The Science Illusion |
Post Reply | Page <12345 7> |
Author | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Quranexplorer
Senior Member Male Joined: 09 May 2014 Status: Offline Points: 152 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Okay since you insist here we go with the replies. As I quoted before from Quran 6:59 that the keys of secrets are with Allah and none knows them except He, it is of no importance whether I know the answers or not, as long as there is nobody who either knows everything, or can counter what is said by Allah with clear evidence.
Quran says Allah is eternal and Quran has withstood the test of time for last 1,400 years. But in your case is it is the latest member of the theory family with many such theories in the past being proven wrong.
The physical laws do not fully explain the creation and still leave a lot of fundamental questions unanswered.
His attributes are such that he has the absolute characteristics in anything than man can think of and beyond. What is then the point in trying to think in his shoes?
How things are in a certain way be any reason to deny the Creator? Anyway you have no say in it!
Same as above
The purpose for creation of man is very clearly spelt out in the Quran. Allah says in Quran 51:56: �I created the jinn and humankind only that they might worship Me.� It is when people fail to understand the real meaning of worship that they think it as a burden. They misunderstand worship as just performing ritualistic acts, but it is not. In Islam worship is something that encompasses all aspects of one�s life and all acts of righteousness seeking the pleasure of Allah becomes part of that worship. Here is a useful link to the concept of worship in Islam
Allah is aware of everything including man�s inner thoughts. Allah says in Quran 50:16: �We verily created man and We know what his soul whispereth to him, and We are nearer to him than his jugular vein.� The fact that humans have been provided with a limited free will to make a choice does in no way limit Allah�s power over all affairs. He is still in absolute control even over the free will of man. Again that�s Allah�s design, what has that to do with your or my duty to make the right choice?
Allah is fully capable of making all humans believe in him if he wants (Quran 10:99), but his design leaves the personal responsibility of making the right choice to man. That�s his design, what�s the point in lamenting about something where you have no right to negotiate?
For me what looks more pathetic is when people try to blame the Creator for their deliberate unwillingness to accept guidance. When I have been made clear of the rules with clear authority, why should I not play to the rules? If you are concerned with the efforts, it will not take a fraction of the efforts that you are putting in denial of Creator to actually identify the correct prophets�only if you will.
The main problem is that people take many things for granted. They feel that they are on their own, but thinking through a few steps should make them understand that there is nothing of their own. The air they breathe, the food they eat, the earth they walk on, or even their body with all the sophisticated systems within, all ultimately points to a creation beyond man�s hands. And then the Creator sends his guidance to man so that he can be grateful to his Creator at least to a minuscule amount and live a righteous life. If his creation deliberately chooses to deny him even after all the signs, what right has such a creation got to blame his Creator?
The concept of life after death is the crux of Islam, in fact that is the real life for a believer, whereas the life of this earth is only a probation period where he is tested and tried. Allah says in Quran 67:2 that he created life and death that he may try man with his conduct in this world.
In fact the real point is that the Creator is beyond an evidence based realm. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As I have mentioned before, for me there are basically 2 underlying beliefs that explain this universe: 1) Allah is the ultimate Creator and Sustainer of this universe 2) There is a life after death and that�s where all balances are going to be set right. Now both these beliefs are beyond the realm of science to establish with evidence. The Creator model clearly provides an explanation for the unity in design and the harmony that we observe between various systems in the universe that makes it sustain. A no-Creator model on the other hand has to explain the creation of all material things individually, and then need to explain why all such systems have to be in harmony to make them all sustain. That is only the material part. It has to then explain the coming to being of various cognitive and behavioural skills and characteristics like conscience just to name a few. The list of assumptions goes on and on. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A no-Creator model in fact will need more assumptions. Is it not simpler to accept the Creator based on a time tested book rather than denying the Creator based on a theoretical approach with a proven track record of failures? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That�s where the choice and personal responsibility comes in to play. You are free to make a choice, and you are the one who will have to assume the personal responsibility for that choice. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe you when you say you have been reading Quran. And I am not surprised with your opinion on Quran as not everyone in this world are going to be believers as per Allah�s plan�and you know Allah�s plan will definitely come to pass. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Absolutely, what�s more, the model in Quran not only addresses the material creation but also the cognitive and behavioural aspects as well! ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You got to blame yourself if you cannot put that model to a test for evidence! ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for that. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have had some lengthy discussions on this topic and I have never seen anybody coming with a clear evidence to prove at least one wrong statement in Quran. I am still open for that challenge. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That was an open question, why should a self created universe have so much intelligence to puzzle the best of human minds for answers? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not blindly hoping for such compensation without any basis. There is a clear promise in the form of a time-tested book and a practical example in the form of the life of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). And on top of that there is no factual evidence to deny such a promise. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is the point in denying the concept of a higher plan when you fully acknowledge the fact that in any case you have no power to control such things from happening? -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would say if somebody is looking for a scientific book like description for things in the Quran, then it is a classic case of missing the real purpose of the message and the signs. There are a number of statements in the Quran of scientific relevance; these are provided by way of signs that shall guide man to the real message that is the oneness of Allah and the real purpose of man�s life in this world. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Believing in Allah does not mean that you become privy to Allah�s plans. And it is not even a criterion that you should know the secrets of creation to believe in a Creator, especially when there is no one who has access to such secrets. As long as you have no access to such information, one logical way to judge truth is to test the available information against available evidences and Quran scores 100% there, so why should I be worried about information that are not there? |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Quranexplorer
Senior Member Male Joined: 09 May 2014 Status: Offline Points: 152 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Thanks for making it short. I too was finding it difficult to handle it with its increasing length. I appreciate concentrating the discussion on the core point. Here we go with my thoughts: As I have mentioned before, for me there are basically 2 underlying beliefs that explain this universe: 1) Allah is the ultimate Creator and Sustainer of this universe 2) There is a life after death and that�s where all balances are going to be set right. Now both these beliefs are beyond the realm of science to establish with evidence. The Creator model clearly provides an explanation for the unity in design and the harmony that we observe between various systems in the universe that makes it sustain. A no-Creator model on the other hand has to explain the creation of all material things individually, and then need to explain why all such systems have to be in harmony to make them all sustain. That is only the material part. It has to then explain the coming to being of various cognitive and behavioural skills and characteristics like conscience just to name a few. The list of assumptions goes on and on. Since I promised that I will respond to the remaining part of the discussion, I have posted that part separately, just in case something needs to be discussed. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
airmano
Senior Member Joined: 31 March 2014 Status: Offline Points: 884 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
@QE
Thanks for keeping it short ...
The point is however: why does the non-creator model have the obligation to (be able to) explain everything, whereas the creator model can do almost completely without ? -----------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------
Airmano Edited by airmano - 10 November 2016 at 5:26am |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses (Albert Einstein 1954, in his "Gods Letter")
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Quranexplorer
Senior Member Male Joined: 09 May 2014 Status: Offline Points: 152 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
For me there is a reason why man cannot explain everything, because the Creator specifically says man cannot. But for a no-Creator model is there any specific reason that prevents man from explaining everything? -----------------------------------------------------
If you assume that things are created on their own, then there is no necessity that such independently created things have to behave in a coordinated manner so that they all sustain without any chaos. Yes, there is this striking harmony you can observe in the planetary systems and also all throughout the nature, which is obviously too hard to be dismissed to mere chance.
Sure |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tim the plumber
Senior Member Male Joined: 30 September 2014 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 944 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Just to but in....
There is no particular reason that we know of which will stop us one day understanding the universe. That day has yet to come as there is much more that we do not yet understand than we do understand. Fun to be in the exploration phase of human society isn't it?
The universe does not run on unrestricted chance. The way the physics of it works defines the way it looks and behaves. That this gives rise to structure at may levels of detail is not. mathamatically, surprising. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
airmano
Senior Member Joined: 31 March 2014 Status: Offline Points: 884 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
@QE
Could you stick to this line and try to come up with a better answer ? -----------------------------------------------------
The second reason is Quantum Mechanics (QM). QM -or call it nature- is deeply probabilistic. The laws of nature forbid us to go below a certain level of knowledge (of the state of a system) and I strongly doubt that any God is able to go beyond it. Despite that we do have very precise ideas about the development of our Universe, the solar system, and finally the evolution of life and why we are the way we are. You don't need to be able to know the history of each individual rock to explain a moraine at a glacier's end. ...And all these rules work without invoking a creator. Now you can of course take the backdoor and argue that a creator made these rules, but I [still] don't see the advantage of introducing an (1)everlasting, (2)intelligent and (3)intentional creator (4)making these rules - over simply (1)"everlasting rules". ------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------
Physics can even explain quite neatly why our solar system seemed/was rather chaotic at the beginning (yet obeying precise laws) and became much more stable over the millions of years. So, what you call "harmony" today is simply(?) the result of a long, violent and well known planetary "weeding process" and yet there is still a fair chance that one day we may get a rather inharmonious comet on our head. Remember the dinosaurs being wiped out by a comet ? Similarly we have an even [much] higher likelihood to be killed by an equally inharmonious earthquake (The inability to explain these forms of mass killing otherwise, crazily prompts many [muslim] scholars to interpret it as God's punishment). The impression of "harmonious" is (at least on a planetary level) only due to our short human life span preventing us from observing deviating processes on an individual scale. BTW: In a bit more than a billion years the sun will roast the earth, again, not a very harmonious thought. If you feel like presenting another (better ?) example of what you consider as "harmonious" I am of course willing to reply to any suggestion. Airmano *) Added the 20. Nov Edited by airmano - 20 November 2016 at 12:00pm |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses (Albert Einstein 1954, in his "Gods Letter")
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Quranexplorer
Senior Member Male Joined: 09 May 2014 Status: Offline Points: 152 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This is the very crux of the discussion�if theoretical models are not capable of achieving this goal of coming up with a credible explanation for this universe, then what is the point in confining ourselves to the same theoretical models? Sometimes you need to think out of the box for solutions. So let�s not put any boundaries for the discussion, I don�t restrict you from making any arguments, and I expect the same to be reciprocated. -----------------------------------------------------
Complexity is a highly relative term. Something that seems very complex to someone may not be that complex to someone else. So 1) the fact that things seem complex to man cannot be a reason to argue that there cannot be someone else to whom things are no more complex 2) at the first place why should things seem complex to man at all, especially when he argues that such systems came in to existence as per a set of predefined natural laws? You say that the natural laws forbid you from knowing things beyond a level�is there some basis for your argument, or is it just an assumption? Coming to QM, are you saying QM is the nature? So is QM capable of explaining all natural phenomena including predicting natural disasters? Now another question pops up, what came first, QM or the laws of nature? When I look at this whole laws of nature and QM explanation for the universe, for me it looks more like an escape route to avoid what we can call the �Personal Responsibility�. You kind of propose a belief system where even though man has no credible evidence to support such a belief system, it gives him the freedom to live a life the way he wants. In a nutshell you have no qualms to believe in anything but the idea of being responsible for your own actions! And the everlasting rules as per your model are not simple either, these are: 1) Everlasting 2) Intelligent � forbid man from knowing things beyond a limit 3) A Creator � create stuff 4) A Sustainer � sustain everything 5) Stop man from carrying out his will 6) Create time 7) Distribute skills and resources the way these want The list can go on and on. ------------------------------------------------------
Why should a system created out of nothing be chaotic in the beginning and then settle in to a harmonic one�it would be interesting to see if there is a precise scientific explanation to this �why� question. When you fail to explain things, that is attributed to sophisticated terms like chance and probability, which in reality is nothing but �we have no idea, but at any cost we can�t believe in God�, and then you try to ridicule others who at least have a time-tested book to support them!�funny isn�t it? See again my belief is very clear�this universe as we see will last only for an appointed term irrespective of anything that can possibly happen in any domain. Now it is for you to explain why the everlasting rules should take this universe to a not so harmonious situation, if you believe so. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Quranexplorer
Senior Member Male Joined: 09 May 2014 Status: Offline Points: 152 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I completely agree with you that we are in the exploration phase. The problem is when people try to draw definitive conclusions with no basis to do so as we are still in the exploration phase. It is completely a matter of choice to be optimistic that someday man is going to have all the answers about this universe. But then one is prompted to look how pragmatic such an approach is. From the beginning of the scientific approach there have been many theoretical models trying to explain this universe, and essentially almost all of these theories have failed to stand the test of time, some have become completely obsolete, whilst some others have undergone changes over the time, and yet we have no real estimate of when man is going to have all the answers. So if you think of this theoretical approach over a period, there would have been people in the past that would have lived their life and died, drawing definitive conclusions based on some theoretical model that was in effect at that time, but are now been proved that they were wrong with their conclusions. In other words, drawing definitive conclusions based on theoretical models pose a great risk of dying under the wrong belief!
The moment you deny an absolute Creator, you are effectively leaving everything to chance. Then what perplexes man is the fact that again that chance is not unrestricted, the chance in fact follows certain set laws. And the realm of science is limited to explaining �how� such a system works, that too with limited success. But the realm of science can never explain �why� such a system�at best it is again left to chance! |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Post Reply | Page <12345 7> |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |