The irony in using science to deny Allah

schmikbob wrote: Quranexplorer, if you are incapable of seeing the human qualities in these verses, then I am incapable of helping you. Of course I already knew that as you simply repeat the same verses again and again in the hope that this will somehow make it all true.

My apologies, maybe it was an over expectation from my part that you will get it straight. Let me explain you this way: Allah � the ultimate creator, cherisher and sustainer of man to whom man is indebted for his very being itself puts forward to man a clear Contract which stipulates:

1.     Man should be grateful and worship only Allah and live a righteous life as set out by Allah
2.     If man succeeds in this obligation, he is offered a reward much greater than what he rightfully deserves
3.     If he fails in this obligation, he will be punished only to the extend he has failed and he will not be wronged in the least.

And the striking point is that man�s credit account towards Allah is so huge having already availed all the benefits freely available to him in Allah�s universe which was not created by man�s hands (material things including air, water, minerals, animals, vegetation etc. and even man�s physical faculties or other abstract qualities etc.) that anything that he do to please Allah can never wipe off this credit. Still Allah accepts his creations who sincerely seeks his pleasure, with all their imperfections and admits then to eternal bliss out of his mercy.

Those who are punished are rebellious transgressors who after having availed all of Allah�s mercies, after having shown clear signs, after having given clear guidance through Quran- a book full of wisdom, after having guided through lives of numerous prophets and still under default on many counts. Even for such transgressors there is mercy with Allah that if they repent sincerely he can forgive their past sins and admit them to eternal bliss.

I�m just human and I�m incapable to express the full magnitude of Allah through my words which is much above this.

Now give me an example from the human world comparable to Allah if you can.

And what makes you think Allah should fit in to your reason when you make the below statement when you already know that your reason is not good enough to even explain many things observed in the natural world:

schmikbob wrote: a God that requires that I worship and believe in his greatness or burn in eternal hellfire is not acting like a deity at all but rather like a human which, actually makes sense, since man's capability to create things in his own image is unmatched.

So the ultimate point is not of reason or science, but of choice, you choose to not believe whatever it may and it is up to you to choose the right path and of course with Allah�s will.

Ron Webb wrote: Yes, I've seen most of those "scientific references". They are either intuitively obvious or laughably vague. But again, you're starting from the assumption that the Quran is the truth, and you're trying to use science to prove it. That's backwards.

The Quranic scientific references could be another topic of discussion, and I haven�t seen any credible opposition arguments except in the line �you maybe right, but I just can�t accept it�. Quran need not be proved by science and we've already seen science cannot prove or disprove Quran (explained hereunder again) so let�s remove the illusion of science as the ultimate "testifier".

Ron Webb wrote: If you asked me how life first came into existence, I would start by saying frankly "I don't know." I might then offer some speculations based on what little we do know about evolution, biochemistry, etc., but I would be very clear that these are just speculation.If I asked you, on the other hand, you would tell me that God created it. You would state that opinion as a fact, quite confidently and unequivocally, despite having no evidence to back it up (beyond its having been written down in a book, whose authenticity you have no evidence for).That, in a nutshell, is the difference. When I don't know something, I say "I don't know." When theists don't know something, they say "God did it."

Good, so you acknowledge the limitations of science that it is no "know it all". But still would remain adamant on the argument that there can be no truth unless proved(testified by science)- this makes no sense. But what I do is I look beyond science and I see the Quran far superior in all counts specifically the following:

1.     Quran gives a clear purpose for creation � science like in many other counts, have no clue about this.
2.      The realm of Quran covers all aspects of human life with superior wisdom � the realm of science is very limited and cannot explain many things even in this limited realm.

So how can science which is so incomplete and operating in a limited realm as you also agree can possibly testify the Quran which covers all aspects of human life with superior wisdom . And if not science then what other way is left? The only way to understand the truth of Quran is to sincerely approach it, and once you do this you can see that it gives you perfect clarity on all aspects which science and human reason when applied independently fails to do miserably.

In a nutshell, the realm of Allah is beyond the comprehension of any human tools including science, so there is no point in trying to fit Allah in to science, whereas it is the opposite - many things from whatever little science is able to explain correctly, fits in to what Allah has revealed to man in the form of scientific references in Quran, as signs for men of understanding.

Ron Webb wrote: You totally missed the point. The "religious fish" is wrong. He just made up a story because it sounded comforting, but it was nothing more than a fantasy. Just like yours, and just as wrong.

Now you contradict your earlier statement of science accepting things beyond its realm as "I don't know". This is clearly out of the realm of science and you should not be changing your words here.

Ron Webb wrote: (5) As for the Disbelievers, Whether thou warn them or thou warn them not it is all one for them; they believe not. (6) Allah hath sealed their hearing and their hearts, and on their eyes there is a covering. Theirs will be an awful doom. This is your "loving" God, who deliberately blinds his creatures to the (alleged) truth and then punishes them for not believing it.

Come on, I wish if you could spend half the energies that you spend in misinterpreting the verses in interpreting the verses correctly, what a change it could have brought to your life. Here the reference is about "disbelievers" not "creatures" which makes a huge difference. The act of disbelief by man is a grave default because then he is a rebellious transgressor who after having availed all of Allah�s mercies, after having shown clear signs, after having given clear guidance through Quran- a book full of wisdom and after having guided through lives of numerous prophets, still choose to reject the truth.

The turning point is the choice to believe or not believe.You are given the choice and you rebelliously chose not to believe and then you try to blame the creator for your failure.How does it make sense?

airmano wrote: Originally posted by Abu Loren This thread proves the point that talking to people without guidance is like talking to a brick wall.Completely pointless (unless you have the time and patience) This translates to: Don't talk to people that do not believe in Islam, they are (too) narrow minded. A truly open-minded statement ! Airmano

Not at all. It's just that this thread will have pages and pages of what you will stand on what we will stand on. By this I mean we could provide you with verses from the Qur'an then you will turn around and say we are trying to justify the Qur'an with the Qur'an. It will just go round and round in circles.

airmano wrote: you silently assume that the most natural thing is to believe in Allah since replying to this question only makes sense for somebody believing in it.

Ron Webb wrote: Comparable in what way? Every religion has its own deity or deities. As far as I can see they're all comparable.

schmikbob came with an argument saying that Quranic depiction attributes some human characteristics to Allah suggesting a human origin for Quran.

I have cleared his misconception by explaining the Quranic depiction of Allah which is absolutely devoid of any human characteristics.

So unless he can give some credible explanation with an example comparable to Allah from the human world to attribute a human characteristic to Allah, it clearly shows the non-human origin of Quran by the counter argument (an absolute non-human depiction of Allah in Quran is the proof for its divine origin) � the ball is in your court now!