The Science Illusion

airmano wrote: I gave you (some of) my reasons, they were in my initial list to which you never replied to.

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.

airmano wrote: - God is eternal (Similarly I say these laws are eternal)

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.   

airmano wrote: - God has created the universe and eventually us. - Again I use a similar logic by saying that these underlying eternal physical laws lead to the existence of our universe and eventually to our existence.

The physical laws do not fully explain the creation and still leave a lot of fundamental questions unanswered.

airmano wrote: - There is a personality(!) called Allah or God who likes to create universes (why ?). - He created our universe.

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?

airmano wrote: - Amongst the zillions of Galaxies he has created, he has chosen/created a special one (that does however look as a normal galaxy from the outside).

How things are in a certain way be any reason to deny the Creator? Anyway you have no say in it!

airmano wrote:    Amongst the millions of normal stars in it, he has again chosen one solar system at this galaxy's fringe to harbour life on a planet called earth.

Same as above

airmano wrote: - After billions of years of the earth's existence he finally decides to create intelligent beings on this earth, but only for the very purpose to make them say: "God, you're the best !"

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   

airmano wrote: - This God is almighty and omniscient, but he doesn't know what his intelligent creatures will decide next minute. - He and his creatures call this paradox "free will".

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?

airmano wrote: Since almighty God seems to be unable to hardwire the knowledge of his own existence into his creatures brain, he also likes to create special people called prophets, that ought to tell other people about his existence and that he[God] is indeed very special.

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?

airmano wrote: - In a cruel game he also creates thousand of false prophets and it is the people's job to find the correct one(s).

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.

airmano wrote: - He sends people that do not believe the right prophets (or failed to identify them) to eternal roasting. The others are put to a place called heaven - unroasted.

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?

airmano wrote: - But before he does so, he kills all of us, but only to resurrect us at a day called the day of judgement. So why does he kill us in the first place ? �

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.

airmano wrote: I am pleased that you admit that you do not claim the existence of a creator as being evidence based. This is a reasonable starting point for discussion.

In fact the real point is that the Creator is beyond an evidence based realm.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

airmano wrote: As you already understood this is where we disagree. Besides the trait "everlasting" (which we both need for our theories) you make the additional assumption of the existence of a (superior) being and if this was not already enough you overload this being by characterizing it with human attributes (Merciful, forgiving etc). To make this already bad situation worse you add (without any evidence whatsoever) that this being (where you admit that you do not have any proof for its existence) must be omniscient and -even worse- almighty. This is my core point, and I'd like you to reply to this argument on logical ground (= without irrelevant Quran citations)

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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

airmano wrote: Correct, but Occams razor can.

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?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

airmano wrote: In a way yes, but so far I have always surprised how cheap the alternative explanations I've seen are. And again, like it or not: You are competing with 2000 religions which are all equally convinced to be true.

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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

airmano wrote: Believe it or not, I have been reading large sections of the Quran. I am not exaggerating if I call this book the biggest intellectual disappointment I have ever read. If it speaks to your heart- fine with me- but don't extrapolate your feelings to other people and cultures.

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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

airmano wrote: The Quran proposes a creator model ? Whacky !

Absolutely, what�s more, the model in Quran not only addresses the material creation but also the cognitive and behavioural aspects as well!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

airmano wrote: That Occams principle is not "foolproof" is indeed a valid comment. But it is the best weapon we have against people that claim that the world was created by silverish unicorns, that committing suicide would lift us to a spaceship behind the Hale-Bopp comet, or that fiery beings called Jinns lurk at unknown places. Talking about "falsification" : When physics tries to test a law (like Heisenbergs Uncertainty Relation (HUR) which is likly to be (partly) underlying the creation of the universe ) it must and does stand to the logic of "falsification". If you manage to determine the place and the momentum of a small particle simultaneously the HUR is dead at the very same moment. BTW. How do your theories behave in this respect i.e. when it comes to Jinns and the creation of the universe ?

You got to blame yourself if you cannot put that model to a test for evidence!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

airmano wrote: Ok, fair enough, I appreciate your honesty.

Thanks for that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

airmano wrote: When it comes to the "scientific claims" in the Quran this/your statement is outright nonsense. I would also add that the interpretation of the Quran changes almost every day (and depends also on the person, country and background) But again, if its poetry appeals to your heart, that's ok.

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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

airmano wrote: Neither the existence nor the nonexistence of a creator can be truly scientifically proven. Where did I say so ?

That was a generic statement, I am happy that you don�t think so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

airmano wrote: Again, where did I say so ?

That was an open question, why should a self created universe have so much intelligence to puzzle the best of human minds for answers?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

airmano wrote: I can understand the human desire to hope for compensation when it comes to injustice. It is not only human but also monkeys share this trait with us. However, the fact that we feel unhappy about it, is by no means a prove that higher justice has to exist. I think it is essential to not confuse feelings and facts in these discussions. Hoping for a day of judgment (where the unpleasant neighbour who mows his garden on a public holiday will get finally punished) is all too human, if not "monkiish".

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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

airmano wrote: You answered exactly the way I anticipated: Your Moses example is of the "God must have good reasons to kill" type. Go(o)dness me: He's almighty in your eyes and he can't even prevent a mosquito to bite a two year old child ?

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?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

airmano wrote: Pleased that you admit that. That's all right, but just to comment: Opposite to your claim it is a direct consequence that the Quran does not give absolute but (in the best case) only relative guidance. I.e. no relevant guidance at all in this question.

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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

airmano wrote: And you try to tell me the Quran is the answer to all questions if it can't even tell me why god [should have] created the universe ?

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?

@QE
Thanks for keeping it short ...

A no-Creator model on the other hand has to explain the creation of all material things individually

I finally understand why you asked so many question that I felt to be unrelated.

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 ?
-----------------------------------------------------

...and then need to explain why all such systems have to be in harmony to make them all sustain.

Not quite sure what you mean with "harmony" (and/or "unity in design") Is it something like "planets not colliding with each other" or the fact that the sun shines ? Obviously I have to understand what you try to say to be able to answer.
-------------------------------------------------------

It has to then explain the coming to being of various cognitive and behavioural skills and characteristics like conscience just to name a few.

I come to that, once the other two points above are sorted out.


Airmano

Edited by airmano - 10 November 2016 at 5:26am

Just to but in....

Quranexplorer wrote: airmano wrote: I finally understand why you asked so many question that I felt to be unrelated. 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 ? 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?

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?

airmano wrote: Not quite sure what you mean with "harmony" (and/or "unity in design") Is it something like "planets not colliding with each other" or the fact that the sun shines ? Obviously I have to understand what you try to say to be able to answer. 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.

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 wrote: 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 ?

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.
-----------------------------------------------------

airmano wrote: Yes, complexity. We are able to predict a desert storm fairly well but we will never be able (nor will your God by the way) to calculate the trajectory of each individual grain of sand a hundred years in advance. You'd need a computer bigger than the Universe to do so. We are not even able to solve the three body problem although we clearly know the laws ruling it. 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".

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.
------------------------------------------------------

airmano wrote: Rules are essentially the opposite of chaos and that's what I am talking about. 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.

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.