfect and all powerful, he would of created nature right the first time around. It is impossible for a perfect being to produce or do anything imperfect, except by accident. If he made them of the most supreme perfectness the first time around, any changes would make them less perfect, which would be in violation of the aforementioned things.

Now that’s said, I’ll go on to say why i think that the belief that God can carry out miracles is a lot less defensible to the thinking man (rather than the uninformed, who probably wont care). I'll admit and i'm not afraid of this, if i genuinely believe i don't fully understand something, i will admit to it, i will admit this, i don't have full knowledge of the types and chronologies of miracles in the quran. I have good reason to believe though, that there are many overlaps with the kind of miracles described in the bible (eg the great flood/Noahs ark for example). I also realise other things (Jesus turning water into wine) most likely aren’t in the quran. When i use these things, they're more intended as illustrations of the idea of miracles and the basis behind them.

I see numerous obstacles that are very difficult to rationalise, i think, as Occam’s razor recommends the simpler, more likely, more plausible and overwhelmingly probabilistic event or considered truth is likely to be the true one. I believe we can actually not be *fully* 100% sure of almost anything, we can have extremely good and overwhelming reason to believe something is a certain way and i think that this is good enough. Just a quick illustration of what i mean - Sure, fossils could be placed there by God but we can see them form and we understand how they could form, we have very good reason to believe they form naturally. Same with the idea of atoms before electron microscopes, we had very good reason to believe they were there and things interacted that way but we could not directly observe them back then. However, we had overwhelming evidence they were there. It is obviously much more logical and prudent to believe that atoms existed rather than the Aristotelian idea that things were made up of indivisible fire, water, earth, air, ect.

"A miracle is an event described by those to whom it was told by people who did not see it."

There is no one alive today that has seen or observed the miracle that we are debating, in addition to the fact that any evidence for it is also highly debatable. It's essentially a story passed on from one person to the other. We know how these things spread though, especially among the older cultures with lack of literacy, newspapers, historical records, ect. Even Elvis for example, we knew he wasn't at all healthy. We have photos of him dead as a doornail in the morgue. Yet, there of people out there who still think he's alive. Take his famous fried chicken for example, compared to older times, we even have many first-hand accounts, witnesses and associates of him, he lived in a time when everyone was literate. Yet, no one knows the recipe for his famous fried chicken. Different sources have different ideas, this is only ~50 years after he died for example. Imagine how hard it would be to distinguish such a fact 2000 years later or something like that. I took this example from penn and tellers episode on the bible and they actually cover a lot of this stuff, you can find it on youtube by typing penn and teller bible.

"there is not to be found, in all history, any miracle attested by a sufficient number of men, of such unquestioned good sense, education, and learning, as to secure us against all delusion in themselves; of such undoubted integrity, as to place them beyond all suspicion of any design to deceive others; of such credit and reputation in the eyes of mankind, as to have a great deal to lose in case of their being detected in any falsehood; and at the same time, attesting facts performed in such a public manner and in so celebrated a part of the world, as to render the detection unavoidable: All which circumstances are requisite to give us full assurance in the testimony of men."

Please read here: http://faculty.ed.ui...m/appendix.html

Sometimes i think this - I mean, Jesus had followers, even though it was eons ago, surely his followers weren't stupid people. They obviously had good reason to believe and follow him, at least in their minds. I couldn't resolve this. Then someone mentioned to me, so did all the other followers of all the other less known prophets of Jesus’ time and even the followers of modern day self-professed messiahs (like rael) and cults. Obviously, there’s an issue there. No one here was there to see it. So, we're essentially relying on the fact that some people believed it, they told it to other people who also believed it, ect.

"Whatever a person may pray for, that person prays for a miracle. Every prayer comes down to this - Almighty God, grant that two times two not equal four."

You can be sure that something akin to it is mentioned in some Islamic source. How are you to decide whether is an allegory or parable or an actual event though. We can't really decide what to believe objectively. The people who believe it actually happened are just relying on this chain of people who were told by other people it happened and they believed it actually occurred.

"No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact which it endeavours to establish." - Hume

Onto what problems i see with holding the position God can carry out miracles and violate nature at will. Let us put aside what i talked about above, in regards to sufficient evidence. Let us entertain the idea it is not relevant, even though it is. We will temporarily suspend this in order to be able to explain the other properties and consequences of miracles.

Miracles seem like they would be a good way to get followers. Going based on what i know of biblical accounts, miracles occurred fairly frequently in comparison to today. Jesus healed the sick, God wrought a flood upon the earth, ect. These must of done a fantastic job of convincing followers. If God wants to gain followers, isn't this a superior way of gaining followers rather than just simply leaving it up to faith and belief? He is damming people that he created, based on rules that he created, to the hell that he created because he refuses to perform these large and stupendous miracles in the modern day. If such a thing occurred or if God came down and spoke to us or communicated to us directly or something, he'd do a much better job of clearing up morality, gaining followers and clarifying to us what exactly is the right way to live. By not doing this he is creating the very ambiguity that sends us a ticket to hell or denies us an entrance to heaven! Why do such things still not continue?

Again, let us entertain that God can violate nature. God is all-powerful, all knowing and everywhere. In theory, he could perform an infinite number of simultaneous miracles at all times and spaces, The fact that this doesn't happen allows us to conclude that God chooses times and places for miracles. This leads us to the very real and very confronting problem of why God grants some miracles and not others and why does he stand idly by when he could perform miracles? Zamzam water for example, water sprang miraculously for hagar and her infant son, who were in dire straits in the very hot desert and were near dying from dehydration. Why did God grant water to save hagar and yet allow many other people past, present and future to suffer from dehydration? Is that just? In theory he could invoke a well for everyone and if he so felt like it, indicated it was from God too.

If God can change the facts of nature and manipulate it; If he was carrying out such a stupendous and powerful act like causing the moon to rend in twain, then what was he doing when at least 20 billion children were dying from either the very diseases he created or resulted from nature and did nothing about?

If he was present around hagar and gave her a well for her and her child, where was he in Auschwitz?

"Microbial diseases are easily the leading cause of death among children. Malaria has probably killed more youngsters than any other single cause, perhaps 20 billion (Finkel 2007). Other top infectious diseases include smallpox, typhoid, plague, scarlet fever, yellow fever, cholera, influenza, rubella, tetanus, and rabies. The situation is so acute that a microbial war is being waged upon immature humans (Barnes 2005; Demeny and McNicoll 2003). Because their immune systems are immature, infants and children are exceptionally susceptible to being infected and killed; only the elderly are comparably defenseless. In general, diseases kill their victims—who usually remain conscious during much of the symptomatic period and death process—over an extended period of time ranging from days to years, and with extreme levels of discomfort ranging up to the highest levels of agony."

Full article: http://gregspaul.web...hy&Theology.pdf

Even if he can't perform miracles that violate nature, we can cure plague without violating nature. We can cure bird flu without violating nature. We have drugs that fit into the parts of a cell that flu would normally fit into, thus, blocking either its entry or exist into a cell. If we can perform such acts, surely God can regardless of his ability to violate nature or not.

More telling still is the fact that he decided to save two people, hagar and her son whilst he has watched billions more die from preventable things. Many people have died from polio, we eradicated it eventually anyway. The plague use to be deadly before antibiotics, however, being a bacterial infection and us creating antibiotics, we can now easily cure it. If anything, we're working against the reluctance of God to grant miracles.

As i was saying earlier, God is perfect. I explained why this might lead us to believe he cannot violate nature. Even if you disagree or find some other alternate path for God to manipulate nature, you are ignoring the fact of his supreme perfection in all facets. His creation of nature isn't only supremely perfect, everything about the being of God is. So, he must be perfectly good and moral as well. If he is perfectly good and moral, why does he grant miracles that affect so few people? Why does he damn many to hell by simply not having more revealing signs or communicating with individuals directly? Why does he stand by and watch as billions suffer from disease, especially children who are unable to be judged? We reach a point where God either has the ability to violate nature, chooses to do it selectively and ignore a lot of other dire times when miracles are warranted, thus not being maximally good and moral and yet, God has to have maximal perfection OR we come to the point where God can't violate nature to create miracles of any kind, he retains his supreme perfectness and he does not stand idly by and watch evil take place, which do you choose? Which based on our ideas of the properties of God do we have more reason to believe? You be the judge.

Edited by kingpomba
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Ah, sorry if ive ever come off as a bit harsh, i am truly a nice guy. Sometimes i get a bit gungho. Thankyou for your honesty, and If i could i would redirect my criticism at the creators of this show you speak of. And yes, the rocks of the moon are in many cases "volcanic", or they have formed from a number of magma based origins. As opposed to forming from depositional environments or metamorphic environments. The moon tectonically and geographically is pretty dull.

And, a bit off topic, and i mean this in the nicest way, would it be possible if i could get the name of this show and may i ask what country you are from? I know that every country supplies a number of things on television (good and bad), I am curious as to who is producing this. I would be quite surprised if you were in the US (ive never seen such a show in the states ive been in) or the UK (You said the information was linked to a museum in the UK, im very skeptical of how they have done this, from my understanding, the science guys of the UK would not be interested in producing nor pronouncing such concepts).

No apologies need man/woman (sorry I don't know your gender :huh: . I understood that it was a bit of jumping the gun, we all do that every once in a while. No hard feelings ;)

The show airs out of Pakistan on a channel called TV1 or TvOne...not sure. In Urdu, the show is called Mazahib Aur Aql-e-Insani a horrible translation by me would probably give you 'Religions and Human Intelligence'. As for the skepticism, I do trust these individuals. There is usually a Christian scholar, Islamic scholar, a Professor from an engineering university or something, and the host himself was a top figure in a university. Sorry, I'm not too specific on the details.

However, given the fact that there use to be a significant amount of volcanic activity, is it not possible for the moon to have received enough seismic activity for there to be a split of some sort? The reason I say this is because it is often the case that conclusions within the field of sciences have to be changed at some point due to new discoveries. According to my two cent knowledge in astronomy, there haven't been too many landing on the Moon. Not more than 10 from what I know. Now looking at that, I doubt that we could have closed the book of discoveries regarding Moon. I mean till this day, humans on Earth, are mostly ignorant about this beautiful planet.

P.S. I understand you will speak from your experience and studies, and that is the answer I require. Me being a Muslim, I will obviously use other sources for my understandings. So I hope you understand that if not that no problem. It also must be pointed out that I just enjoy asking questions and hearing multiple opinions.

Me --> @)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...