quran and science

Wow, When you write:
"The stars are bodies of combustion producing both heat and light and the Quranic verses have no contradictions on this aspect as well. So if you living in this century of information can get your statement wrong, whereas the Quran-a book 1400 years ago gets everything right always, doesn't that look a bit supernatural?? - see we are already getting more reasons why Quran is a miracle!"

As a response I feel like making a very bold statement, which is: "A is true".

First it is it's obvious simplicity which is intriguing.
"A" being true is not in conflict to any known law of physics. "A" will always be true, no matter what happens to the world. Even when you and me are long gone, future generations will realize that "A" remains true. It is therefore a statement of ultimate wisdom. I even challenge the world to come up with a simpler (and "truer") statement and as long as there's nobody succeeding in this task I will even declare my statement as being divine.
So, jokes aside: It is the predictive and selective power which makes a statement important. When you say that the Qur'an is not in conflict with the modern knowledge of [thermonuclear reaction inside] stars and this is a sign of the Qur'an being true or divine I think you should rather consider "A" (being simpler) as the better theory to explain the universe (according to Occams razor).

Next: You where right about about my link to the Greeks, but simply copying the link and sticking it to the address bar of your browser will give you the information.

To your translation: Can "Samaa" also mean "heaven" in a purely religious sense ?

To finish: You insinuate that modern knowledge (and the associated Nobel prices) are completely irrelevant compared to the creators wisdom. Why is it than so important to you that the Qur'an is supposed to contain scientific knowledge ?

Regards: Airmano

Edited by airmano - 18 May 2014 at 2:27pm

schmikbob, now even I am a bit curious what relevance this has got to the discussion!

However, I can say my father was not a practicing muslim but my mother is very much a practicing muslim, even though only Allah can have full knowledge on one's real faith.

Airmano:

The problem is you are quoting a statement told in one context in a totally different context. Let me explain you this way:

Quran gives clear differentiation of sun being a body of combustion, moon being an inert reflector and there are no contradictions on stars as well even though there are multiple references of stars in Quran including shooting stars � it makes sense when you read all these together, but if you pick only the stars part, then it doesn�t make any sense just like your �A is true� statement � if you are still in doubt, just give me an example of your �A is true� type statement in Quran which I have used in this discussion.

There are two characteristics of Quran which I would like to point out from the sun-moon-star discussion 1) Scientific references far beyond its time to differentiate the light source of sun and moon � yes, the copy-paste option worked for the �Greek link� but looks even you are not sure of its authenticity 2) Quran strikingly is devoid of human errors � you made one by making a general statement indicating moon and stars to have the same kind of light source and if you look at the �Greek link� there are plenty of examples.

Regarding �Samaa� you should have all answers at this link I referred earlier http://quransmessage.com/articles/heaven%20and%20paradise%20FM3.htm

I never said modern knowledge (and the associated Nobel prices) are completely irrelevant compared to the creators wisdom, but my point is to put to perspective that science is only a human tool and the creator�s wisdom is all encompassing far beyond any of human wisdom including science, so it is natural that Quran contains some scientific references among all other wisdom and some of these are testified by modern scientific knowledge � in a nutshell science should be viewed as an enabling factor for man to understand the grandeur of the creator, not as a tool to deny the creator.

Airmano:

Quranexplorer wrote: The problem is you are quoting a statement told in one context in a totally different context.

Could you tell me what I missed/hid/ misunderstood ?
What I see however is that a really trivial statement like "the sun is hot/heats" gets quickly re-interpreted into a miracle.
Where do I find knowledge about the interplay between nuclear force and Coulomb potential, the CNO-cycle, the opposing forces of heat/expansion and gravity/shrinkage inside a star, in the Quran ?

Again the Greeks: The fact that I was to lazy to check doesn't prove me wrong - did you check and find a differing information ?

Now to Samaa: I found this one:Samaa. This makes me believe that Samaa may also mean "heaven". In this sense the interpretation of the verse: "Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens and the earth were of one piece, then We parted them, and we made every living thing of water?" makes much more sense when taken as the biblical logic of man being expelled from paradise than any pseudo-scientific interpretation.

Now:

Quranexplorer wrote: Give me an example of your �A is true� type statement in Quran which I have used in this discussion

This is easy: Since the Quran doesn't say anything about thermonuclear reactions inside stars it can logically also not be in conflict with this very knowledge we have nowadays - nor does my "A" statement b.t.w.

Last not least: The Quran always right? Do you seriously believe that 23:14 "Then We made the sperm-drop into a clinging clot, and We made the clot into a lump [of flesh], and We made [from] the lump, bones, and We covered the bones with flesh; then We developed him into another creation" is really in line with modern knowledge of embryology ? (please! No Keith L. Moore here !)

Glad to be of service: Airmano

Edited by airmano - 23 May 2014 at 2:36pm