Active TopicsActive Topics  Display List of Forum MembersMemberlist  CalendarCalendar  Search The ForumSearch  HelpHelp
  RegisterRegister  LoginLogin  Old ForumOld Forum  Twitter  Facebook
Advertisement:
         

Science & Technology
 IslamiCity Forum - Islamic Discussion Forum : General : Science & Technology
Message Icon Topic: The Science Illusion Post Reply Post New Topic
<< Prev Page  of 4
Author Message
airmano
 
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 31 March 2014
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 715
Quote airmano Replybullet Posted: 26 November 2016 at 12:25pm
@QE
Airmano
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 [evidence]* ?

QE:
For me there is a reason why man cannot explain everything, because the Creator specifically says man cannot.

Airmano:
I have been very happy so far that we managed to lead this discussion on a theoretical level and without any references to the Quran. Here I feel as if you (ab)use the Quran to reserve yourself "specific rights" to not do the job.
Could you stick to this line and try to come up with a better answer ?


Answer QE
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.

Could you please answer my question (see at the very top) first before we move on ?
After that I'll be happy to reply to your remarks.
---------------------------------------------------------
QE
Complexity is a highly relative term.
I think I gave a clear example for it. The reason why I did not give any deeper example is -put sarcastically- the suspicion that people who still believe in Scientific Miracles in the Quran will not be able to grasp it.
-------------------------------------------------------
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
Correct, but I haven't seen anybody able to do so yet. Allah has so far been a no-show.
--------------------------------------------------------
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?
Again, try to understand the logic of chaos theory. A simple formula can give rise to very complex structures. Another -highly aesthetic- entry point may be the the Mandelbulb which gives rise to a (yet deterministic and fractal) structure. These structures are highly variable and almost unpredictable without the use of modern computers.
-------------------------------------------------------
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?
No, it is the essence of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle that you like to quote but obviously never really understood.
--------------------------------------------------------
Coming to QM, are you saying QM is the nature? So is QM capable of explaining all natural phenomena including predicting natural disasters?
Sorry QE, this is not to goof on you, but the way you ask the question shows that you have not understood the most basic notion of science. Quantum Mechanics (or any other scientific theory) is not nature but a description of [a specific aspect of] nature.
--------------------------------------------------------
Now another question pops up, what came first, QM or the laws of nature?
See above.
--------------------------------------------------------
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.
This point is utterly unrelated to the subject, please open another thread about morality and (non-)believe in a creator if this subject is important to you.
-------------------------------------------------------
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
Besides point 1) (everlasting) my model does not need 2-7 whereas yours (mainly) does.
Can you explain me what "Creator" or "Sustainer" got to do in my model or why I should need it ?
--------------------------------------------------------
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.

I already asked you twice to stop this "out of nothing" nonsense - or prove me wrong by showing me where I said so.

The term "harmonious" that you obviously like, is a sentimental one which can not be quantified. I replied to your "harmonious" with clear counterexamples, so obviously what is harmonious for you may not be so for others.
May be we should continue this discussion with a different term like "predictable" (as opposed to chaotic) or "static" ? Could you make a suggestion yourself ?
If your "why question" means why our solar system was chaotic at the beginning to become more stable over time why don't you make the effort yourself to google a bit?.
I get the impression that you try to use your pretended(?) ignorance to derail the discussion and that in reality you have zero interest in any real information as soon as you smell a conflict with your book.

---------------------------------------------------------      
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?
I am always amused by this islamic viewpoint but I appreciate your "at least" which puts it into more relative terms.
Ruminating that science changes all the time (which is already plain wrong) and claiming that Islam does not, overlooks that there are changes in the interpretation of the Quran more often than I change my T-shirt(= every day) and that even at any moment in time you have the opposing opinions from tolerant Sufis to hardcore Jihadists who all claim to have the [only] right view on the very same religion - not to talk about things like "abrogation", "fiery beings", man being made out of clay or rivers of wine (47:15) in paradise and so on.

Back to the subject:
You started this quote with "When you fail to explain things..." followed by: "...and then you try to ridicule others who at least have a time-tested book to support them!".

So I suggest you to get real and to put some flesh to your claims:

a) Could you please give a real world case/example where the scientific concept fails as you claim ?

b) Could you then also stay in line with your above statement and explain why and how your explanation (probably based on the Quran) with respect to the same case is superior ?

c) Obviously, I expect the case to be such that theories about it are (at least in principle) falsifiable, i.a.w. not of the "why some people go to hell" (tauto-)logic.



Airmano

Edited by airmano - 28 November 2016 at 1:07pm
The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses (Albert Einstein 1954, in his "Gods Letter")
IP IP Logged
Quranexplorer
Male Islam
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 09 May 2014
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 152
Quote Quranexplorer Replybullet Posted: 14 December 2016 at 5:11am
Originally posted by airmano


Airmano:

I have been very happy so far that we managed to lead this discussion on a theoretical level and without any references to the Quran. Here I feel as if you (ab)use the Quran to reserve yourself "specific rights" to not do the job.

Could you stick to this line and try to come up with a better answer ?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Could you please answer my question (see at the very top) first before we move on ?

After that I'll be happy to reply to your remarks.


I think my answer was very much to the point. A Creator model has this founding premise that not everything in this universe can be established through evidence. Whereas a no-Creator model has no such limitations unless something self imposed by its proponents. So, for me having a theoretical model or not, is not of any concern. However, if there is someone out there who has got a credible enough no-Creator model that can be established through scientific evidence; I am ready to accept it. I think that is a fair position for discussion.
---------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by airmano


QE
Complexity is a highly relative term.
I think I gave a clear example for it. The reason why I did not give any deeper example is -put sarcastically- the suspicion that people who still believe in Scientific Miracles in the Quran will not be able to grasp it.
-------------------------------------------------------


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
Correct, but I haven't seen anybody able to do so yet. Allah has so far been a no-show.
--------------------------------------------------------
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?
Again, try to understand the logic of chaos theory. A simple formula can give rise to very complex structures. Another -highly aesthetic- entry point may be the the Mandelbulb which gives rise to a (yet deterministic and fractal) structure. These structures are highly variable and almost unpredictable without the use of modern computers.


So based on your comments I hope we can draw the following conclusions:

1.     There is a characteristic of complexity in this universe that remains beyond man’s comprehension.
2.     As it is a fact that there are things beyond man’s comprehension, there is no reason to eliminate the possibility of an entity that comprehends everything.
3.     As theoretically even simple systems could get in to extremely variable and unpredictable behaviours, it becomes all the more puzzling why various systems in this universe be subject to certain predictable behaviours at first place.

The fact of affairs being such, is it not a bad idea to jump to definitive conclusions with a no-Creator model when there is absolutely no scientific evidence to support such a model?
-------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by airmano


Sorry QE, this is not to goof on you, but the way you ask the question shows that you have not understood the most basic notion of science. Quantum Mechanics (or any other scientific theory) is not nature but a description of [a specific aspect of] nature.


No worries airmano, I was just referring to your comment “QM -or call it nature- is deeply probabilistic” in the earlier post.
--------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by airmano


Now another question pops up, what came first, QM or the laws of nature?
See above.


If it was not clear, here is the question again: Which one came in to existence first – the everlasting laws of nature or quantum fluctuations?
--------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by airmano


Besides point 1) (everlasting) my model does not need 2-7 whereas yours (mainly) does.
Can you explain me what "Creator" or "Sustainer" got to do in my model or why I should need it ?


Whether you acknowledge these embedded assumptions in your model or not, the facts are clear that any model that tries to explain this universe has to address all these aspects and more.

Feel free to share some scientific evidence for absolute Self Creation and Self Sustenance from the physical world, and then we can see if your model can stand without these embedded assumptions.
--------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by airmano


I already asked you twice to stop this "out of nothing" nonsense - or prove me wrong by showing me where I said so.
The term "harmonious" that you obviously like, is a sentimental one which can not be quantified. I replied to your "harmonious" with clear counterexamples, so obviously what is harmonious for you may not be so for others.
May be we should continue this discussion with a different term like "predictable" (as opposed to chaotic) or "static" ? Could you make a suggestion yourself ?
If your "why question" means why our solar system was chaotic at the beginning to become more stable over time why don't you make the effort yourself to google a bit?.
I get the impression that you try to use your pretended(?) ignorance to derail the discussion and that in reality you have zero interest in any real information as soon as you smell a conflict with your book.


It is not relevant whether you said it not. The point is whether you have a credible explanation with scientific evidence that your model can explain the origin of universe, whether out of something or nothing. If you can’t do that, then what is the point in making a fuss about the “out of nothing” description?

I agree with your suggestion of predictable vs. chaotic nature of the universe as a point for discussion.

My “why question” is more to do with why the systems get settled or work in a certain way among the numerous alternatives, especially when there is a clear possibility for things to proceed towards more chaotic ways.

Thanks for sharing the link on the Nebular Hypothesis. Look how close is the description of this hypothesis published in 1775 to what is mentioned in Quran 41:11 around 1100 years earlier –surprising isn’t it!
---------------------------------------------------------      
Originally posted by airmano


I am always amused by this islamic viewpoint but I appreciate your "at least" which puts it into more relative terms.
Ruminating that science changes all the time (which is already plain wrong) and claiming that Islam does not, overlooks that there are changes in the interpretation of the Quran more often than I change my T-shirt(= every day) and that even at any moment in time you have the opposing opinions from tolerant Sufis to hardcore Jihadists who all claim to have the [only] right view on the very same religion - not to talk about things like "abrogation", "fiery beings", man being made out of clay or rivers of wine (47:15) in paradise and so on.


I think it would be one of the most unreasonable statement to make if someone says science does not change with time—it is in fact one of the prominent characteristics of science that hypotheses and theories are continuously subject to the test of scientific evidences and those that do not survive these tests are either amended or become completely obsolete over a period of time. I am truly surprised that you claim to be a proponent of science but are blind to this reality!

Variation in interpretations among individuals or over a period of time is a fact in the human domain. It is not limited to the interpretation of Quran, it happens in almost all human interpretations. For example, you look at a criminal case judged by various courts; you are guaranteed to find different interpretations at different levels. Or look at the same contract interpreted by different parties, or a medical report interpreted by different doctors. If human interpretation didn’t vary with individuals or time, there would have been no requirement for an appeal or a second opinion or a revision etc. But it remains a fact that human domain is such a way that we have different interpretations among individuals and with updated knowledge over time.

That’s what makes the choice interesting—whether as an individual you are able to understand the true path irrespective of the numerous distractions around you!

Originally posted by airmano


Back to the subject:
You started this quote with "When you fail to explain things..." followed by: "...and then you try to ridicule others who at least have a time-tested book to support them!".

So I suggest you to get real and to put some flesh to your claims:

a) Could you please give a real world case/example where the scientific concept fails as you claim ?

b) Could you then also stay in line with your above statement and explain why and how your explanation (probably based on the Quran) with respect to the same case is superior ?

c) Obviously, I expect the case to be such that theories about it are (at least in principle) falsifiable, i.a.w. not of the "why some people go to hell" (tauto-)logic.


a)     Please refer the following links for real world cases of scientific concepts that have been proven as failures:

Einstein's Static Universe and Other Failed Theories

Obsolete Science Theories - Wiki

b)     As I have explained before, Quran caters for a higher purpose and is not limited to just the realm of science. There are a number of references of scientific nature that are used in the Quran as a way of explaining Allah’s signs. These references far exceed the level of knowledge at that time, are devoid of any and all scientific misconceptions that were prevalent during and after the revelation of Quran, and are fully in line with proven scientific facts as on date. Feel free to share if you think you have any point with credible evidence to disprove any such statement from the Quran and we can have a discussion on that.

c)     Of course a number of scientific references in the Quran are falsifiable in nature. We can discuss further if you choose to discuss any point in detail.
IP IP Logged
Tim the plumber
 
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 30 September 2014
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 592
Quote Tim the plumber Replybullet Posted: 14 December 2016 at 10:16am
Originally posted by Quranexplorer

Originally posted by Tim the plumber


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?


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!


And you are 100% sure that your particular version of your particular god is definately the right one because?

Originally posted by Tim the plumber


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.


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!


I think you will strugle to define the word why how you want to.

If you think that everything has to have a movtivation behind it from the wind to gravity to illness then you have presuposed something that does not seem to be true. You must have evidence to have confidence in that and I see no such evidence.

IP IP Logged
airmano
 
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 31 March 2014
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 715
Quote airmano Replybullet Posted: 18 December 2016 at 2:33pm
@QE
Airmano
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 [evidence]* ?

QE:
I think my answer was very much to the point. A Creator model has this founding premise that not everything in this universe can be established through evidence. Whereas a no-Creator model has no such limitations unless something self imposed by its proponents. So, for me having a theoretical model or not, is not of any concern. However, if there is someone out there who has got a credible enough no-Creator model that can be established through scientific evidence; I am ready to accept it. I think that is a fair position for discussion.
I think that's a bit cheap as an answer. Essentially you say: "I (we) do not know everything so there may be something beyond our knowledge and comprehension".
As you have seen from my posts I do not deny that our knowledge is limited and being an agnostic I even consider that a creator might exist. So you can not build your logic onto this (wrong) statement.
Therefore your line of reasoning: "Whereas a no-Creator model has no such limitations unless something self imposed by its proponents" does simply not hold(at least in my case).

A similar logic applies to your: "However, if there is someone out there who has got a credible enough no-Creator model that can be established through scientific evidence; I am ready to accept it. I think that is a fair position for discussion".
This is nothing else then a rhetorical trick. I'm sure you realize that that the non-existence of something can not be logically proven. So here you essentially try to put the burden of prove that the celestial tea pot does not exist onto me.
The common agreement is however that the burden of proof lies on the party that makes the claim of the existence (of something, i.e. here: "a creator") and here I'd wish you could finally put some real arguments on the table.    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
QE
So based on your comments I hope we can draw the following conclusions:

1.     There is a characteristic of complexity in this universe that remains beyond man’s comprehension.
2.     As it is a fact that there are things beyond man’s comprehension, there is no reason to eliminate the possibility of an entity that comprehends everything.
3.     As theoretically even simple systems could get in to extremely variable and unpredictable behaviours, it becomes all the more puzzling why various systems in this universe be subject to certain predictable behaviours at first place.

The fact of affairs being such, is it not a bad idea to jump to definitive conclusions with a no-Creator model when there is absolutely no scientific evidence to support such a model?

1) Not sure whether I understand correctly. I would introduce the the distinction between "comprehension" and "prediction". That we can not predict the weather (= complex system) for more than a couple of days does not mean that we have not understood the way weather works.
So may be we can reformulate 1) to:
Most (daily) phenomenas are so complex that man will never be able to exactly predict the future [= in a fully deterministic way].

Now to your point 2)
I'd only partly agree on the first part of this point and be a bit more cautious by reformulating it to "There are good reasons to assume that there are things beyond man’s comprehension...", ok with you ?
I honestly don't know what to do with the second part of 2): "there is no reason to eliminate the possibility of an entity that comprehends everything."
I'd say "may be" but I'm not sure. I'd have no problems with "comprehends much more then we do" but "everything" includes, well, "everything". My guess would be that it leads to internal logical conflicts similar to the conflict between "free will" and the existence of an omniscient/almighty being. I have to think about it...

Point 3) is only "half true".
Looking at the first part, it goes: "As theoretically even simple systems could get in to extremely variable and unpredictable behaviours..."
"Extremely variable": correct. "Completely(?) unpredictable behaviours": Not really. Again we can handle even chaotic systems to a certain extend like a short term weather forecast. I wouldn't know of any system which changes in a completely unforeseeable way or where we can not (at least) attribite an (estimated) likelyhood for it to happen.   
The second part of 3) goes:
"...it becomes all the more puzzling why various systems in this universe be subject to certain predictable behaviours at first place."

Well, this statement is so general that I have problems to see its (in-)correctness.
I give you some examples: Although we can not predict when a given atom in a radioactive substance will decay, we can nevertheless give it a likelihood of decay (in a certain period of time). When you have a large number of atoms the decay rate becomes extremely predictable. So paradoxically it is the high number (of individually badly predictable) events which establishes a high predictability.
Or: We can not calculate the speed of a given atom in a gas at any moment in time but (once we know the temperature) we can associate a very precise average speed to it.
Similar for the weather: We do not know what the weather will be at your place the 13 of July in 2815 but we can make predictions with rather high success probabilities.
As told, since I am not 100% sure which case you had in your head when you wrote 3) my examples may be out of place. In this case could you try to give an example of yours to illustrate your point ?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If it was not clear, here is the question again: Which one came in to existence first – the everlasting laws of nature or quantum fluctuations?
Quantum fluctuations are a facet of (the everlasting laws of) nature. In this sense they never came properly into existence, their foundation has always existed.
It is as if I asked you: What came first, Allah or his mercifulness ?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by airmano
My model does not need 2-7 whereas yours (mainly) does.
Can you explain me what "Creator" or "Sustainer" got to do in my model or why I should need it ?

Answer QE
Whether you acknowledge these embedded assumptions in your model or not, the facts are clear that any model that tries to explain this universe has to address all these aspects and more.
Feel free to share some scientific evidence for absolute Self Creation and Self Sustenance from the physical world, and then we can see if your model can stand without these embedded assumptions.

I am not surprised about this answer as it confirms all to well that you have no answer. And it is now for the 4th time that you come up with this "self creation" nonesense where I clearly took position to at the very beginning of this thread.

Even at the risk of repeating myself: You introduce the idea of a creator as being at the origin of our world. So it is also You that has to explain why you make this (in my eyes unneccessary) assumption.

So once more: Could you please ?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think it would be one of the most unreasonable statement to make if someone says science does not change with time—it is in fact one of the prominent characteristics of science that hypotheses and theories are continuously subject to the test of scientific evidences and those that do not survive these tests are either amended or become completely obsolete over a period of time. I am truly surprised that you claim to be a proponent of science but are blind to this reality!

No I do not object to this point, there are however different levels in the importance of scientific theories.
It is correct to say that even physical core theories like Newtons became "under attack" when Einstein formulated his theory of relativity. But in the end he did not overthrow Newton but he only showed where the limitations of his ideas were (i.e. when things move close to the speed of light). Modern cars and planes still work marvellously well with good old Newton, so his ideas were not fundamentally wrong.
If you look at Babylonian Astronomy you find that already centuries if not millenias before your prophet they found laws and facts which still hold today (in stark contrast to many statements like the "clay nonesense" in the Quran).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(QE regarding the changes in the interpretation of the Quran)
Variation in interpretations among individuals or over a period of time is a fact in the human domain. It is not limited to the interpretation of Quran, it happens in almost all human interpretations. For example, you look at a criminal case judged by various courts; you are guaranteed to find different interpretations at different levels. Or look at the same contract interpreted by different parties, or a medical report interpreted by different doctors. If human interpretation didn’t vary with individuals or time, there would have been no requirement for an appeal or a second opinion or a revision etc. But it remains a fact that human domain is such a way that we have different interpretations among individuals and with updated knowledge over time.

I can agree on almost everything you wrote here, but in the case of the Quran we are dealing with a completely differnt kind of "object" since you claim it to be the absolute truth.
What worth is "absolute truth" if everybody can read something else into it(including scientific miracles) ?
I'd rather call this kind of literature "horoscope" or "esoteric"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That’s what makes the choice interesting—whether as an individual you are able to understand the true path irrespective of the numerous distractions around you!
Again, which choice ? The one between becoming a sufi or a IS jihadists ?
Again truth is only worthful when it is unambigouos, your book seem to allow for both (and more) interpretations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by airmano
You started this quote with "When you fail to explain things..." followed by: "...and then you try to ridicule others who at least have a time-tested book to support them!".
So I suggest you to get real and to put some flesh to your claims:

a) Could you please give a real world case/example where the scientific concept fails as you claim ?

b) Could you then also stay in line with your above statement and explain why and how your explanation (probably based on the Quran) with respect to the same case is superior ?

c) Obviously, I expect the case to be such that theories about it are (at least in principle) falsifiable, i.a.w. not of the "why some people go to hell" (tauto-)logic.

Answer QE
a)     Please refer the following links for real world cases of scientific concepts that have been proven as failures:

Einstein's Static Universe and Other Failed Theories
Obsolete Science Theories - Wiki

b)     As I have explained before, Quran caters for a higher purpose and is not limited to just the realm of science. There are a number of references of scientific nature that are used in the Quran as a way of explaining Allah’s signs. These references far exceed the level of knowledge at that time, are devoid of any and all scientific misconceptions that were prevalent during and after the revelation of Quran, and are fully in line with proven scientific facts as on date. Feel free to share if you think you have any point with credible evidence to disprove any such statement from the Quran and we can have a discussion on that.

c)     Of course a number of scientific references in the Quran are falsifiable in nature. We can discuss further if you choose to discuss any point in detail.


I truly like the list of Wiki on overthrown scientific concepts you posted.
As far as I can see none of the core theories like Newton/Einstein, Maxwells equation, Quantum Mechanics or Bolzmann Statistics are part of this list. That there are fringe subjects that evolve is normal and are the main part of the physicists daily work.

What I criticize in your reply however is the U-turn you make. I made my three points a-c as an answer to your claim:
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?
Here I had the impression that you slam science to promote the superiority of religion (“we have no idea, but at any cost we can’t believe in God” or "When you fail to explain things..." ). In your latest post this doesn't sound quite the same anymore by stating that the "Quran caters for a higher purpose and is not limited to just the realm of science". Sure I can live with this idea, as much as I can accept the thought that neither 'Alice in Wonderland' nor 'Peter Pan' were written as science books. I know this kind of wording is frustrating if not outright insulting to Muslims. I don't do this to provocate but I truly don't see the interest in the Quran (sure you call me deluded).

I guess what makes the "strength" of the Quran is its lack of real information. Since there isn't much in it, it can also not get much wrong, but it serves as the ideal platform to interpret whatever you want into it (including scientific miracles).

To give you an example:

Once I saw a broadcast about horoscopes on TV. The presenter had invited about 50-70 persons to whom he told in front of the audience that he had asked a professional astrologist to establish an individual horoscope (describing the character of each person depending on his birth date) for everybody. He then gave each person a sealed letter with the respective horoscope and asked them to read it. Once done he asked those who felt that the description was correct to go to the left and the others to the right. About 5 persons felt that the description was wrong and all the others considered their horoscope as being true.

Sounds impressive ? Yes, especially once you know that all horoscopes were identical !

So even if you can't see it: The Quran is exactly this kind of making and the "scientific miracles" within are nothing else than useless. *)



Airmano



*)(Added 20 Dec after publication) I'm actually willing to take the challenge: Give me a surah of your choice (shouldn't be too long though) and I will give you my assessment of its information content.

Edited by airmano - 20 December 2016 at 8:38am
The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses (Albert Einstein 1954, in his "Gods Letter")
IP IP Logged
<< Prev Page  of 4
Post Reply Post New Topic
Printable version Printable version

Forum Jump
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

Disclaimer:
The opinions expressed herein contain positions and viewpoints that are not necessarily those of IslamiCity. This forum is offered to stimulate dialogue and discussion in our continuing mission of being an educational organization.
If there is any issue with any of the postings please email to icforum at islamicity.com or if you are a forum's member you can use the report button.

Note: The 99 names of Allah avatars are courtesy of www.arthafez.com

Advertisement:



Sponsored by:
Islamicity Membership Program:
IslamiCity Donation Program  http://www.islamicity.com/Donate
IslamiCity Arabic eLearning http://www.islamiCity.com/ArabAcademy
Complete Domain & Hosting Solutions www.icDomain.com
Home for Muslim Tunes www.icTunes.com
Islamic Video Collections www.islamiTV.com
IslamiCity Marriage Site www.icMarriage.com