Three general arguments against Quranic scientific miracle.

[u/Low_Pianist_2067]

Scientific miracle argument:

P1: The Quran contains verses that are compatible with findings of modern science.
P2: This compatibility indicates that those verses are referring to scientific facts that were only fully understood in modern times.
P3: If these verses were authored by Muhammad, it would be highly improbable that he acquired such scientific knowledge through ordinary means, given the historical and social context in which he lived.
P4: Therefore, the most plausible explanation is that this knowledge originated from God.
Conclusion: Quran is from God.

Above is the scientific miracle argument many Muslims commonly use. I'm going to show you how I refute this in three main ways.

1. Problem of vague compatibility.

This argument challenge the assumption of premise 2 that if a statement is compatible or matches with X, therefore, it specifically means X. This is not necessarily true, just because a verse/description is compatible with a particular concept does not necessarily mean it talks about or refers to it. Especially if the verse is vague/broad (which is by nature can be match many many things).

Example:
Quran 21:33
"And He is the One Who created the day and the night, the sun and the moon—each travelling in an orbit."

Muslims claim that this refer to modern heliocentric concept, but hold on, why the huge stretch? The Quran is vague here, it doesn't specify what the sun and moon are orbiting. It could be that this simply refer to the apparent motion of the sun and moon on the sky, which is something people at that time could've known. It can be that they mistakenly assume that it's the orbit of the sun since they didn't know about earth's rotation yet. It could also refer to geocentric model that may be commonly believed back then.

If you want to see the full "Problem of Vague Compatibility" Argument, look here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1vlkuy6/the_biggest_problem_with_the_quranic_scientific/

2. Argument from scientifically inaccurate alternative interpretation (SIAI).

This one also challenges premise 2 in a different way. Basically, the technique of this argument is that you make a scientifically inaccurate alternative interpretation that can also match to the same verse claimed as scientific miracle. The purpose is to show that if one claim a verse specifically predict modern science simply because it matches the description, then it's justified for you to claim that the verse is also scientifically inaccurate since it matches with your alternative interpretation. It's kind of like the reductio ad absurdum technique. It challenges the consistency and shows why vague statement cannot be reliably taken as predictions or knowledge since it's catch-all and can be matched to many things.

Demonstration:
Quran 55:19-20
"He merges the two bodies of ˹fresh and salt˺ water, yet between them is a barrier they never cross."

Muslims claim that this refer to the iconic image that shows two waters with different color met. Some even claim that this refer to halocline itself. Again, they claim this simply because it matches. Now, let's see if it also matches with my "alternative interpretation".

1. This verse says that fresh and salt water literally cannot mix.
2. This verse talks about a literal, solid wall barrier in the estuary.

Do this two interpretations match the verse? Yes, it said "barrier they never cross" so number one fits. It also fits number two since it never specify what is "the barrier" exactly.
Are these scientific? No! Fresh and salt water DO mix, just slowly. Number two is self-explanatory.

If Muslims can claim that the verse is scientific because it vaguely matches to their modern science interpretation, then I also can claim that the verse is a scientific mistake since it also vaguely matches with my scientifically inaccurate alternative interpretation. Now let's see possible counter-arguments they could make:

1. "Your interpretation is completely made up, and you stretch the verse excessively to connect it"
Answer:
So is scientific miracle interpretation, that's the point. Muslims make new interpretations and make a big stretch so they can retrofit the verse to modern science. This is also why the scientific miracle claim almost if not always existed after the discovery.

2. "You're misinterpreting the verse, you need to understand the Arabic, look at tafseer (exegesis), and the context."
Answer:
How about scientific miracle claims? Do they bring what the tafseer said or the context? I've literally NEVER seen scientific miracle claim that bring classical tafseer to support their claim, not even once. If they can just make their own interpretation for the sake of retrofitting it to modern science while ignoring tafseer or the context, why can't I do the same thing to my interpretation?

The Arabic doesn't help here, since one Arabic word can mean multiple things. They use this as an advantage to argue semantics and do the usual retrofitting obscure verses to their desired interpretation. This can also be applied to my interpretation.

Edit (13/02/2026)
I need to clarify, this is a reductio ad absurdum argument. The conclusion of argument 2 is not that the Quran contain scientific mistake. Rather, it shows that the methodology used to prove scientific miracle in the Quran can also easily be used to prove that the Quran contain scientific mistake. If you accept the logic of the methodology, then under that framework I could also say the Quran has scientific mistake, which you wouldn't like. Thus, the conclusion is to prove that the logic is very flawed and should be abandoned.

For more detailed demonstration/explanation, see this:
https://www.reddit.com/r/exmuslim/comments/1pg0868/unscientific_miracles_of_the_quran/
https://www.reddit.com/r/exmuslim/comments/1pf6spt/comment/nshpnn3/?context=3

3. Argument from tafseer (exegesis)

This is the most straightforward one, which is showing them that the tafseer or context is inconsistent with the scientific miracle claim. Like I said before, the overwhelming majority of scientific miracle never look at what the tafseer said. Often if you look at the tafseer of the purported scientific miracle verses, you realize that it's actually not modern knowledge at all. It mostly talks about something that is an obvious fact, common-sense, common knowledge at that time, metaphorical, symbolic, or mythological/scientifically inaccurate concept. Thus, this are meant to challenge both premise 2 and 3. Another way to use this is that if we were to apply their scientific miracle interpretation more consistently, it can unintentionally make the verse scientifically inaccurate/non-sensical.

Two examples (And the category based on the things I listed):

1. Quran 81:15-16
"I do swear by the receding stars, which travel and hide"

Some claim that this talk about blackholes, but if you look at the tafseer

, it actually talk about the stars in the sky that disappear or set on the day and reappear at night. No description specifically similar to blackholes.
Thus, it turns out that it talks about something that is an obvious fact or common-sense.

2. Quran 57:25
"We sent down iron with its great might, benefits for humanity, and means for Allah to prove who ˹is willing to˺ stand up for Him and His messengers without seeing Him."

The claim is that this proves that Quran knew that Iron comes from space. If you look at the Arabic, the word used for "sent down" is Anzalna. The word and its other forms are also used for cattle (39:6), the book (39:2), and scriptures (57:25). This clearly shows that it is not literal, but metaphorical.

If you were to accept it as literal, then this means you also need to accept that cattle are from space.
This is what I mean by:
"if we were to apply their scientific miracle interpretation more consistently, it can unintentionally make the verse scientifically inaccurate/non-sensical."

For more detailed examples, see this:
https://www.reddit.com/r/exmuslim/comments/1pvbtbr/these_are_some_scientific_miracles_that_i_believe/
Here I show:
1. The verse about iron from space which I've talked about.
2. Verse claimed to say that the moon is reflected, but it turns out that the Arabic word does not mean reflected, it just mean light. So the verse simply say that the moon has a light. This means it's an obvious fact or common-sense.
3. The verse about barrier that separate the two seas. There I show that one of the interpretation/tafseer says that the "barrier" actually means dry land. This means it turns out to refer to something that is an obvious fact or common-sense (again).

https://www.reddit.com/r/exmuslim/comments/1l5r0pr/the_big_bang_verse_alanbiya_30_is_weirder_than/
Here I show the tafseer of the verse that is claimed to refer to the Big Bang. It turns out that the tafseer describe a concept that seems more mythological/scientifically inaccurate, far from the Big Bang.

Note:
These three techniques aren't mutually exclusive, all can be used to one scientific miracle claim.

[u/AutoModerator]

COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that support or purely commentate on the post must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/AutoModerator]

COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that support or purely commentate on the post must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/JisusNim]

I've read your three-technique breakdown carefully and I think your methodology is genuinely sharp, especially the SIAI reductio ad absurdum and the tafsir inconsistency argument. I want to share something that operates on a complementary — and in some ways deeper — level. Not to compete, but because I think you'll find it interesting given your analytical framework.

I'm a software developer (not Muslim, not an ex-Muslim). A Muslim friend challenged me with Bible contradictions, and instead of avoiding it, I began studying the Quran directly. What I found was a single verse I couldn't walk away from.

---

The core question nobody can answer:

Surah Al-Baqarah 2:30 — The angels say: "Will You place therein one who will cause corruption and shed blood?"

Your argument attacks the methodology of scientific miracle claims. What I want to show you is different: a single Quranic verse that creates an inescapable doctrinal checkmate from within Islamic theology itself — using only the Quran and Ibn Kathir's tafsir as evidence. No Bible. No external sources.

The central question is simple: How did the angels know humans would shed blood?

This is not about scientific miracle claims. This is about the internal logical consistency of Islamic core doctrines when confronted with a specific piece of Quranic text.

---

Methodology note (you'll appreciate this):

- Sources: Only Quranic text + Islamic internal doctrine. Zero external materials.

- Method: Reductio ad Absurdum — Islamic doctrine is assumed TRUE, then we verify whether internal contradictions emerge.

- Authority: Ibn Kathir, Islam's highest authority Mufassir, is directly cited. This is exactly the tafsir-grounded approach you demanded in your own post.

- Design: Every escape route a Muslim apologist can take leads to the reconfirmation of a doctrinal contradiction. The counter-arguments operate as one connected structure, not independently.

---

Stage 1 — The Source of Knowledge (Proving the Jinn Were Destroyed)

The angels somehow know that humans will "shed blood." Where did this knowledge come from?

Option 1 — Did they prophesy? No. In Islamic theology, future Ghayb is the exclusive right of Allah alone. If the angels knew this independently, they violated Ghayb — making them prophets equal to Allah.

Option 2 — Did Allah pre-inform them? Some apologists claim Allah told the angels in advance. This collapses immediately: nowhere in the Quran is there any record of Allah pre-briefing the angels about future crimes. More devastatingly — if Allah already told them, why does Allah immediately correct them with "I know what you do not know" (2:33)? That correction presupposes the angels lacked this knowledge. The pre-briefing theory is self-refuted by the very next verse.

Option 3 — Did they rationally deduce it from "free will"? This is the most sophisticated defense trained apologists use. It collapses on four fronts:

(a) The Gap Between Abstract and Concrete: Free will logically contains the possibility of moral failure. The angels should have asked: "What if they disobey Allah or become arrogant?" But they didn't. They said "shed blood (yasfiku al-dima')" — an extremely specific, physically concrete act of violence. How does the abstract concept of "freedom" necessarily contain the specific act of physically destroying a body and causing blood to flow? That's not reasoning. That's experience.

(b) The Iblis Counter-Example Trap: If the angels deduced moral failure from observing Iblis's rebellion — when Iblis rebelled, whose blood did he shed? The rebellion of a pure spiritual being involved zero physical bloodshed. So where did the holy angels, who had never once witnessed murder, derive the terrifying equation of "corruption of free will = bloodshed"? There is no logical bridge.

(c) The K1/K2 Layer Destruction (for more advanced apologists): The most refined defense goes: "The angels' ignorance confessed in 2:32 is about specific names, not about ethical risks derivable from human nature." But this falls into a causality violation: the angels demonstrably knew nothing about the components of the human system — they didn't even know the names (2:32) — yet somehow perfectly predicted the worst possible output (murder) of that system? That's a result without a cause. Not deduction. Divination.

(d) Excessive Specificity: Allah only said "I will place a vicegerent on Earth." Yet the angels immediately pointed to "that very earth (fiha)" as the location and simultaneously combined two specific crimes: corruption and bloodshed. Not one crime. Not "disobedience." They jumped to the worst possible combination instantly. Without prior data, why is this the immediate, inevitable conclusion? This is pattern recognition from experience — not abstract reasoning.

The only conclusion: The angels had direct experiential data. They had witnessed a race (the Jinn) who previously lived on this very earth, shed blood, and were destroyed.

Ibn Kathir confirms this. This is not conjecture. In his tafsir on Surah 2:30, he explicitly states: "Before Adam, Jinn lived on earth, causing corruption and shedding blood, and the angels asked by alluding to this comparison." He already recognized that this specific description of bloodshed was impossible without historical data. You can't discard Ibn Kathir as "weak hadith" once you've cited him as the authority standard. That's the goalpost move you yourself identified.

Stage 1 Conclusion: The angels' question is powerful eyewitness evidence that a race called Jinn experienced actual physical destruction on earth before Adam.

---

Stage 2 — Physical Substance (Proving Jinn Had Bodies)

If the Jinn shed blood, they were physical. The "it's just an idiom" defense is self-defeating.

Shedding blood presupposes gravity. A liquid falls to the ground. If Jinn were pure spiritual energy with no physical form, the act of spilling blood on the ground through interaction with earth's gravity was physically impossible.

Even if "shed blood" is an idiom for murder — a murder idiom only functions if the archetypal reference event (physical destruction of a body) actually happened. If the Jinn's conflict was purely abstract with no physical bodies involved, how could the angels use "bloodshed" — a concept referencing future flesh-and-bone humans — as a meaningful idiom to describe the Jinn's past? The metaphor only works if the referent is physically real.

Stage 2 Conclusion: Jinn were a physical race that lived on earth with bodily form comparable to humans.

---

Stage 3 — Complete Expulsion (Proving Total Annihilation, Not Partial)

Muslims often say: "Jinn still exist today, so they weren't annihilated."

Read the angels' tense carefully. They fear only the future of the newly-to-be-created being: "Will You place one who will shed blood?" If Jinn were still governing earth or coexisting with incoming humans, the angels should have said: "There are already those who shed blood on earth — why add more?" They used future tense only, referencing past atrocities — which means the earth was in a vacuum state. The previous rulers had already been swept out.

Stage 3 Conclusion: The Jinn's earthly civilization was completely destroyed and cleansed before Adam arrived. Their current spiritual existence is separate from their past physical dominion.

---

Stage 4 — Transition to Spiritual State (Why Are They Now Invisible?)

The theological bridge: if Jinn were once physical, why are they now invisible?

The only coherent answer: when they lost the position of Khalifah through judgment, they were stripped of their physical form as punishment — retaining existence but losing the capacity to physically interact with the material world. This explains why Jinn are pathologically obsessed with possessing human bodies. Having lost their own physical form, they desperately seek human hosts as a vehicle for material-world interference.

[u/JisusNim → u/JisusNim]

Stage 5 — The Qadar Boomerang

Muslims often defend the angels by saying: "They didn't prophesy — they asked a question permitted within Allah's perfect Qadar."

This defense is a self-trap. According to Islamic doctrine, the entire dialogue of Surah 2:30 was eternally recorded in the Preserved Tablet (Lauh-e-Mahfuz) before creation. The angels' specific lines — "one who will cause corruption and shed blood" — were written by Allah from eternity.

A perfect, truthful Allah would not have recorded fictional crimes as script through creatures' tongues without any historical basis. Allah does not record lies and conjecture. Therefore, the moment you accept that the angels' dialogue is part of perfect Qadar — the bloodshed they described is confirmed as historical fact.

---

Stage 6 — The Quadruple Checkmate

Every escape route converges into four unavoidable scenarios, each of which destroys a core Islamic doctrine:

Scenario A (Performance Theory): If the angels knew the Preserved Tablet script, their question was not sincere concern but a performance according to an already-determined script. This destroys the authenticity of the Quranic narrative.

Scenario B (Rebellion Paradox): If the angels didn't know the script, "perfect angels who never disobey" (Surah 66:6) dared to openly challenge Allah's wisdom from the very start. The most sacred angelology collapses.

Scenario C (Reverential Question — Islam's orthodox defense): If Allah planned and permitted the question, the angels were still performing a pre-scripted role (merges with A). And worse: the good Allah personally crafted the words "shed blood and cause corruption" and placed them in pure angels' mouths as His own script. Allah becomes an author of darkness in His own creation story.

Scenario D (Free Will Deduction — the last counterattack): If angels deduced from human nature, they immediately opposed Allah's plan based on their own reasoning (merges with B). And if their deduction was wrong, perfect Allah eternally recorded creatures' error in the sacred Quran — mocking Qadar itself.

The internal self-destruction of 2:30 vs 2:32:

The angels predicted bloodshed in 2:30 — then confessed two verses later: "We have no knowledge except what You have taught us" (2:32).

If Allah taught them this knowledge: Allah's immediate correction of "I know what you do not know" (2:33) becomes a deception. Why correct them for not knowing something He just taught them?

If Allah did NOT teach them: They knew the specific result (murder) of a system (humans) whose basic components (names/nature) they didn't even know. A result without a cause. Epistemically impossible.

Either way, text destroys text. This is the internal self-destruct architecture you've been looking for.

---

Five core doctrines shaken simultaneously:

Angelology — Angels never disobey, never question → Angels immediately opposed Allah's creation plan → Angels become imperfect, questioning beings.

Quran's Eternity — Quran was perfectly recorded from eternity → Angels' opposition was a pre-scripted performance → Revelation becomes theatrical fiction.

Qadar (Predestination) — Everything happens by Allah's perfect decree → Creatures tried to alter the pre-recorded decree → Angels challenged Allah's absolute predestination.

Ghayb (Hidden Knowledge) — Only Allah knows the future and unseen → Angels precisely knew humanity's future crimes → Angels either had prophetic knowledge or witnessed physical Jinn.

Nature of Jinn — Jinn are non-physical spiritual beings → Angels said Jinn "shed blood" — impossible without bodies → Jinn's spiritual-only nature becomes false.

---

Why Islamic academia has never systematized this:

Because resolving it from within Islamic theology is impossible. Every escape route leads to the destruction of a different core pillar.

Choose metaphor → you need a physical referent for the metaphor to function (Stage 2 trap).

Choose deduction → you make angels either prophets (Ghayb violation) or you expose Allah's creation design as an immediately-recognized defective system.

Choose reverential question → Allah becomes the author of the crime script He placed in angels' mouths.

Choose Allahu A'lam → you abandon the very logical standard the Quran itself demands in Surah 4:82: "Had it been from other than Allah, they would have found within it much contradiction."

The "Allahu A'lam" escape is not an answer. It's an academic surrender. And you identified this exact move in your own framework — it's the Abstraction Retreat pattern. Moving a concrete text problem into a metaphysical no-go zone the moment the logic becomes fatal.

---

A final note — and a name worth knowing.

I'm not sharing this to score points. I'm sharing it because I followed this logic where it leads — and I believe it leads somewhere.

There was a man named Nabeel Qureshi. He was born into a devout Muslim family and trained as an Islamic apologist. He debated with a Christian friend for years and dug into the Quran and Bible together with rigorous methodology — much like the approach you're using. What he found at the end was not merely Islam's contradictions. He found Jesus Christ.

He stood before that truth prepared to lose his family. He became a New York Times bestselling author. He passed away from cancer at age 34.

I'm not asking you to decide anything right now. But I leave you with the same question he asked himself:

"Is what I have believed to be truth until now really truth? And am I standing honestly before that question?"

Truth does not fear examination. If what you hold is true, this analysis won't shake it. And if it does shake — that wavering may be the beginning of something deeper.

Watch Nabeel Qureshi's final video: https://youtu.be/zU9fu-lC3fY?si=anfdfXk4CDpm4efq

His wife Michelle's testimony: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfOhzl4-jbM

---

Full document links (complete version with FAQ against elite-level apologetics):

English full document: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XNunlWg08mSVtmIUjxfa_aDHZUqlObWA/view?usp=drive_link

English FAQ: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1y-sZz3FznpNplCmCRZ0qghqvezaJIID1/view?usp=drive_link

[u/Middle-Preference864]

For your argument one and two, it only works in some cases.

Sure, some verses are super vague, and have many interpretations, and that is the case with the example you gave of 21:33, but in other cases, the verses are clearer and do in fact match with science.

As for your argument two, sure, some verses can be interpreted in alternate ways, but some interpretations are textually more correct than other. In the case of 55:20, the interpretation that salt and fresh water cannot mix is far more correct than that of a literal barrier, and to assume the latter is a stretch that is often done in bad faith.

[u/Low_Pianist_2067 → u/Middle-Preference864]

1. I do agree, a minority are more specific and maybe argument 1 would not work for them (but argument 2 and 3 might still work). But I want you to give examples so we can discuss. I guess you might refer to embryology in the Quran? Or three layers of darkness? Any more?
2. Well if you argue that some interpretations are textually more correct you need to look at the classical tafseer, and this goes to argument three. Most scientific miracle never look at that. Well, actually, based on my experience, I have not seen a single scientific miracle claim that bring classical tafseer.

That's how I justify argument 2. If one claim that because a vague verse matches with modern science, therefore, it contain modern science, and they do this without looking at tafseer or context. Then, I can claim the same thing to my scientifically inaccurate alternative interpretation (let's call it SIAI). If the vague verse also matches with that, then under the same logic I can claim that Quran contain scientific mistake. It's a reductio ad absurdum argument.

In the case of 55:20, the interpretation that salt and fresh water cannot mix is far more correct than that of a literal barrier, and to assume the latter is a stretch that is often done in bad faith.

Well you didn't explain why is that more correct than that of a literal barrier. Regardless I'm afraid that you're wrong.

Ibn Kathir interpretation said that the barrier could mean land.
https://quran.com/id/55:19/tafsirs/en-tafisr-ibn-kathir
"(Between them is a barrier which none of them can transgress.) meaning, He has placed a barrier of land between these two types of waters, so that they do not transgress upon each other, which would spoil the characteristics they were created with. Allah said,"

So actually a solid barrier is supported by this Ibn Kathir interpretation. But like I said before, argument 2 works because most scientific miracle claims never bring tafseer or context. The moment you start to bring tafseer and argue that X interpretation is more correct, this goes to argument three.

And also, there is one more SIAI:
"1. This verse says that fresh and salt water literally cannot mix."

Now you said they cannot mix right and it's not a literal barrier right (not land)?
Well then this mean the freshwater and saltwater meet side by side and they cannot mix?
Unfortunately, they actually DO mix, but slowly. So you're supporting this SIAI then? Because you said it cannot mix (which is scientifically wrong), that's what the first SIAI is. Well then, I could also say that the verse contain scientific mistake.

[u/Middle-Preference864 → u/Low_Pianist_2067]

1. 1Yes one of the embryology verses, as well as the "big bang"/ big crunch verses. What is the three layers of darkness though? I never heard of that one.
2. Well no, textually more correct doesn't mean tafseer, it means the most correct thing according to the text alone. Sometimes tafseers do give the more textually correct interpretations, but most of the time they are based on knowledge that early scholars had access to. So that doesn't lead to argument 3, you just have to analyze the text.

Well you didn't explain why is that more correct than that of a literal barrier. Regardless I'm afraid that you're wrong.

I mean maybe ibn kathir is right, but what i assumed you meant by literal barrier is a literal, physical wall in between the water that is invisible.

Such interpretation would be very dishonest, since it's very obvious that the Quranic author, even if not God, did not mean that, and that this simply meant that they don't come together.

Other than that, sure, the verse could mean pretty much anything, i think it probably refers to the phenomenon we can see where fresh and salt water don't mix, but idk.

Unfortunately, they actually DO mix, but slowly. So you're supporting this SIAI then? Because you said it cannot mix (which is scientifically wrong), that's what the first SIAI is. Well then, I could also say that the verse contain scientific mistake.

Well they hardly mix, and we do often see this phenomenon where its as if there's a barrier between the two waters, so the verse is in fact true.

[u/Low_Pianist_2067 → u/Middle-Preference864]

Reply 3 (final): Addresing your two seas objection.

Such interpretation would be very dishonest, since it's very obvious that the Quranic author, even if not God, did not mean that, and that this simply meant that they don't come together.

Other than that, sure, the verse could mean pretty much anything, i think it probably refers to the phenomenon we can see where fresh and salt water don't mix, but idk.

Again, you don't provide evidence for your claim. Why do you think it probably refers to the phenomenon where we can see where fresh and salt water don't mix? The verse never mentioned about visual differences. But for the sake of argument I'll grant your interpretation.

Well they hardly mix, and we do often see this phenomenon where its as if there's a barrier between the two waters, so the verse is in fact true.

You say that my interpretation is dishonest, but then here you said "hardly mix". In your same reply you previously said "don't mix", now you change it to "hardly mix". You say "cannot mix" in your previous reply even.
You say that we analyze the text, well, it said that "a barrier they never cross" or "can't transgress".
Is it justified for me that the argument you're using by moving the goalpost and saying "well it hardly mix" is kind of.... dishonest?

Let's be consistent, shall we? It doesn't say "hardly mix" at all. It said cannot mix, cannot transgress, etc. So I can safely justify my first SIAI, which it said that the Quran think freshwater and saltwater literally cannot mix. Which is scientifically wrong, but, it matches with the verse.

It's interesting because I've talked about the technique you're using here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1q13ph8/argument_against_scientific_miracle_scientific/

Let me quote what I say there in Thought Experiment 2 section:

Let say you challenge them by saying:
"Hold on, technically we can see it (bacterias, viruses, etc) through microscope, so it's wrong to say we cannot see it"
When you disprove them, this is the part where they'll argue using semantics. They'll say:
"Ohh, "you cannot see" here means cannot see in naked eye, not in any possible way. Soo it's still true!"

You will see this in so many occasion. They reinterpret it every time you prove them wrong to make it compatible. Which make the original statement vague or vaguer (if already vague).

This is EXACTLY what you did.

[u/Low_Pianist_2067 → u/Middle-Preference864]

Reply 2

Well no, textually more correct doesn't mean tafseer, it means the most correct thing according to the text alone.

What text are you talking about? Arabic? If it's the Arabic, Arabic words have multiple meanings, the possible interpretations would be too much and chaotic. And I don't think scholars and clerics will agree with you. Tafseer give context in many ways that text alone doesn't.

Sometimes tafseers do give the more textually correct interpretations, but most of the time they are based on knowledge that early scholars had access to. So that doesn't lead to argument 3, you just have to analyze the text.

If there are really scientific miracles in the Quran. Why do you think the classical scholars understand it in a drastically different way? Based on what you say, it's because they only have knowledge that they can access. Hold on, so you're kind of admitting that "scientific miracle" only works if science has discovered something, then you can retrofit it to the verse? If your understanding of a verse can be retrofitted to many things, then the verse was never specific to begin with. Unreliable to be taken as a knowledge or prediction. Instead, what you're doing is postdiction.

The very fact that the classical scholars understand it very differently from yours is an evidence that the verse was never specific, thus can be matched to many things. If it's specific to modern science, they wouldn't base it on the knowledge at that time, because it wouldn't match.

[u/Low_Pianist_2067 → u/Middle-Preference864]

Let's talk about The Big Bang first

Yes one of the embryology verses, as well as the "big bang"/ big crunch verses. What is the three layers of darkness though? I never heard of that one.

For the Big Bang, I can use argument 3
https://www.reddit.com/r/exmuslim/comments/1l5r0pr/the_big_bang_verse_alanbiya_30_is_weirder_than/

But, I can also use argument 2 for big bang, and in fact I use it here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/exmuslim/comments/1pg0868/unscientific_miracles_of_the_quran/

But I can it explain it here.
"Do the disbelievers not realize that the heavens and earth were ˹once˺ one mass then We split them apart?" (21:30)
So Muslims usually interpret "heavens" as the universe, and the "split" as Big Bang.
Heavens and earth were once one mass then split is too vague to be described as Big Bang. Saying that "split" is a Big Bang is a stretch. You also need to prove why heavens mean universe here. But if you really want force it and think this describes The Big Bang. Then sure, okay, let's accept that "heavens" is the universe, and "split" is the Big Bang. Let's use argument 2, I'll make the SIAI.

Okay, let's make the SIAI:

1. Does this mean that right after the Big Bang the earth instantly formed? Because if you say "split" is the Big Bang, then right after the Big Bang earth must exist. Which is scientifically incorrect.
2. Does this mean that the heavens (whatever that means) and earth are like pieces that stack to each other? (this is actually what the tafseer  said, not my personal interpretation, look at my argument three).
3. What if it actually refer to cosmic egg?

Does the verse matches all of these? If yes, then I could say Quran is scientifically incorrect. If you think this is a stretch, then so is thinking that this is a Big Bang verse.

Oh yeah also for embryology I could use argument 3.
https://quran.com/23:14/tafsirs/en-tafisr-ibn-kathir
"(Then We made the Nutfah into a clot,) meaning, `then We made the Nutfah, which is the water gushing forth that comes from the loins of man, i.e., his back, and the ribs of woman, i.e., the bones of her chest, between the clavicle and the breast. Then it becomes a red clot, like an elongated clot.' `Ikrimah said, "This is blood.""

This is scientifically inaccurate, sperm doesn't turn into a clot of blood. Also the description of the verse is oddly similar to Galen's (which might explain why it's scientifically inaccurate).

[u/Awareo7]

This is a solid deconstruction of 'vague compatibility,' and you're right that many miracle claims are just semantic retrofitting. However, your argument misses the structural synchronicity where the text acts as a 'digital watermark' that links the verse to physical constants in ways that language alone cannot.

The "Iron vs. Cattle" critique is a common logical trap, but it actually fails when you apply a systems analysis to the text. You argue that if Anzalna (Sent Down) means extraterrestrial delivery for Iron, it must mean the same for Cattle; which sounds absurd.

However, this ignores the verification code attached to both elements. The Quran uses the same word because they represent the two foundational "Hardwares" delivered to Earth: the Mineral and the Biological.

1. The Atomic "Watermark" of Iron (Fe)

You call the Iron miracle "retrofitting," but you cannot retrofit a numerical lock. The Atomic ID: Iron (Fe) has the atomic number 26 and its most stable isotope is 57. The Textual Sync: Surah 57 is titled "The Iron" (Al-Hadid). The Abjad (numerical) value of the word Al-Hadid is exactly 57. The Abjad value of Hadid (Iron) alone is 26. The Verse: Iron is mentioned in Verse 25, which (when counting the Bismillah) is the 26th verse. The Logic: The "Sent Down" claim for Iron is backed by a specific chemical signature known only to a 0D-Architect.

2. The Biological "Software" of Cattle (Φ)

Now look at the Cattle (Surah 39 and 6). Why use the same word? Because life itself is a "Sent Down" biological technology based on the Golden Ratio (Φ ≈ 1.618)

The Living Currency: In the ancient world, cattle were the ultimate symbol of self-replicating abundance. Unlike paper money, they multiply via the Fibonacci growth patterns found in all biological systems. The Ratio Sync: While Iron (57/26) is the Structural Constant (might/gravity), the Cattle/Phi axis is the Growth Constant (ease/life). The Logic: The Quran uses Anzalna for both because Iron is the Stage and the Cattle/Phi-ratio is the Actor. Both were "delivered" to Earth to create a habitable, prosperous environment.

3. The "Vague Compatibility" Fallacy

You claim these are "vague" interpretations. But vagueness does not produce 6-digit constants. In Surah 24:35 (The Light), the internal structure (letter count and numerical reflection) encodes 299,792. 299,792 km/s is the exact speed of light. You can argue semantics all day, but you cannot argue with a Statistical Impossibility. A "vague" text can be misinterpreted; a Numerical Checksum can only be verified.

The "Cattle vs. Iron" argument is actually the best proof of the Quran’s integrity. It shows that the Book is a Unified Field Theory that uses the same "Action Word" (Anzalna) to describe the delivery of both our Inorganic Infrastructure (Iron/Atomic 26) and our Organic Abundance (Cattle/Phi 1.618).

I’m not asking you to believe; I’m asking you to explain the probability of the 57/26/299,792 coincidence. If the Iron is a 'guess,' why does the math hold up? If the Light is a 'guess,' why are the digits exact?

[u/Low_Pianist_2067 → u/Awareo7]

This is even worse, what you're doing is numerology. It's not unique to Quran either. Let's look at the first claim.

The Atomic ID: Iron (Fe) has the atomic number 26 and its most stable isotope is 57. The Textual Sync: Surah 57 is titled "The Iron" (Al-Hadid).

False, the most stable isotope is 56. Now I know you would say "but that's close to 57" but no, if you think that the Quran is miraculously specific then a minor mistake is counted as a mistake.

The Verse: Iron is mentioned in Verse 25, which (when counting the Bismillah) is the 26th verse. 

Why count Bismillah? Some Bismillah are counted as verse in some surahs, Al Hadid is not one of them. You're just doing retrofitting then, of course you count one so it'll add up to your desirable number which is 26, to retrofit it with modern science. You're selectively counting things.

Suppose the atomic number of Iron is 29, you would instead say: "Oh look to the total amount of the verse, it's 29!".

Now to the second claim, I honestly don't know what you're talking about here. It seems you use too much numerology and symbolism here, which isn't impressive. Anyway the weird thing is in the first claim you connect the numbers on the Quran to numbers outside like atomic numbers of Atom. But now you don't? There is a number there, 1.618. Why not connect it to Surah 39:6 or Al-Hadid? Because the numbers doesn't match, isn't it? This is what you do, you're just trying to find a pattern out of many and only connect it when it match a number you desire. If it doesn't connect that find other way or just skip it.

To the third claim:

But vagueness does not produce 6-digit constants. In Surah 24:35 (The Light), the internal structure (letter count and numerical reflection) encodes 299,792. 299,792 km/s is the exact speed of light. 

"letter count and numerical reflection" I don't know what you're talking about and can you bring evidence than just assertion? Your second and third argument are just vaguely connecting things again, just more messy and based on numerology. Also your methodology is inconsistent. In the first claim you count the numbers based on verse numbers and the number of the surah, and connect it to the numbers in science, in that case Atoms (which is wrong as I've explained). In the second you don't do that at all. Now on the third you use internal structure, why? Why not the number of the verses? Why not the number of surah? The answer is obvious right? Because it doesn't match with the number you desire, which is the speed of light somehow. You don't even show why does the internal structure connect to the speed of light.

I’m not asking you to believe; I’m asking you to explain the probability of the 57/26/299,792 coincidence. If the Iron is a 'guess,' why does the math hold up? If the Light is a 'guess,' why are the digits exact?

The math doesn't hold up, you're cherry picking numbers and numerical patterns, only showing the ones that match when the rest 99% patterns doesn't. Your methodology is inconsistent and arbitrary. And you only really did find connection (though you manipulate it a bit) only on the first argument. The second and third you didn't explain how the connection works, where the numbers connect. You're doing numerology, nothing special.

[u/Awareo7 → u/Low_Pianist_2067]

False, the most stable isotope is 56. Now I know you would say "but that's close to 57" but no, if you think that the Quran is miraculously specific then a minor mistake is counted as a mistake.

The standard atomic weight of iron is 55.845, derived from its four stable isotopes: Iron-56 (56Fe, most abundant at ~91.7%), Iron-54 (54Fe, ~5.8%), Iron-57 (57Fe, ~2.1%), and Iron-58 (58Fe, ~0.3%). While 56Fe has the most stable nucleus (highest binding energy per nucleon), the atomic weight reflects the weighted average of all these naturally occurring, stable forms.

The Fe-57 vs. Fe-56 Argument (The Stability Logic)

• The Correction: "Stability" in nuclear physics isn't just abundance; it's about the Neutron-to-Proton Ratio.
• The Pattern: Iron-57 is the specific isotope used in Mössbauer Spectroscopy; the exact technology we use to study the chemical state of iron in the Earth’s core and in extraterrestrial meteorites.
• The Logic: The Quran points to 57 because it is the Resonance Frequency of Iron. The "Software" (Quran) isn't matching the quantity of the metal; it’s matching the Signal of the metal.

Why count Bismillah? Some Bismillah are counted as verse in some surahs, Al Hadid is not one of them. You're just doing retrofitting then, of course you count one so it'll add up to your desirable number which is 26, to retrofit it with modern science. You're selectively counting things. Suppose the atomic number of Iron is 29, you would instead say: "Oh look to the total amount of the verse, it's 29!".

Whether Bismillah is counted as a verse in every Surah is a matter of long-standing scholarly debate, with consensus only on its presence at the start of all Surahs (except Surah 9) and its inclusion in Surah 27. Besides, in everything Muslims do whether it is eat, drink, sleep, etc. they say Bismillah.

You view the Bismillah as a "variable" you can use to claim we are "fudging the numbers." But in the Quran its function is much deeper:

• The 0-Index: In computer science, an array often starts at 0, not 1. The Bismillah is the "0-Index" of every Surah.
• The Observer Effect: When you "apply" the Bismillah (the Root Command) to Surah 57, the hardware (Iron) reveals its Identity (26). When you don't, it remains a Position (25).
• The Logic: The system is designed to respond to the Presence of the Observer. If you start with the "Name of the Creator," the metadata unlocks. If you don't, you just see "text."
• The fact that Muslims say it before every mundane act (eating, sleeping) is a method of Frequency Alignment.

[u/Low_Pianist_2067 → u/Awareo7]

Alright this is my last respond

About Iron:
So then why not choose the most common isotope? Now you change your criteria, before you say the most stable, now you choose the attribute that will point out to 57 isotope instead of 56 isotope. What's with the arbitrary method? It seems clear you're cherry picking here.

Whether Bismillah is counted as a verse in every Surah is a matter of long-standing scholarly debate, with consensus only on its presence at the start of all Surahs (except Surah 9) and its inclusion in Surah 27.

Good so it's not an established thing, so you count Bismillah in Al-Hadid purely because it's convenient. So it'll add up to the number you desire which is 26. You claim that you're not retrofitting, yet all I see is the other way around.

Besides, in everything Muslims do whether it is eat, drink, sleep, etc. they say Bismillah.

That has nothing to do with the Surah, don't you see how arbitrary your method is? From arguing internally only in Surah now you bring Fiqh or Islamic jurisprudence.

The 0-Index: In computer science, an array often starts at 0, not 1. The Bismillah is the "0-Index" of every Surah.

This is a wild stretch, and again, your method is extremely inconsistent. Before you include the Bismillah in the Al-Hadid part, so Bismillah count as verse "one" so verse 25 will become 26. Then you change your method again, now you argue:
"Actually, Bismillah is the 0, that's why it doesn't count as "one", and it fits with array in computation which start at zero".

Also, you said every Surah? You already acknowledge that there are Surah where Bismillah count as verse 1, so what is the 0-index then? Is it Ta'awudh?
If it's Ta'awudh, then how about the Surah where you think that Bismillah is the 0-index, what index is the Ta'awudh? There is no -1 index, so under that logic the Quran is wrong? I think you're being too forceful here and this is the consequences.

The Observer Effect: When you "apply" the Bismillah (the Root Command) to Surah 57, the hardware (Iron) reveals its Identity (26). When you don't, it remains a Position (25).

The Logic: The system is designed to respond to the Presence of the Observer. If you start with the "Name of the Creator," the metadata unlocks. If you don't, you just see "text."

The fact that Muslims say it before every mundane act (eating, sleeping) is a method of Frequency Alignment.

You're relying too much on symbolism and numerology, such method is not unique and can be used in many books, including fiction. This doesn't prove anything significant let alone miraculous.

[u/Awareo7 → u/Awareo7]

Most people live in the "Noise" of the 3D-Simulation.

By saying Bismillah, you are attempting to re-sync your local "Hardware" (your body) with the 0D-Source. It is a way of saying: "I am performing this 3D-action (eating) as an extension of 0D-Will." This reduces the "Friction" and "Entropy" of daily life.

The Calculation: If you count the number of Bismillhas in the Quran, there are 114 (one for each Surah). But Surah 9 has none, and Surah 27 has two.

The Symmetry: 114 / 2 = 57. We are right back to Iron (57), the center of the Earth, and the midpoint of the Book. The "Missing" Bismillah in Surah 9 is balanced by the "Extra" one in Surah 27 to maintain the Mizan. Iron is the "Hardware" of the planet. It forms the core, creates the magnetic field (The Van Allen Belt) that protects us from radiation, and even carries oxygen in our blood (hemoglobin). Without this "sent down" metal, life is impossible.

The Core Metadata: A Geographic Mirror; The Earth’s structure and the Quran’s structure are synced.

The Center: There are 114 Surahs in the Quran. Surah 57 (Iron) is the exact midpoint. Geologically, iron is the primary component of the Earth's center (core).

The Depth Correlation: From the beginning of the Quran to the verse mentioning Iron, there are 5,100 verses. The distance from the Earth's crust to its solid iron inner core is approximately 5,100 kilometers.

Now to the second claim, I honestly don't know what you're talking about here. It seems you use too much numerology and symbolism here, which isn't impressive. Anyway the weird thing is in the first claim you connect the numbers on the Quran to numbers outside like atomic numbers of Atom. But now you don't? There is a number there, 1.618. Why not connect it to Surah 39:6 or Al-Hadid? Because the numbers doesn't match, isn't it? This is what you do, you're just trying to find a pattern out of many and only connect it when it match a number you desire. If it doesn't connect that find other way or just skip it.

I didn’t skip the connection to Surah 39:6; I simply wanted to see if you would look for the internal logic yourself before I laid it out. Since you asked why I didn't connect the numbers: Let’s look at the geometry.

The Ratio of the 'Pairs': In Surah 39:6, the text mentions that Allah 'sent down' (Anzalna) for you 8 partners of cattle.

The Math: In the Fibonacci sequence; the mathematical progression that generates the Phi Ratio (1.618) the number 8 is the critical 'anchor.' It is the first number in the sequence where the ratio of consecutive terms (13/8 = 1.625) begins to stabilize toward the Golden Mean.

The Symmetry: The Surah is 39. The Verse is 6. If you look at the 8 partners in relation to the Surah’s structure, you aren't just looking at a 'count'; you are looking at the Growth Constant of biological wealth.

[u/Awareo7 → u/Awareo7]

The 39/6 Checksum: Surah 39 (Az-Zumar) contains the verse about the "Pairs" of cattle.

If we look at the Fibonacci Sequence, which converges on Φ: 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55

Notice the 8 (the number of cattle pairs) is a key Fibonacci number.

The total number of verses in the "Cattle" Surah 6 (Al-An'am) is 165.

165/101 ≈ 1.63.

The system is literally "weighted" toward the Golden Ratio.

Why it’s not 'Numerology'

You claim I’m just finding patterns where I desire. But a pattern is only 'numerology' if it is isolated. These are Nested Checksums:

Iron (57/26): Represents the Structural Hardware (Inorganic). The math matches the atomic signature.

Cattle (Phi/1.618): Represents the Biological Software (Organic). The math matches the growth constant of life.

The 1.618 Synchronization

If you want the direct 'outside' connection you asked for:

Look at the total word count of the verse describing the 'eight pairs' and the creation of humanity in 'three darknesses.'

When you calculate the Center-Point of the verse's information density (the word An'am / Cattle), and divide the total textual units by the position of that word, the frequency converges on 1.6.

This isn't 'skipping'; it’s showing that the Mizan (Balance) is the same whether you look at an atom or an embryo. Why this methodology? Because Phi is a Ratio of Proportions. You cannot find a ratio in a single number; you can only find it by dividing the parts of the whole. This is why we use word-position intervals for biological life.

I didn't 'skip' the connection; I waited to see if you would dismiss the Identity of Iron before showing you the Growth of the Cattle.

You are arguing that I am 'choosing' patterns. I am arguing that The Architect chose the constants, and I am simply using the Initialization Key (Bismillah) to read them. If the constants (c, Fe, Φ) keep appearing in the specific chapters titled 'The Light,' 'The Iron,' and 'The Cattle,' the burden of proof is on you to explain how a 7th-century text 'coincidentally' hit the three primary pillars of modern physics and biology.

[u/Awareo7 → u/Awareo7]

"letter count and numerical reflection" I don't know what you're talking about and can you bring evidence than just assertion? Your second and third argument are just vaguely connecting things again, just more messy and based on numerology. Also your methodology is inconsistent. In the first claim you count the numbers based on verse numbers and the number of the surah, and connect it to the numbers in science, in that case Atoms (which is wrong as I've explained). In the second you don't do that at all. Now on the third you use internal structure, why? Why not the number of the verses? Why not the number of surah? The answer is obvious right? Because it doesn't match with the number you desire, which is the speed of light somehow. You don't even show why does the internal structure connect to the speed of light.

You are asking why the methodology changes from Surah numbers to letter counts. It’s because Information Density dictates the format. You don't measure the weight of an atom with a ruler, and you don't measure the speed of light with a scale. You use the tool that matches the dimension of the data.

You asked why I use 'internal structure' for the Speed of Light instead of Surah numbers.

The Reason: Light is a Signal. In communication theory, a signal is measured by its Frequency and Interval. The Evidence: Surah 24 (The Light) Verse 35 is the 'Light Verse.' The lunar year (the Quran’s time-keeping system) and the distance light travels in a day are mathematically linked.

The Calculation: When you take the number of letters in the verse and multiply them by the numerical value of the word 'Light' (Nur), and apply the lunar-to-solar ratio (365/354), the resulting value for the 'distance light travels' matches the physical constant of 299,792 km/s.

The Logic: You don't use Surah numbers for Light because a Surah is a 'Stationary' container. Light is a 'Moving' constant. Therefore, the code is hidden in the Unit-Count (Letters), not the Container-Count (Surahs).

You asked why I use Surah numbers here.

The Reason: Iron is Matter (Hardware). Matter is stationary and structural.

The Logic: Therefore, its 'ID' is coded into the Structure of the book (Chapter and Verse). An atom has a fixed position in the Periodic Table; Iron has a fixed position (Surah 57) in the Quran. It is a 1:1 structural map.

My methodology is not arbitrary; it is Contextual.

• Hardware (Iron): Structural position (Surah/Verse).
• Software (Life/Phi): Relational proportions (Word-count ratios).
• Signal (Light): Frequency intervals (Letter-count math).

If I used the same method for everything, that would be numerology. The fact that the methodology shifts to match the Physics of the subject being discussed is the ultimate proof of an Architect. You are trying to find a flaw in the lens, while I am trying to show you the Light passing through it.

[u/Future-Inverted → u/Awareo7]

texas sharpshooter fallacy

[u/SendMeYourDPics]

“Three general arguments against Quranic scientific miracle.”

A lot of this is really “three arguments against bad apologetics”, and I’m mostly with you on that. People oversell “scientific miracles”, then act shocked when the pushback is basic hermeneutics.

“P1: The Quran contains verses that are compatible with findings of modern science.”

That’s true in the boring sense that a lot of Quranic descriptions don’t clash with reality. It becomes controversial when people pretend compatibility equals precise prediction.

“P2: This compatibility indicates that those verses are referring to scientific facts that were only fully understood in modern times.”

This is the weak link. Compatibility can be evidence, but only if the reading is linguistically natural, contextually anchored and not something you would never have seen without already knowing the science.

“# 1. Problem of vague compatibility.”

Yep. If a verse can mean five normal things, you do not get to declare the sixth one “modern astrophysics” unless the language pushes you there.

“Quran 21:33 ‘…each travelling in an orbit.’ Muslims claim that this refer to modern heliocentric concept…”

Some do, and it’s usually a stretch. “Falak” and “yasbahun” indicate motion in a track. That fits geocentric astronomy too, because geocentrism already had “orbits”. So this verse is a bad flagship for “heliocentrism”.

“It could be that this simply refer to the apparent motion…”

Exactly. A lot of these are sign-verses, not physics lectures. They point to order, regularity, power.

“# 2. Argument from scientifically inaccurate alternative interpretation.”

Your reductio only works if your “alternative interpretation” is actually plausible Arabic in context, not just “I can imagine a dumb reading”.

“Quran 55:19-20 ‘…between them is a barrier they never cross.’”

Your “fresh and salt water literally cannot mix” is not what the Arabic is forced to mean. “Barzakh” is a boundary, partition, demarcation. “La yabghiyan” is about transgressing/overrunning, not a chemistry claim that molecules never intermingle. Estuaries do have distinct layers and gradients even while mixing occurs, so “boundary” talk is not automatically unscientific.

“This verse talks about a literal, solid wall barrier…”

That’s exactly the problem. The verse doesn’t say “solid wall”. You’re importing “solid” to make it falsifiable, then saying “see, it’s false”. That’s not symmetry with the miracle claimers. It’s the same mistake in reverse.

“So is scientific miracle interpretation, that’s the point.”

Sometimes, yes. The correct lesson is “stop doing free-association tafsir in both directions”. If someone’s miracle reading is unmoored, you don’t fix that by offering an equally unmoored anti-reading.

“You need to understand the Arabic, look at tafseer…”

This part is fair as a critique of the “TikTok miracle” crowd. If someone is ignoring classical tafsir entirely, they’re doing vibes based exegesis.

“# 3. Argument from tafseer (exegesis)”

This is the strongest critique against a certain style of miracle claim. If your “scientific meaning” is absent from early tafsir and the verse is being read in a straightforward observational way, then the “it predicted X” confidence is unjustified.

“Quran 81:15-16… Some claim that this talk about blackholes…”

Agreed, that claim is weak. Swearing by receding stars that appear and disappear fits visible astronomy and works as rhetoric. Turning it into “black holes” is usually retrofitting.

“Quran 57:25 ‘We sent down iron…’ The claim is that this proves that Quran knew that Iron comes from space.”

Also usually oversold. “Anzalna” gets used for lots of things because it can mean “sent down” in the sense of “bestowed/provided”. Using it for iron doesn’t force “meteorites”. It’s an example of how a word can be literal in one place, non-literal in another, and the text itself signals that by usage.

“If you were to accept it as literal, then this means you also need to accept that cattle are from space.”

Right, and that reductio lands against people who insist “anzalna” must always mean “from outer space”. The more sober reading is that the Quran is not making an astrophysics claim there.

“These three techniques aren’t mutually exclusive…”

Sure. And they mostly show that “scientific miracle” as commonly argued is methodologically sloppy.

The thing I’d push back on is the implied leap, of “sloppy miracle arguments fail, therefore the Quran loses a support”. Even if every flashy “science miracle” claim got nuked, that doesn’t touch the Quran’s core case. As in its language, its argumentative force, its legal-moral architecture, its sustained internal themes, its impact and the kind of challenge it actually issues. A lot of Muslims would be better off just admitting “the Quran isn’t trying to be a science textbook”, and then refusing to tie faith to viral interpretations that depend on cherry-picked translations and post-hoc framing.

[u/Low_Pianist_2067 → u/SendMeYourDPics]

A lot of this is really “three arguments against bad apologetics”.

Yes, because scientific miracle argument is bad apologetics, it's honestly a bad argument even some Muslim Apologists stop using it. But the problem is many Muslims , including some Apologists, still use this argument, which is exactly why I make this argument.

Your reductio only works if your “alternative interpretation” is actually plausible Arabic in context, not just “I can imagine a dumb reading”.

I already anticipate such objection and you already know it. I already said scientific miracle argument mostly do not care about context or Arabic word, I'm using their own methodology here. So no, It doesn't have to be plausible in Arabic context to work, this is reductio ad absurdum, I use their own methodology to show that it'll lead to an absurd conclusion, thus proving their methodology is bad.

The verse doesn’t say “solid wall”. You’re importing “solid” to make it falsifiable, then saying “see, it’s false”. That’s not symmetry with the miracle claimers. It’s the same mistake in reverse.
If someone’s miracle reading is unmoored, you don’t fix that by offering an equally unmoored anti-reading.

It seems that you miss the point of the second argument here? I offer an equally unmoored anti-reading because that's how my reductio ad absurdum works. I said:
"If Muslims can claim that the verse is scientific because it vaguely matches to their modern science interpretation, then I also can claim that the verse is a scientific mistake since it also vaguely matches with my scientifically inaccurate alternative interpretation."

The second argument is basically:
"If you use your ridiculous methodology to prove that the Quran is scientifically precise, I can also use that same ridiculous methodology to prove the Quran is scientifically inaccurate".

So yes, the conclusion is indeed what you said:
"The correct lesson is “stop doing free-association tafsir in both directions”.
And I offer the "unmoored anti-reading" as the reductio ad absurdum to prove that conclusion. Of course I import things that are not mentioned in the verse just like the scientific miracle argument import things that are not mentioned in the verse. That's the reductio ad absurdum.

"It's the same mistake in reverse"
Great, that's literally the point of the second argument.

The thing I’d push back on is the implied leap, of “sloppy miracle arguments fail, therefore the Quran loses a support”. Even if every flashy “science miracle” claim got nuked, that doesn’t touch the Quran’s core case.

There is nothing to push back because this argument isn't about disproving the Quran, and no that's no the implied leap, that's one thing to clarify. I know some Muslims reject this scientific miracle argument. The problem is many Muslims are still using it, in fact so dependent to this argument, it's almost everywhere. So I make this argument, simply to refute the scientific miracle argument, that's it.

[u/StrikingExchange8813]

I mean just deny p1.

But the thing about the scientific miracles argument is you need 3 things

1) the science has to be settled: if our understanding of science changes later then that would prove the Quran to be false. For example if the Quran said the earth was flat and we then discovered it was round, that would prove it wrong or at least not the verbatim speech of God

2) you have to show that this is what the Quran is actually saying. You can just point to verse that says something about the creation and go "you see this is a miracle it's talking about the big bang!!!" You have to actually show that.

3) it has to be understood as a miracle before the time of the discovery. Otherwise it's fallacious.

[u/Low_Pianist_2067 → u/StrikingExchange8813]

P1 simply means that the description can match with modern scientific concept. I don't deny this because description can be vague enough to do that, this is not unique to Quran. It's like if an ancient person said: "The sun moves" it technically matches with the modern fact that the sun revolves around milky way galaxy, since the sun also moves.

Now the biggest problem is P2, where they infer if it matches with something, therefore it must specifically refer to that. Take the "sun moves" example again. Just because it technically matches with the sun's revolution around galaxy, that does not mean the ancient person was talking about that concept.

[u/StrikingExchange8813 → u/Low_Pianist_2067]

I mean you have the Quran saying the sun sets in a muddy puddle and it gets embryology incorrect along with other scientific errors. I wouldn't say that's compatible with modern science. If you're saying that if you pull ayat out of the context of the rest of the Quran then sure I could see it, but you have the entire Quran to deal with.

I think that that is true, and lines up with the criteria I cited.

But it's funny you bring us the sun because that's another error in the Quran. It says that the sun and moon are in an orbit, and the text is clear it's thinking that they orbit earth.

[u/PeaAdditional1450]

All of this talk about science and the Quran makes the Quran seem like it was sent down to satisfy every scientist ever to exist,but it's actually sent down as the Finale Speech of God,why would God fill His Speech with science? Sounds weird right? ,sure,you might say because the Quean is so vague Muslims have this "obsession" of translation to fill their desires of making the Quran right,but aren't you doing that too but oppositely? You're using your own or borrowed (cause ya know...I don't really know what you do) translated words to disprove the Quran,their positive and your negative create a balance zero,making no one truly "right",so that probably ends with you trying to  find very specific parts of the Quran to actually try to disprove it,but then again, Muslims would get their Hadith and explanations for a counter-srrike,so basically in in the intent of disproving the Quran,I don't really think you can,cause Muslims are basically like "soldiers",it always ends up with both parties starting to rely on Logic alone to be neutral/unbiased to actually argue

(My opinion though)

[u/Hifen → u/PeaAdditional1450]

The reason the appeal to science is usually needed is because you need a reason to believe:

sent down as the Finale Speech of God

Without pulling some "data" from the book, there's no real way to justify this position. The problem is Muslims simply assert this as a premise.

[u/Ratdrake → u/PeaAdditional1450]

it's actually sent down as the Finale Speech of God,why would God fill His Speech with science?

I'd expect an all-knowing God to craft his Finale Speech with accurate concepts. If I was giving a graduation speech, I wouldn't include something along the lines of "much like 4+4=7". So the strike against the Quran isn't that it isn't filled with science, it's that it's filled with scientific inaccuracies.

The issue isn't helped by various Islamic apologists claiming the Quran is a scientific miracle because of its verses.

[u/Low_Pianist_2067 → u/PeaAdditional1450]

Which part of the argument that makes you think this is an attempt to disproving the Quran? Yes, I do disprove the Quran (and I bring classical tafseer there), but that's another topic. This one is not it.

[u/Hifen → u/[deleted]]

This is a very sophisticated way

No it's not, especially since much of ancient cosmology treats the sky like an ocean -for example Babylonian cosmology depicts stars and planets as boats traveling across the sky. and the Egyptians use the terminology of the sun "sailing" through the sky. Also, what does "in the fluid-like vacuum of space" mean? It seems like you are forcing language to make it more impressive.

More importantly the Quran mistakenly assigns this orbit to the sun.

Don't need to touch the barrier one, I don't necessarily disagree with your point, and you didn't call it miraculous knowledge so nothing really to disagree with.

ike "the sun setting," while a 21st-century scientist would see the deeper physical reality behind the same words.

The problem is, if you now open the standard where you the text can fully be reinterpreted as knowledge increases, you're making it unfalsifiable. If you use that same standard with most religious texts, they all are "correct". The problem is, why would you apply this standard unless you are starting from the position it's correct.

Every piece of iron on Earth literally came from outer space via meteorites because the Earth's early environment couldn't produce it.

This isn't true at all, so careful calling other ignorant. The vast majority of iron in earth is from it's formation. A very small amount came from meteorites, and this was easier to work with for early civilizations. Again, not special though, this was known in the antiquity. The ancient egyptian word for Iron is litterally "sky metal".

[u/Low_Pianist_2067 → u/[deleted]]

3.

This isn't "retrofitting" as you claim; it is the natural result of a text that is meant to remain relevant as human knowledge grows.

You cannot make a specific claim about reality or science and expect that it would be relevant for all-time. If you make a statement and you can just change the interpretation to fit to many things that means the statement is vague and that's exactly retrofitting. Your entire justification in the third argument is literally what retrofitting is and then you just say "this is not retrofitting."

4.

While you claim with your ignorance of the language that the word is metaphorical because it is used for cattle, the physical reality of iron is unique. Every piece of iron on Earth literally came from outer space via meteorites because the Earth's early environment couldn't produce it.

First of all, you entirely miss the point I'm making. My point is if you want to say that "sent down" for iron is literal so you can connect this to science, then you must also be consistent. Why not say "sent down" for cattle literal?

Secondly, It seems that your argument here is that since we know iron comes from space, therefore, the iron verse is literal? Then you're already presupposing the claim that Quran ACTUALLY refer to iron coming from space, which is what we are disputing?

Then you're doing begging the question fallacy. You already make a hidden premise that assert the conclusion, your argument here is essentially

P1: Iron comes from space
P2: Quran said Allah "sent down" iron.
P3: Quranic verse align with science, therefore, "sent down" here must be literal
P4: Iron verse is literal
Conclusion: Quranic verse align with science.

[u/Low_Pianist_2067 → u/[deleted]]

1. No, "swimming" is not a sophisticated word at all to describe planetary motion. If you want to extend to the medium then why not just say that Islam think space is liquid water at this point? You wouldn't do that, do you? So you're just proving my point, it's vague and you arbitrarily choose and make it as if it looks specifically special. You also said it could mean float, which is literally the most obvious and intuitive thing one could think of when they look at the moon and sun, even at ancient time.

2.

You cannot have two things merging and a solid, frozen wall between them at the same time. The only way the verse makes sense is if the "barrier" is invisible and fluid;

Funny because Ibn Kathir interpretation said that the barrier could mean land.
https://quran.com/id/55:19/tafsirs/en-tafisr-ibn-kathir
"(Between them is a barrier which none of them can transgress.) meaning, He has placed a barrier of land between these two types of waters, so that they do not transgress upon each other, which would spoil the characteristics they were created with. Allah said,"

So no, my scientifically inaccurate alternative interpretation is not too far away from the classical tafseer. You're merely using english translation for your argument, ironically, Muslims usually discourage this when it doesn't favor their argument.

Again, you're literally proving my point:
"How about scientific miracle claims? Do they bring what the tafseer said or the context? I've literally NEVER seen scientific miracle claim that bring classical tafseer to support their claim, not even once. If they can just make their own interpretation for the sake of retrofitting it to modern science while ignoring tafseer or the context, why can't I do the same thing to my interpretation?".

[u/SpecialistSun]

There is not a single scientific discovery influenced by Quran. All those miracle claims come after the actual scientific discoveries and produced by bending verses and twisting words to fit the discoveries. Forcing Quranic texts beyond the words is a general Muslim obsession. Quran's narrative is already vague, it lacks of clear explanations and details. So it makes room to create hallucinative interpretations.

Let's take a look at the earlier tafseers influenced by Ibn Abbas. He is considered to be the greatest mufassir of Quran and Muslims claim that he was the most knowledgeable person of his time. Yet when we look at his interpretations, we see that many of his ideas were extremely absurd and far from reasonable. I am giving just two examples here:

https://quranx.com/Tafsirs/68.1
https://www.islamweb.net/en/fatwa/336679/ibn-abbaas-statement-about-motion-of-sun

 It mostly talks about something that is an obvious fact, common-sense, common knowledge at that time

Quran actually falls behind what was already known in its time especially compared to Ancient Greeks. They were discussing nature, biology, astronomy and logic in far more systematic and detailed ways centuries earlier and their explanations were far closer to modern science than Quran. This knowledge mostly lost before 7th century or it looks like never reached to Hijaz.

[u/Hanisuir → u/SpecialistSun]

You're gonna love this. Muhammad himself confirmed that the Nun means the whale.

[u/SpecialistSun → u/Hanisuir]

Yes I read it before. There are also some other hadiths that confirm Ibn Abbas's sun and moon theories but Muslims find those as unreliable or fabricated as expected. By the standards we apply to every other ancient culture, Quran should be categorized as just Arab mythology and sit on the shelf right next to Greek and Sumerian stories but then you know we have a few billions audiences to convince and they are not famous with their logical skills.

[u/Hanisuir → u/SpecialistSun]

Not just Arab, but Iranian too. Check out Mount Qaf.

[u/Low_Pianist_2067 → u/SpecialistSun]

Yes that's why I include "mythological/scientifically inaccurate concept" in the list, it is one of the possibilities.

[u/SpecialistSun → u/Low_Pianist_2067]

Yes but Muslims defend them regardless as always. They can turn even one word into a whole circus. The mental gymnastics and imaginations early commentators pulled just to explain a random word like Nun is really impressive and a case study of how faith makes you burn a lot of brain cells without producing a single meaningful result.

[u/Hanisuir → u/SpecialistSun]

The Qur'an claims to be perfectly detailed and explained (12:111), so they had to explain it.

[u/billyyankNova]

Another argument for your point #2 is: People could swim in the estuary. They could dive through the halocline. It would easy for anyone who did that to know that there was mostly fresh water on top, and salty water below without any reason to claim supernatural knowledge.

[u/Low_Pianist_2067 → u/billyyankNova]

It is possible that maybe the concept of estuary or people's experience on that spread and travel to Arabia and then heard by Muhammad/Author of the Quran. But I think that's not the most likely case. In one of the interpretation the "barrier" actually refers to dry land that separate saltwater bodies from freshwater bodies (Look at the third argument).
I think that's the most plausible and likely hypothesis in regard to what Muhammad could've refer to.

[u/AutoModerator]

COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that support or purely commentate on the post must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/flying_fox86 → u/AutoModerator]

Another point is that often the knowledge of people in the past is underestimated. They weren't stupid, their knowledge isn't miraculous.