Objective evidence For The Supernatural
Understanding
the nature of proprietary information.
Before
we begin, I would encourage everyone to download and listen to the Quran and
modern science debate:
Ahmed
– Giron mp3 debate part 1
Ahmed
– Giron mp3 debate part 2
The above debate
clearly proved that a supernatural entity exists, as there can be no natural
explanation for the scientific statements found in the Quran, which were only
discovered recently by scientists. For many, proof is not necessary for belief
in the supernatural, as they have witnessed many bizarre phenomenons such as
exorcisms. Take for example the movie The
Exorcism of Emily Rose. I found this movie (based on a true story)
particularly interesting, because the story line depicted a priest caught in a
court room case in which he was unable to prove that exorcism are genuine, because
there never has been any evidence for the supernatural to begin with, and it
something left up to faith. Therefore, this debate may change how we look at
the supernatural, as finally we have concrete objective evidence which proves
that the supernatural does indeed exist.
But
unfortunately, as the word is slowly trickling into the atheist/skeptic
community, some didn’t take the news very well, but were not able to refute the
evidence in the least. Thus the pathetic explanations of why we find such accurate
scientific statements in the Quran started emerging from this crowd of people,
such as:
“big deal, we find this stuff all the
time! I’m not impressed at all!”
“that verse could also mean something
else… there, see that verse has nothing to do with science!”
In
order to silence these quibblings, we must remind them of the nature of proprietary
information. Many companies, institutions, and research organizations own
private confidential information which is highly guarded and prohibited for
public disclosure. Some examples of proprietary information would be trade
secrets, government military defense systems, missile technology or the
information a lawyer would possess of a client.
Therefore,
the question I would raise, is what if some of this confidential proprietary
information was in the possession of unauthorized individual? How would these
companies or government agencies react? Would they dismiss it all as an amazing
coincidence? Would they say “big deal”?. Of course not. That would be foolish. In fact, the following
entity issued the following warning:
b) willfully obtains or seeks to obtain confidential
information to which he is not entitled, shall be guilty of an offence and
liable on summary convictions to a fine not exceeding $50,000 or to
imprisonment not exceeding 2 years or to both such fine and such imprisonment.
( *
)
obtains
or attempts to obtain confidential information to which he is not entitled,
shall be guilty of an offence ( *
)
As
we can see, those who possess classified information would be vigorously sought
after and prosecuted.
Now,
those who do seek after confidential information usually hide their data by way
of encryption. Encryption, is the process of obscuring information, so that
the average person may not know that particular information is present.
Nevertheless the data is indeed present, but the average person can not easily
see it because of the multiple interpretations that can arise when one examines
the data. Only a person with the key can decode ( * ) it and find the
proprietary information.
Likewise,
modern scientific statements found in the Quran works on the exact same
principles. The Quran was a book revealed 1400 years ago, and the author of
that book should not possess modern scientific facts which were only discovered
recently by scientist with the help of modern technology. Therefore, modern scientific facts of today’s time becomes confidential
proprietary information for anyone living 1400 years ago. A person living 1400
years ago should not have such information in his possession. Therefore, the
debate focused on the following question:
How do we explain that confidential propriety information
was
in the possession of the author of the Quran?
Now, it can be very possible that it is
a mere coincidence, as I stated some examples in the debate,
but if we see more than one or two scientific statements(proprietary
information) in the possession of the author of the Quran, then we can not
simply dismiss it as all coincidence, rather, we need to dig a bit deeper. In
addition to that, no institution will simply over look their proprietary data
in the possession of an individual as "coincidence" and therefore,
neither will we when examining the scientific
statements in the Quran.
And
finally, as a last "hail Mary" attempt to try to resolve the
question, some skeptics may offer the multiple interpretation (encryption)
canard again... even though it was refuted in
the debate. By bringing up the issue of multiple interpretations, the skeptic
attempts to hide the scientific information in a myriad of alternative
interpretations. But as we pointed out above, simply pointing out the fact that
the data is encrypted, proves nothing at all for the
skeptic. For example, If we were to go back to the
example above, a person can steal confidential proprietary information from a
company and encrypts the data so that he can easily conceal it, then upon
investigation he could snugly claim that that this data simply does not exist
in his possession. But all the investigator would have to do is discover the
key to decrypt it, and unveil the proprietary data for the world to see.
Therefore, the point to understand from this example is that simply pointing
out that the data is encrypted does not mean that the data does not exist, on
the contrary, the data does exists and all the investigator has to do is show
that one logical interpretation of the encrypted data does match up with the
company’s proprietary information to show that the person is guilty. Therefore,
why don’t we do the same thing for the Quran? All we have to do is show that
one logical interpretation matches up with modern science to show that
proprietary information was indeed in the possession of the author of the
Quran. Therefore, the multiple interpretation rebuttal
is mute.
And
a final note, we graciously invite all skeptics for debate and dialogues to
challenge our claims, and if they don’t come forward, we will go after them.
All debates will be posted on the ExamineTheTruth.com website.