>>12739303If you know the story of dhul-qarnayn (a figure in the quran), you may be aware that several centuries ago muslims thought dhul-qarnayn was alexander the great. Then as more information about alexander was found, the opinion changed, now muslims dont think dhul-qarnayn is alexander.
Now compare this to what you are saying. There is some writing in the quran that can be interpreted as matching what modern science says: for example, "we clove the heavens assunder" is often said to be "the big bang".
So we start with muslims not associating that passage with science, then they associate it with the big bang. And if the big bang is disproven then they'll pull a dhul-qarnayn moment and just stop claiming the quran talked about the big bang all those years ago.
You notice some similarity between what is written in the quran and some real world information, then claim the quran must be divine revelation because of this similarity. If any similarity is subsequently no longer tenable you just remove it from the bundle of similarity-copes and add new copes. As long as your bundle of copes is never empty, you can go on tricking yourself.
Islam could feasibly be "true", but if you are using these similarities to support your belief islam, but think that nostrodamus' predictions were not "divinely inspired", then you are incompetent
