The Science Illusion
Printed From: IslamiCity.org
Category: General
Forum Name: Science & Technology
Forum Description: It is devoted for Science & Technology
URL: https://www.islamicity.org/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=38337
Printed Date: 25 April 2024 at 9:58pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: The Science Illusion
Posted By: Quranexplorer
Subject: The Science Illusion
Date Posted: 14 October 2016 at 12:31pm
|
Are you one who believes that science is the absolute answer to all your questions and there is no need to look beyond science for answers? Then probably you are suffering from what we can call as �The Science Illusion�.
To make it very clear from the outset, the problem lies not with science but in the way people understand and apply it. Science is a great tool developed by man that has helped him understand this wonderful universe to a limited extent, and has made our lives more convenient to a large extent. However, as with anything human, science too has its limitations and cannot be relied upon to provide an absolute way of guidance. The scientific method of establishing scientific evidences to support or counter a claim simply fails to work outside its limited realm. For example, science is not capable of establishing scientific evidence either in support of a self-creating universe or counter to the idea of an ultimate Creator. Now to argue that the concept of an ultimate Creator is rejected because there is no scientific evidence is like saying that our radar can only catch so many signals so there are no other signals! Any other argument in this regard that is devoid of scientific evidence cannot be qualified as anything more than personal opinions. That being the state of facts, it seems a few proponents of science in this part of the forum are still away from this reality of the limitation of science, and are still under the wrong impression that science as an absolute way of guidance is an intellectually superior option. The hilarious part is when people take things for granted under this �Science Illusion� so much that they start feeling that they are privileged to pass judgements as though they are the custodians of reasoning for everything and anything in this universe. I hope people are able to come out of this illusion and see the reality of a better choice available soon. |
Replies:
Posted By: schmikbob
Date Posted: 15 October 2016 at 7:20pm
| and that better choice is?? |
Posted By: airmano
Date Posted: 16 October 2016 at 12:23pm
@QE
For being precise: Science can not even say why at a given moment one cow says "Mooh" and the other cow doesn't. How can you even assume that a rational person can [claim to] explain "everything" ? -------------------------------------------------------
Regarding "guidance"; actually: Science does not give any guidance at all !. I don't even see why you mix the term "guidance" and science. Could you quote [an example of] somebody doing so ? And what do you mean by: "absolute guidance" ? Not that I am not willing to talk about moral systems, if you wish we can do this elsewhere - but don't link it to science ! -------------------------------------------------
I agree with you in so far that "nothing comes from nothing", and I disagree with all those claiming it. But trying to insinuate from this, that a creator has to exist is of course nonsense. When you see a child being killed by a disease, do you really feel at ease believing that "God killed the child" ? Isn't it easier to accept (as brutal as it still is) that the child caught a disease (like malaria) and died as a consequence of it - or do you still want to argue that god directed the mosquito to the two year old child to kill it ? Why ? We know how (infectious) diseases spread, why should we invoke God on this level ? Same for the universe. I think that the universe was created on the basis of everlasting rules (= physical laws), which did exist forever and that are likely to exist [forever] in the future. Even if a superior being created our universe, this being would still have to abide to these laws. Opposite to the example of infectious diseases above, we do -indeed- not (yet) know for sure which rules lead to the existence of our universe (and how). But in contrast to your claim that there are none, https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/a-mathematical-proof-that-the-universe-could-have-formed-spontaneously-from-nothing-ed7ed0f304a3#.kffzad8y6 - we do have theories , or, alternatively: http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html - this explanation on how it formed. Again I would disagree with the title of the first link: the wording "formed from nothing" is indeed misleading. So why do I favour this explanation(s) over "God made it" ? I once read that there are about 2000 religions in this world. All of them claim "My god did it" - no exception (well, almost). At best, only one can be correct. This looks like an inflationary and bad start for religion as an explanation, doesn't it ? The model of everlasting rules is sooooo much simpler (remember Occams razor ?). ----------------------- To start: Similar to my model- you make the following assumptions : - God is eternal (Similarly I say these laws are eternal) - 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. So far we have a similar line of reasoning and we're on draw. But besides that, your "model" introduces/needs a lot of additional (but unnecessary) assumptions: - There is a personality(!) called Allah or God who likes to create universes (why ?). - He created our universe. - 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). 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. - 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 !" - 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". - 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. - In a cruel game he also creates thousand of false prophets and it is the people's job to find the correct one(s). - 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. - 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 ? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I could carry on for much longer, but I guess you've got the picture by now. Wouldn't you agree that my model is much simpler and thus more likely to be the correct one ? Of course you can still say Occam's principle is wrong/useless, but in this case, pleeeease, do not use words like Quran, Islam and Religion in one line with the word "Science". -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So do I: Airmano ------------- The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses (Albert Einstein 1954, in his "Gods Letter") |
Are you one who believes that science is the absolute answer to all your questions and there is no need to look beyond science for answers?Posted By: Tim the plumber
Date Posted: 22 October 2016 at 2:58am
|
I think that this is possibly the basic difference between a scientific approach to understanding things and a religious one. The scientific type of thinking is fully aware that most questions will have an "I don't know" answer. That this is just how it is. That these questions are things to either ignore or try to work out the answer depending on how useful adn how costly that process will be. So "What caused the big bang?" I don't know. Although there is apparently work being done on it and we may possibly have an answer soon. I am a plumber though so best not expect me to know much on it. Other questions such as "How much heat energy will be required to keep this room at 23c during a cold winter's day" I can answer. The science is useful. It makes predictions that are not obvious and are correct. If you are after some body of philosophy that has all the answers then religion is for you. Sadly the answers are generally wrong. Or obvious. Or both. |
Posted By: Quranexplorer
Date Posted: 22 October 2016 at 10:49am
Good. So we are clear that any claim of proving/disproving a Creator has no scientific basis and constitutes nothing more than a personal opinion. -------------------------------------------------------
Thanks to Google! That�s pretty close to the �guidance� in the context here. guidance ˈɡʌɪd(ə)ns/ noun 1. 1. advice or information aimed at resolving a problem or difficulty, especially as given by someone in authority. "he looked to his father for inspiration and guidance" synonyms: advice, counsel, direction, instruction, teaching, counselling, enlightenment,intelligence, information; More Science does give man some guidance on the �How� question with respect to what he is able to perceive through his senses. For example science can give guidance on how an object in motion behaves, but science cannot give guidance on why there are some set laws that govern such behaviour.
Once we are clear that the scientific evidence based approach does not work when it comes to the matter of a Creator, obviously it boils down to a matter of individual choice. And when making such a choice against a Creator, the first point to consider will be man�s failure to figure out this universe beyond a limit. When your faculty of reasoning fails to figure out things that you believe just came in to existence without any intelligence behind it, how can you be sure that if at all there is a Creator, he has to be completely intelligible to your reasoning? And what is your criterion to accept the concept of everlasting physical laws and at the same time deny an everlasting Creator who is capable of setting such laws at first place? Anyway you have no clue how these laws came in to existence at first place! Theories do not have an impressive track record especially if they have not been supported by credible scientific evidences. As long as no being has any control to interfere over such events like somebody dying of Malaria, what has it to do with denying a Creator? As long as you are just a spectator of an event, how can you possibly have any say on what went behind the scenes or what is the use of wondering why it happened a particular way? The Creator has the absolute power to carry out his will, which the humans do not have. Coming to the question of 2,000 or more religions, again that is a matter of choice. As the saying goes �where there is a will there is a way�, the question is whether you have the will to look for the truth. I would say a Creator based model is much simpler compared to to a non-Creator based model simply because of the fact that humans have no idea how much information they actually have about this universe let alone beyond it.
Coming to all these questions, I wonder how any of these questions or the mosquito question has any relevance to choosing a Creator or not? If you deny a Creator do you get any different answer than if you accept a Creator? The fact is that whether you accept or deny a Creator doesn�t have any bearing on any of these questions as long as you don�t know the answers. The moment you have answers with some scientific evidence, that�s a different scenario, but exactly that�s where science fails. The biggest difference between your model and my model is that my model has the backing of a book that gives a clear purpose for human life and sets out a very clear picture of the things to come among other things. And there is absolutely no reason not to believe in this book as it has stood the test of time and has been tested practically as it could transform an illiterate man into the most influential person in history (It's not only the opinion of Muslims, but also asserted by Michael H. Hart in his book "The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History"). Whereas your model has no such backing, and clearly fails to bring forth any plausible explanations either with respect to the purpose or with respect to a clear picture of the things to come. And on the other hand there have been many failed theories ( http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-most-famous-scientific-theories-that-turned-out-to-be-wrong.php - Einstein�s Static Universe and Other Failed Theories ) that cast serious doubts on a theoretical approach of rejecting a Creator. |
Posted By: Quranexplorer
Date Posted: 22 October 2016 at 10:51am
|
Posted By: airmano
Date Posted: 22 October 2016 at 2:10pm
Well, a pretty pointless sentence, may be I should nevertheless insist that assuming the existence of a creator is nothing more than a personal opinion either. We can however decide which of the two is the more likely one by applying Occams razor and comparing the [number of] assumptions each of the two opposing points of view require. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the core: How can you reasonably extrapolate, on the basis of a rather primitive book to a (probably) incomprehensible creator - if there is any at all. Let me remind you: It is you who comes up with these assumptions (see my list above), not me ! . It is as Einstein says in his https://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/may/13/peopleinscience.religion - gods letter : For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK, I help you: "Full Definition of everlasting: lasting or enduring through all time : eternal" If you still don't understand, may be the vexing question on how your creator came into existence helps. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please tell me where my logical error is ! Simply saying he must have good reasons is far to cheap. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, I think I clearly outlined why I disagree (simplicity of the model) and you did not even bother to react on my core logic (which would have been listing the points where my model needs additional assumptions compared to yours). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, if you go for a creator, where do you stop: The point is the responsibility level ["why"] and intervention level ["how"] of a possible creator with respect to our world. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On a moral level: If he exists the way you describe and doesn't stop the killing of the kid from happening I think I have all the right to call him irresponsible. Obviously he doesn't prevent it from happening. So I can conclude that: Either he is not what you pretend he is (i.e. merciful), or he does simply not exist. I guess your line of defense will be "How do you know that there isn't a deeper sense in it". Yes may be, but then be at least honest and admit that this is pure speculation. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assuming the idea of a creator does also have a bearing in terms of responsibility. If you disagree, then please tell me why your god kills innocent babies. And once more: I think a non-answer of the type "he must have very good reasons" or "he saved the baby from later sins" is lightyears to cheap. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
... but let's give it a fair chance! To check the value and the universality of your book, I cite your own statement from the opening thread: "For example, science is not capable of establishing scientific evidence either in support of a self-creating universe or counter to the idea of an ultimate Creator" Since I gave you my line of reasoning, it is now your turn on this subject: A) If God made the universe can your book tell me how he made it ? Well, we all know that the Quran is not a science book, therefore my expectations to get a decent answer are rather low. So may be your book can score better on the second question, since this one is of more philosophical nature and it explicitly targets the "purpose question" you claim the Quran is good in answering: B) Can you tell me why god created the universe ? Please be precise (and for once I'd like you to cite the relevant Quranic statements). In case that your answer includes a "for us" can your book also explain why he made zillions of (in this case useless) galaxies (instead of our solar system only) and why he waited billions of years before he created us and his messenger ? Airmano ------------- The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses (Albert Einstein 1954, in his "Gods Letter") |
Posted By: Tim the plumber
Date Posted: 23 October 2016 at 7:52am
|
Saying that you know what the creator of the universe is is as credible as saying that you know the face of Santa Claus. Do you have any evidence to back up your claim? If not then you may be right but since anything we make up is equally likely to be right then it's almost totally unlikely that you are. I don't know is the better answer. |
Posted By: asep48garut60
Date Posted: 28 October 2016 at 3:46pm
|
Dear Tim the plumber,
If so, anything that has happened or the history happened like what, obviously I believe in the word of Allah that at the time it happened a big flood. Thank you. Regards, Asep |
Posted By: Tim the plumber
Date Posted: 29 October 2016 at 5:30am
I don't understand your reply. Are you saying that there was a flood which covered all the world with Noah's arc landing on a mountain in what is now Turkey or something else? Perhaps that there was a big flood and the story has grown in the telling? Do you get that the world's surface says that there was never a world flood? |
Posted By: Quranexplorer
Date Posted: 30 October 2016 at 11:22am
|
@Airmano
I can�t see any basis for your claim that a no-Creator based model will need lesser assumptions compared to a Creator based model. In fact a no-Creator based model will always have more assumptions as such a model leaves man with the onerous task to explain everything which clearly he is not capable of. I can give you many examples; here we go with a few: - What suggests universe can get self-created? - Why should the universes get self-created? - Why among the zillions of galaxies (self created??) one attained a special status (again by itself?)? - Why amongst the millions of normal stars, the solar system got chosen (again by itself?) with a provision of life in earth (again by itself?)? - Why after billions of years of earth�s existence it got decided (again by itself) to self create life on earth and from that moment this process of self creation got terminated by itself so that no human is able to witness this fantastic process? - Why the self created intelligence of humans have somehow fallen short of the self created intelligence of this self created universe so that humans are still left to look for answers with no success so far? - Why is it that whilst man is able to think and make choices about his life to some extent, he doesn�t have the absolute ability to carry out his will? For e.g. he cannot say I don�t want to die. � Why? - Why did life come in to existence? - Why man cannot create life? - Why man cannot stop death? - Why should the self created planets then get in to a self initiated, self sustained motion? - Why should the self created life then manifest itself in male-female pairs under various life forms? - Why do humans have a conscience? - Why is man the way he is? Why cannot he self design himself? - Why there are physical barriers in this self created universe that prevents man from carrying out his will? - Why there are predefined parameters that provide different set of skills to different people? - Why there are inequalities in the distribution of resources in this world? - Why is man unable to bridge all such inequalities? - Why is it that some people have to go through sufferings while some others seem to enjoy a better life and such disparities never get fully balanced in this world? - How was time created?
The point is very relevant�Creator is a matter of choice and is clearly beyond the realm of an evidence based approach. There is no basis to assume that a no-Creator based model will require less number of assumptions. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Come on! Don�t tell me you don't know how an adjective qualifies a noun. If you insist, "absolute" will qualify "guidance" with a standalone status--no need to look for other sources for guidance. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The point is you still have to live with assumptions whether you accept or deny a Creator. So the fact that things remain beyond your comprehension cannot be a criterion while exercising the choice in the matter of a Creator. Whereas it should be an eye opener for any thinking man that when his evidence based approach fails, he need to look for alternatives. And that�s where Quran comes in as a perfect fit, it clearly puts forward the case for a Creator based model and there is no credible reason to dispute that model till date, whereas all attempts by man to propose a no-Creator based model have been unsuccessful so far. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But your model is not short of assumptions. In the scientific method, Occam's razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic or a scientific result; the preference for simplicity in the scientific method is based on the falsifiability criterion. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occams_razor - Occams razor wiki says so ) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As I have made clear in other discussions previously, my endorsement of the idea of an ultimate Creator is based on a faith based belief, that has the sound backing of a book that has withstood the test of time. And it would be foolish to think that the Creator who could create a universe that still remains beyond the capability of the best of human minds to explain has to be proved by an imperfect tool called science created by his imperfect creations. But your model does not take in to account any such intelligence behind the whole creation, so why should something that you believe came in to existence without any intelligence behind it remain beyond human intelligence to explain? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let me summarize for you a beautiful narration from the holy Quran starting from 18:65. In this part Prophet Moses (pbuh) follows one of Allah�s slaves with an intention to learn from him. During their journey together, he damages a ship with no apparent reason, kills a boy with no apparent threat, and sets right a wall for free in spite of the people of the town treating them badly. On each of these occasions Prophet Moses (pbuh) is unable to comprehend his companion�s actions and he questions him. Obviously those actions do not make sense to any reasonable man. Then his companion explains each of his actions with reasons which obviously were not known to Prophet Moses (pbuh). The ship belonged to some poor people and there was a king who was coming to take all ships by force. So he in fact helped these poor people by making the ship unseaworthy in that instance. The lad was going to become an oppressor to his righteous parents, and it was intended to replace him with a better one for his parents. And in the town there were two orphan boys and there was a treasure beneath the wall belonging to them which was intended to be preserved until they reach their full strength. So in a nutshell, the first point is that there are more to what eyes meet in many situations which could happen within the assigned term of this world. The second point is the concept of life after death, which forms one of the pillars of Islamic faith. For a true believer, nothing in this world is of more importance than his final success in the hereafter. And he has the assurance from Allah that no calamity befalls man except the knowledge of Allah (Quran 64:11) and no soul shall be wronged the least when the balance is set right on the day of judgement (21:47). So what reason is there for a believer to be concerned about the sufferings in this world? In any case, does your denial of a Creator make any difference to such happenings? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is that the way you think truth has to be judged? For me once I am convinced of the choice it doesn�t matter what others do with their choice. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That�s exactly what you can find in the beginning. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allah has made the concept of this world very clear � that is the limited free will to humans for an appointed term. At the same time they do not have the full knowledge of the happenings in this world but Allah has. Whether man agrees with or not, he does not have the absolute ability to change certain happenings when such things happen. But Allah has given man the assurance that no soul will be wronged and a full recompense will be made to each soul. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On a scientific level a no-Creator model is only a speculation. On a moral level, the 2 aspects of 1) there is more to it than meets the eye and 2) the full and final recompense on the day of judgement, explains any calamity that befalls man in this world. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have all respect to science for being able to answer a lot of how questions. But that doesn�t remove the fact that science cannot answer the �why� questions. Why should there be an occurrence of a mosquito bite that causes a child death, beyond man�s control? What use is having theories to judge truth when theories have a proven track record of failures? I have already answered the killing innocent babies scenario. Allah gives the assurance that nobody will be wronged in the overall judgement, but can anyone rejecting a Creator in this world give such an assurance? -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coming to your question A: There are multiple references in the Quran (32:4, 10:3, 11:7, 25:59, 57:4, 50:38, and 7:54) about Allah having created the heavens and earth in 6 stages. If you are looking for a step by step explanation like in a science book, then my answer is I don�t know. But for me that is of no concern as I am looking for what is said in the Quran and whether that contradicts any known facts rather than worrying about things not said in the Quran�now that�s the proper way according to your Occams razor as well. Further, Allah says in 6:59 that the keys of secrets are with him and none knows them except He, which is a fact as none can figure out this universe completely even with a most advanced tool like science.
As you have asked for a Quranic reference that specifically provides the precise reason for creation of the �universe�, I must say I am not aware of one, and I am not too interested in pure speculation. There are multiple verses in Quran (21:16, 38:27 and 3:191) that says Allah did not create the earth and heavens in vain. |
Posted By: airmano
Date Posted: 30 October 2016 at 3:56pm
@QE
-------------------------------------------------------
Once done we summarize, so let's go: --------------------------------------------------------
So my counter question was (and still is): How did God create the Universe according to you ? --------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------
The reason why our galaxy seems special to us is the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle - Antropic Principle. In a nutshell this means that our Galaxy/solar system seems special because we are in it/here to watch it. It is us that name/make it special ! ------------------------------------------------------
Much easier isn't it ? --------------------------------------------------------
Of course you hammer on this point because you do know that we have (so-far) no conclusive theory. Having said so your answer is "because God" created it. What you miss however is a model on how he did it. So my counter question is again: How did he do it ? I'd like to get a description that goes beyond: He can do as he pleases! -------------------------------------------------------
Do you silently assume: "Since we do not know everything someone else has to ?" -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tell me if you want the scientific references to this subject. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tell me if you (truly) want the scientific references to this subject. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two lines are too short and would come out as w(h)ishy washy as the Quran. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A indeed difficult question. In the articles I send you time came into existence when the universe formed on the basis of everlasting laws of nature. I consider this as the most likely answer. Quarks, electrons and Protons where also absent before, why should time not ? I could attempt a more physical answer based on the time independent Schr�dinger equation but I doubt that you'd follow and I am admittedly not sure whether my attempt would make it through the scientific reviewer committee. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a reasonable starting point for discussion. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Correct, but Occams razor can. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If it speaks to your heart- fine with me- but don't extrapolate your feelings to other people and cultures. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 ? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok, fair enough, I appreciate your honesty. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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". ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 ? -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you are not interested in pure speculation rather don't cite the Quran at all ! Look: 21:16: And We did not create the heaven and earth and that between them in play. Wow, I'm impressed by this deep thought. It boils down (again) to "he must have good reasons". Do you really consider this as a valid explanation ? 38:27: And We did not create the heaven and the earth and that between them aimlessly. That is the assumption of those who disbelieve, so woe to those who disbelieve from the Fire. No difference to 21:16 i.e. what bored me the most when I read the Quran: Self repeating, self citing and essentially zero information content. 3:191: Who remember Allah while standing or sitting or [lying] on their sides and give thought to the creation of the heavens and the earth, [saying], "Our Lord, You did not create this aimlessly; exalted are You [above such a thing]; then protect us from the punishment of the Fire. It's getting worse and worse... 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 ? Well: Airmano ------------- The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses (Albert Einstein 1954, in his "Gods Letter") |
Posted By: asep48garut60
Date Posted: 31 October 2016 at 3:09pm
|
Dear Tim the plumber,
----------- I don't understand your reply. Are you saying that there was a flood which covered all the world with Noah's arc landing on a mountain in what is now Turkey or something else? Perhaps that there was a big flood and the story has grown in the telling? Do you get that the world's surface says that there was never a world flood? ----------- I stated that in Noah's day there was a big flood, in spite of covering the surface of the earth or not, and I believe that the flood in the days of Noah were really happened because God is telling us about it. Regards, Asep |
Posted By: Tim the plumber
Date Posted: 04 November 2016 at 9:47am
Was this an unusual flood that has never happened before or since? Did it need a special boat to get all animals out so they could repopulate the world? Because it did not happen. |
Posted By: Quranexplorer
Date Posted: 05 November 2016 at 10:56am
|
@Airmano
As it is getting lengthier, here is the first part of my response that largely covers the questions. Second part with remaining discussion to follow shortly.
Even though I have made it clear many times before, let�s make sure we are on the same page on this. It is a no-Creator based model that assumes that the universe does not require a Creator and that it could be completely comprehensible to man. A Creator based model on the other hand believes that there is a Creator and not everything in this universe is completely comprehensible to man. 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. So ultimately is it up to the proponents of a no-Creator based model to prove their point as they believe that they can do that. 2 ways I see this could be done are: 1) Explain this universe completely and establish with scientific evidence that there is no ultimate Creator 2) Establish with scientific evidence that the Creator model presented in Quran is wrong. So let�s now proceed and see how your answers stand in general and in particular against the scientific evidence criteria. --------------------------------------------------------
What is the scientific evidence that Quantum fluctuations can create universe out of nothing? Regarding how Allah created the universe, Quran 21:30 says: �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? Will they not then believe?� Let me know if there is any scientific evidence to counter this claim? --------------------------------------------------------
Can you define nature? What scientific evidence suggests that laws of nature are everlasting? What scientific evidence suggests that the laws of nature are universal? How these laws got created? Which one came first? The everlasting laws of nature or your Quantum fluctuations? --------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------ The understanding you are talking about is only a limited portion of the �how� question, that too with much of this understanding still wanting scientific evidence to support. My question is why there should be zillion galaxies? The Anthropic principle is a non-scientific concept and is not falsifiable, so that is even worse than a theory without scientific evidence and qualifies as nothing more than an assumption.
As I have mentioned I have no problem with other beliefs, ultimately that is only an assumption. --------------------------------------------------------
If the age of the universe is approx 13.8 billion years and life on earth appeared approx 4.1 billion years before, for me that is a gap of a few billion years as per your theories. So which of your theory are you saying is wrong with the numbers? As I have mentioned earlier, I don�t have a scientific description of how Allah created the universe. But that in no way is a criterion for me to deny my Creator as long as there is no one else who possesses such complete knowledge as Allah says in Quran 2:255: �Allah! There is no God save Him, the Alive, the Eternal. Neither slumber nor sleep overtaketh Him. Unto Him belongeth whatsoever is in the heavens and whatsoever is in the earth. Who is he that intercedeth with Him save by His leave? He knoweth that which is in front of them and that which is behind them, while they encompass nothing of His knowledge save what He will. His throne includeth the heavens and the earth, and He is never weary of preserving them. He is the Sublime, the Tremendous.� -------------------------------------------------------
Because there is someone out there who says man cannot have the absolute knowledge and that is a fact. Quran 6:59: �And with Him are the keys of the Invisible. None but He knoweth them. And He knoweth what is in the land and the sea. Not a leaf falleth but He knoweth it, not a grain amid the darkness of the earth, naught of wet or dry but (it is noted) in a clear record.� -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So are you saying death is a characteristic that got evolved with time? So the very first form of life which obviously was not the result of evolution should be eternal? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you saying this based on scientific evidence or is it just an assumption? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How can incorporating a synthetic genome to a live cell be remotely linked to creation of life? I�m talking about creation of life, not making a different form from the existing life form. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allah says you can�t, and that�s period you can�t stop death. Quran 21:35: �Every soul must taste of death, and We try you with evil and with good, for ordeal. And unto Us ye will be returned.� Feel free to share if you think you have something to counter this claim. I can see words like �likely�, �may be� etc in your statement. That�s a big difference when Allah says something and when man talks, Allah talks with full affirmation, something that man can�t do. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry, I have no intention to hurt your beliefs, just thought to check if you have some scientific evidence to suggest why the whole scheme of planetary motion be self initiated and self sustained. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don�t you think the question is all the more relevant when we have Asexual reproduction? Why the male-female pairs? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I must say Google is pretty good at this! conscience ˈkɒnʃ(ə)ns/ noun 1. a person's moral sense of right and wrong, viewed as acting as a guide to one's behaviour. "he had a guilty conscience about his desires" synonyms: sense of right and wrong, sense of right, moral sense, still small voice, inner voice,voice within; More -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am interested exactly in the good reasons that you are referring not to alter ourselves. Why don�t we have the ability to definitively better ourselves? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For you why should even there be something called almightiness? Why not man has the absolute power to carry out his will? Allah say�s there are physical barriers that man can�t breach (Quran 55:33): �O company of jinn and men, if ye have power to penetrate (all) regions of the heavens and the earth, then penetrate (them)! Ye will never penetrate them save with (Our) sanction.� Please let me know if you have anything to counter this claim. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are trying to answer the how question. My question is why should there be an intelligent system in place to program certain type of skills, characteristics etc. to individuals? -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because Allah is in control of these and not man. Quran 15:21-22 �And there is not a thing but with Us are the stores thereof. And we send it not down save in appointed measure. (21) And We send the winds fertilising, and cause water to descend from the sky, and give it you to drink. It is not ye who are the holders of the store thereof.� -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But facts say that man is unable to bridge such gaps. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have already given my take on this. What is your explanation for such a situation? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a nutshell that�s another point we are left with just assumptions. |
Posted By: airmano
Date Posted: 06 November 2016 at 11:27am
|
@QE
This discussion is getting a bit out of bonds. In your last post you did an impressive number of calls to Allah and an equally impressive number of Quran citations I never asked for. I have the impression that your avalanche of questions (15 ?) was only to not answer what I defined twice as my core point and to which you never even attempted to give an answer. So:
My point -that my model needs lass assumptions- is independent of Islam. It is a question I could equally ask a Christian or a Jew. So can I please -for the third time- ask you to answer this question on logical ground (= without unrelated Quran citations) before we carry on ? Obviously, if you have problems in understanding my question I'm always there to help. And, as a last "please": Keep it short. Thanks: Airmano ------------- The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses (Albert Einstein 1954, in his "Gods Letter") |
Posted By: Quranexplorer
Date Posted: 08 November 2016 at 10:39am
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 http://www.iupui.edu/~msaiupui/conceptofworship.html - 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? |
Posted By: Quranexplorer
Date Posted: 08 November 2016 at 10:42am
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. |
Posted By: airmano
Date Posted: 09 November 2016 at 2:47pm
|
@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 ------------- The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses (Albert Einstein 1954, in his "Gods Letter") |
Posted By: Quranexplorer
Date Posted: 11 November 2016 at 5:35am
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 |
Posted By: Tim the plumber
Date Posted: 12 November 2016 at 2:57am
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. |
Posted By: airmano
Date Posted: 14 November 2016 at 12:57pm
@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 http://www.livescience.com/32879-what-happens-to-earth-when-sun-dies.html - 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 ------------- The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses (Albert Einstein 1954, in his "Gods Letter") |
Posted By: Quranexplorer
Date Posted: 25 November 2016 at 10:26am
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. |
Posted By: Quranexplorer
Date Posted: 26 November 2016 at 12:29am
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! |
Posted By: airmano
Date Posted: 26 November 2016 at 12:25pm
@QE
Answer QE
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. ---------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------
Can you explain me what "Creator" or "Sustainer" got to do in my model or why I should need it ? --------------------------------------------------------
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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formation_and_evolution_of_the_Solar_System - 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. ---------------------------------------------------------
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 ------------- The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses (Albert Einstein 1954, in his "Gods Letter") |
Posted By: Quranexplorer
Date Posted: 14 December 2016 at 5:11am
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. ---------------------------------------------------------
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? -------------------------------------------------------
No worries airmano, I was just referring to your comment �QM -or call it nature- is deeply probabilistic� in the earlier post. --------------------------------------------------------
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? --------------------------------------------------------
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. --------------------------------------------------------
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! ---------------------------------------------------------
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!
a) Please refer the following links for real world cases of scientific concepts that have been proven as failures: http://www.famousscientists.org/10-most-famous-scientific-theories-that-were-later-debunked/ - Einstein's Static Universe and Other Failed Theories https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Obsolete_scientific_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. |
Posted By: Tim the plumber
Date Posted: 14 December 2016 at 10:16am
And you are 100% sure that your particular version of your particular god is definately the right one because?
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. |
Posted By: airmano
Date Posted: 18 December 2016 at 2:33pm
@QE
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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russells_teapot - 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. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 ? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is as if I asked you: What came first, Allah or his mercifulness ? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 ? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonian_astronomy - 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). --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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" ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again truth is only worthful when it is unambigouos, your book seem to allow for both (and more) interpretations. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. ------------- The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses (Albert Einstein 1954, in his "Gods Letter") |
Posted By: Tobias
Date Posted: 13 November 2017 at 4:48am
|
Clearly,,, looking at our history from an objective point of view , one can obviously see the shortfallings of science,, In fact, I have a very strong suspicion now that science itself is a contrive by people or entities for the sole purpose of derailing the human condition.
For example,, Science has promoted a concept called Gravity,, Something that cannot be explained or proven to even the smallest degree yet science fails to explore the very likelihood that it could more than likely be Density we experience when we fall over or drop something.. Science has its own laws depending on what benefits the world governments agenda. Or should I say the jinn? (One might find it interesting to know that the word "Government" actually translates to the term, Mind control,,). I could go on and talk about this agenda in its aim to destroy the human condition for hours ,, Science itself is just one small fraction of these evil efforts to undermine who we truly are as a human race.. When one sees the earth from a point of objectivity, Its very easy to work out that, Yes , We do have a creator, No question in my mind,, Religions do hold valuable truths within the scriptures and we really should pay more attention with more objectivity when studying these words .. As far as I can tell.. The Qu ran tells a much more detailed story of the garden of Eden than the christian bible does, This in itself tells us that authorities throughout the ages have played a part in adjusting what we are learning from these passages,, Baring in mind that we are told Lucifer and our creator had a disagreement over our future, There is definitely need for concern in these times.. The only solution I can see to cleanse the human race of this blight is for us all to go back to loving each other and stay away from the duality created by the devil. |
Posted By: Tim the plumber
Date Posted: 20 November 2017 at 7:30am
You have no clue as to what you are talking about. Gravity is predicted very well by Newton's equasions. Back in the 17th century that was. Density is the amount of mass per unit volume a thing has. Mass being the inertia of a body. Thus mass is the resistance to the acceleration of gravity a bady has thus it's weight. To explain; If you take a 3 pound (weight) hammer into space (mass 1.5Kg ish), onto the international space station say, where there is no contact with the earth thus no force to exert pushing down onto the earth, it will weigh nothing, zero pounds, but still have a mass of 1.5Kg. If you smack your thumb with it it will hurt just the same as down here. Stop talking drivel. Define what derailing the human condition means. |
Posted By: Tobias
Date Posted: 21 November 2017 at 10:56pm
|
Well...
I will try and ignore your insulting behaviour and stick to the point... Look up newton.. He was freemason. Look up Freemasons. Learn the plan... Then explain to me what gravity is and how it works.. Then explain why you do not see density as to the reason heavier objects go to earth more readily.. Do you really know that there is a space station? Or even space come to that matter? You sir,, are regurgitating rubbish taught to you by your teachers.. I mentioned in my post the word objectivity.. You have none,, you are a subject .. As in subjectivity... So get off your ego ,,, stop flinging insults and open your mind... The human condition you asked about.. Let's call it a human experience as to me there is no matter in this perception,, just a frequency of energy to allow us to experience this virtual reality.. So you could say we are energy having a human experience.. No space,, no time,, no "Gravity'. No matter, Just a perception of five senses that all comes to our consciousnesses as electrical impulses,, Think about that for a moment,,,, something might click for you. Tell me,,,, where did the earth originate from?? Where did anything comes from?? Did it spring out of space from nothing?? Try to be a little less obnoxious and more to the point in hand if you bother to answer me. Or don't bother there's a good lad.. |
Posted By: Tim the plumber
Date Posted: 22 November 2017 at 12:25pm
Try not to talk abject drivel. If your chosen world view/identity requires you to isist that the sky is a chrystal dome over a flat earth despite your full understanding that it is not so why choose to keep that obviously wrong identity? Gravity is the phenomenon where stuff accelerates towards the earth when it is not held back by something. It is also the reason that any body will experience a force upwards from what it is sitting on if stationary on the earth. If you want a more scientific explanation it is the attraction between 2 massas. This force is proportional to the size of each mass and inversely proportional to thier separation. It does not matter if Newton was or was not a Freemason. It does not matter if he was a Martian. Gravity is what it is. It is predictable. It's effects are understood. I know, as do you, that there is an international space station in orbit around the earth. It can be seen going around the earth without any sort of telescope. Naked eye and the right timing and a clear sky. I underestand how to test how strong gravity is. I understand how to navigate using the theory that the earth is a sphere in orbit around the sun. This is the same maths that allowed us to get around the world before sat navs were invented. Your insistence on lies is highly insulting to anybody who reads them. Do you think it is OK to talk to us as though we are simple st**id people? Why do you expect the rest of the world to be less intelligent than you? You know that the drivel you write is just that, why think the rest of us will not spot it?? |
Posted By: Tobias
Date Posted: 23 November 2017 at 1:14am
|
I am not here to ongoingly wrangle with someone who has obviously not taken the time to find out what is closer to the truth than what we has been taught to us by the institutions of this plane,t.
It makes perfect sense to me that you continue to follow the norm of the masses,, for now,,, because it both serves your egoism and your laziness, plus its much more comfortable for you to be the same as your peers.. I can't blame you at all. I don't know who "Us" is when you refer to it, Or who it is I am to think its ok to that they might be simple st#�!d people?? This is our debate,, no one else's,, Its not nice to apply others or make such a childish statement,, have some respect, I have come to this seemingly sensible site to learn more about what the Quran has to say about the firmament and the state of our domain.. Here I link genesis on this subject.. Genesis one,, In the beginning,,, passage 6. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1&version=NIV To me,, this is a clue,, a symbol,, a direction to discover,, I am looking for signs in the Quran that might be similar to these words.. I also went through the stage of ridiculing this revealing,, for years,,, then I understood... Now I'm not interested in trying to convince stubborn people that take zero time to discover for themselves.. I will answer any questions you might have as far as this debate goes,, please ask awkward questions about how the earth cannot have a firmament or being flat or anything else you can think of.. Pull it apart if you can,, but don't resort to belittling people, its very insulting and frustrating. BTW, ISS is supposedly 400 kilometers above sea level and as big as a double decker bus,,,! Would you be able to see a double decker bus 400 kilometers away???? What you see in the sky is military craft traveling at speeds of mach 2 or more,, If we indeed have sattelites ,, then why do our phones become without service when out of phone tower range? The whole earth would be covered without interruption if served by the fictitional sattelites.. You say gravity is understood??? Please send me the explanatory link.. I would like to see the formulae for it,, Meantime, here's one of our leading scientists telling us its misunderstood.. Neil degrass. https://m.youtube.com/watch?t=22s&v=Efh4bu4rcbs A little question for you... Why does our atmosphere not get stripped off into the vacuume of space? Another,,, how can I use a zoom lens to see a ship 80 nautical miles away without it disappearing into the curvature? Another,,, What model mostly proves to us that we have a creator? Another, How do we feel the heat of the sun when its 93 million miles away and so small in the sky?? Another,,, How do we not see the other side of the moon when every other so called planets supposedly rotate?? Another, How does a compass work on a ball?? Another,, Airplanes stay level in flight,,, why don't they end up in space... Check that one,, its a doozy. Another,,, Why is the sky blue when space is black?? All these things are so simple for anyone to consider.. Yet people like your good self deny these facts and overlook the devastating anomalies in front of them.. Please,,, be deductive and not abusive.. Its much more beneficial... Put ego, belief, laziness, indoctrines, etc on the shelf for a short while and open up to the possibilities. It does pay... As crazy as these things sound to you now,,, It will make perfect sense if you take the discovery time and make you more grounded and at one with everything.. Namaste. |
Posted By: airmano
Date Posted: 23 November 2017 at 12:46pm
Tobias:
The computer, the data transmission with the server, the Led-light illuminating your screen: all these are products based on deep scientific understandings. If you consider science (and its implications) as the work of the shaytan how can you avoid the wrath of god he must have for those who get abducted by the use of these devilish instruments ? Airmano ------------- The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses (Albert Einstein 1954, in his "Gods Letter") |
Posted By: Tobias
Date Posted: 02 December 2017 at 1:22am
|
How do you know that Satan, or Shaytan is any kind of entity?? How do you know that god is any kind of entity?? Going by faith of others?? Not good enough..
Science gives us many things but where does the understanding of leds and computers originate? Tell me,, are you aware that this earth is in 5th cycle? Meaning that we have undergone 4 cycles of civilisations and the technologies already.. We are discovering ancient nuclear plutonium rods underground.. This realm of perception is not only illusory but also a duality so god and the devil are presented to us as a conflict,, I suggest that these two ideas are merely a construct of a higher mind Put here in our consciousness so that we might deal with that conflict in much the same way as we are dealing with different religions , races, borders, wars, flat or round earth, .. Its endless,,, Do you see the pattern? We are part of the creator and the creator is a part of us.. Nothing is physical. Only perceived through five senses for humans.. We are cutting edge technology for the fact that we are discovering a duality out of the oneness,, Me personally would like to go back to the oneness as I find this squabbling very tiresome. It is as well that we only suffer a mortal lifetime in one sitting of this duality,, Its nice to know that our awareness stays sentient when our bodies die and we return to a new fetus to start again with only memory erased from previous earthen lifetimes. This is not possible in the physical/scientific world.. That world is very restricting.. Why do you think they call it the. "LAW" of physics? Because you are subject to those laws,, have you ever thought about the lawmaker and the world beyond that law? No I guess not.. Quote:: Trent Reznor 1993,, God is dead, And no one cares, If there is a hell, I'll see you there. |
Posted By: Tim the plumber
Date Posted: 05 December 2017 at 3:42am
Unlucky. When you spout gibberish I will tell you that you are doing so and also tell the world. Your lies will not be going unchallenged.
Eh?
Not bothering with actual facts there, straight to the whach jobs.
A double decker buss with extended solar pannels. Well 3 seconds research changes that;
https://www.globaltelesat.co.uk/satellite-phones?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIkYiX8d_y1wIVg73tCh3ohQArEAAYAyAAEgJ_wPD_BwE You can get the ones that use a signal straight up to the satalites or the normal cheaper ones that use the local tower to get into the communication network.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Bq82MmGNFE That we have not the total complete understanding of the universe does not mean that we have no understanding of it. In physics you will have to start at the bottom and work up. Jumping in at the front edge of research and speculation will just confuse you.
Good question. The answer is that the pressure down here is due to all the air above us pressing down in us. The pressure drops as you go up. At the top of the atmosphere the prssure is zero. Although as this happens the density of the air is also dropping, so the actual top of the atmosphere is sort of a vague fading away thing. The gravity of the earth is still pulling down on those atoms at the top though. Also, it is being striped away by the solar wind. And refreshed by geological process from the earth which produce nitrogen and carbondioxide mostly from volcanoes.
Only by standing on a high mountain or being in a plane.
Eh? There is no scientific evidence that such a thing exists.
Because it is so hot.
Because as it orbits around the earth it rotates to show the same face to the earth due to being tidally locked. This is where the gravity of a body which is close to another which has liquid oceans on it causes tides in those oceans. The effect of these is to slow the earth's rotation. And to slow the moon's. The moon being smaller has had a greater effect from this and has stopped sooner.
Eh? Same as it works on your hand! The magnetic field of the earth is a 3 dimensional thing as all magnetic fields are.
Because they stay parallel to the earth's surface. That is they slowly arc forward/down to keep at the same altitude. The process is so slow that it is imperceptable.
Because the colour of water is blue and there is a lot of it floating around as vapour in the air. Thus the light scattered around by it from the sun gets coloured blue.
Any very easy to find out about with your computer. Do so. Then think of how you can check them and do some checks. Enjoy the process. It will be fun.
If you post claims that are drivel I will tell you so. I will tell you to stop lying and being a fool. If you ask questions, although fewer at a time would be good, I will do my best to answer them. I will not be able to answer every thing. When this happens I will say that I do not know. Occaisionally I will be wrong. I will not do this deliberately or knowingly. We all make mystakes. |
Posted By: Tobias
Date Posted: 06 December 2017 at 2:09am
|
We both think each other crazy,, That's obvious,, But when you look at the ruling classes of our world,, Again, Objectively, You will find that they need the human race to be immersed in conflict in order to serve their agenda,, This is one conflicting subject among many others,, The earth has only been believed to be a sphere for around 500 years, This ruling elites bloodlines have held power since the summarians, About 6000 years ago..
Meantime I suggest you have a look at this link,, It will answer all of your questions, And have tangeable proof against gravity, vision , etc, https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ax_YpQsy88 Even an object the size of 10 football fields cannot be seen by humans at the distance of the supposed space station... You claim to know science, Then practice some of your own without listening to anyone,, Especially scientists, Then you will see. |
Posted By: Tim the plumber
Date Posted: 06 December 2017 at 2:24am
No we have not. In a million years the archeology of our roads, swers, railways, sky scrapers and all the rest will be utterly obvious to any amature with any interest in these things. We have not been here before. |
Posted By: airmano
Date Posted: 06 December 2017 at 1:47pm
@Tobias
Are you a "Matrix" fan ? Honestly, I do not understand anything from your post. Airmano ------------- The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses (Albert Einstein 1954, in his "Gods Letter") |
Posted By: Tobias
Date Posted: 09 December 2017 at 1:04am
|
That's OK. Some people do not have the capacity to go beyond a belief system. The matrix movie by the way is a good way to consider our so called reality.. I consider that movie to be a clue given to us by the ruling elite,, same as avatar and many others..
Nevertheless,, I respect your condition, have a happy day.. |
Posted By: Tim the plumber
Date Posted: 09 December 2017 at 7:01am
If the ISS is illuminated by the sun, and it is shinny so it reflets light well you will easily see it as a moving bright spot against the night sky. With a decent, cheap, telescope you will be able to see the detail of it. I will not spend time looking at drivel you are unable to describe. This idea of the ruling elites is more mad drivel.
|
Posted By: Pete
Date Posted: 14 March 2018 at 5:25am
|
All to often people who don't understand science correctly make the mistake that scientists have "proved" something or other when in fact all science is based on the laws of science and by its nature a law cannot be proved. Its assumed to be true, nothing more. Also, all too often, far too many people believe that what is written in a religious text is fact when in fact its not. All religious texts which are accepted by an individual is assumed to be correct, i.e. taken as true by faith. By definition faith is the strong belief in something that cannot be proved. Also, the scope of science is not universal and has never been taken as being universal. By that I mean that science is not something that applies to all areas of human concern. For example: science cannot tell you whether the drinking age should be 16 or 21. Science cannot tell you whether the speed limit should be 55 mph or 85 mph. Science cannot tell you whether a philosophy text is true or not. However there's nothing wrong with the notion that science might be able to determine whether there is/was a creator or not. Science might even be able to determine whether the story of Moses receiving the 10 commandments on Mount Sinai is true or not. By those statements I mean that scientific efforts such as archeology has made discoveries which confirm what religious documents state. Especially when what it states is historical in nature. For example: the book of Genesis states (in one particular translation) that there was a path on Mount Sinai which was paved with sapphire. The correct translation really states only that the path was paved with blue stone. On one of the mountains suspected of being the Mount Sinai in Genesis a large amount of blue stone was discovered confirms what that the account in Genesis states. There's more on that point here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_Mount_Sinai" rel="nofollow - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_Mount_Sinai which says
Not too many years ago cosmologists at MIT showed how an advanced race/beings could create a universe so the notion of a universe being created by a being is well within the realm of science. I recall a long time ago asking a person what they would think if they witnessed "miraculous" events such as those stated in the Bible. Their answer "I'd assumed it was caused by an advanced alien using science" (or something like that) which shows how closed minded they were. An "alien" ,in that context, is merely an intelligent being which originated somewhere other than here on Earth. And that's precisely what God is. |
Posted By: Tim the plumber
Date Posted: 10 April 2018 at 2:33am
Whilst bits of the bible are correct, the places and cities were there, were real, that does not make the claims of devine magic real. There is a path of blue stones on mount Sinai, so? That does not mean that God came down to give the commandments to some goat herding nomad. It strongly implies that the gaot herder had been arond there nad had either seen or heard of this patch of blue stone, or it was added later... but not the God bit. |
Posted By: ajzhyder
Date Posted: 19 May 2018 at 3:58pm
|
https://topicsfromquran.wordpress.com/2018/05/19/creation-of-skies-and-the-earth/" rel="nofollow - https://topicsfromquran.wordpress.com/2018/05/19/creation-of-skies-and-the-earth/ The above post reviews Quranic verses related to creation of Earth and Heavens.
|
Posted By: airmano
Date Posted: 21 May 2018 at 12:08pm
|
@Ajzhyder
Can you tell me how you can reconcile this verse with the modern knowledge on the formation of our earth ? Thanks: Airmano ------------- The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses (Albert Einstein 1954, in his "Gods Letter") |
Posted By: ajzhyder
Date Posted: 22 May 2018 at 7:06am
|
Salam My understanding of 'spreading of the earth' is that from very small size in the beginning when Earth and Skies were joined together, the Earth was spread to its present size, i.e to a size of much bigger sphere. Thanks |
Posted By: Tim the plumber
Date Posted: 18 August 2018 at 2:12am
I don't see much trouble with the Koran's verses if they are poetry and it is understood that they are targeted at the normal people of 700AD. If you want to use them for the basis of an understanding of how the real world actually is you are going to run into trouble. The earth and the sky/space/all those stars were never physically joined. They all formed after the bib bang start of the universe and most long long after the start.
|
Posted By: AlkitabAdvocate
Date Posted: 30 August 2018 at 5:09am
The Book is not to be taken as poetry. It is actually for guidance. It is correct that it is not a book of science, as it only states some facts which can be appreciated depending upon the knowledge available to the world at that time. All the matter and energy which forms the Universe today was contained at a very small space i.e an infinitely small point in the beginning, and from there this matter spread out to form every thing we see in the universe today. https://topicsfromquran.com/2017/03/14/poetry/" rel="nofollow - https://topicsfromquran.com/2017/03/14/poetry/ https://topicsfromquran.com/2018/08/25/why-is-al-kitab-the-word-of-god/" rel="nofollow - https://topicsfromquran.com/2018/08/25/why-is-al-kitab-the-word-of-god/
|
Posted By: asep garut
Date Posted: 03 September 2018 at 11:58pm
|
In the Qur'an
there are verses relating to human science, or what is commonly called
"Qauniyah verses". For example:
يٰمَعْشَرَ الْجِنِّ وَالْإِنسِ إِنِ اسْتَطَعْتُمْ �£َن تَنفُذُوا۟ مِنْ �£َقْطَارِ السَّمٰوٰتِ وَالْ�£َرْضِ فَانفُذُوا۟ ۚ لَا تَنفُذُونَ إِلَّا بِسُلْطٰنٍ “O company of jinn and mankind, if you have power to penetrate (all) regions of the heavens and the earth, then penetrate them! You will never penetrate them except with the power (science and Allah's permission)” (Ar Rahman 55:33) Allah only provides information about these verses and for the next, mankind can prove it by conducting research in accordance with the ability of their science possessed, because the knowledge possessed by mankind is very little when compared to the knowledge possessed by Allah. وَمَآ �£ُوتِيتُم مِّنَ الْعِلْمِ إِلَّا قَلِيلًا “..And of knowledge, you (mankind) have been given only a little.” (Al Isra 17:85) Therefore, with the guidance of the Qur'an, humans will be able to separate what is in the world that can be investigated with human knowledge and which are not, so that the research is not in vain, and it is to prove that the Qur'an which was revealed around 14 centuries ago can inspire the science of mankind in this modern times. |
Posted By: Tim the plumber
Date Posted: 08 September 2018 at 4:09am
The verse you quoted don't actually help us undersatnd the universe in any way though.
|
Posted By: Tim the plumber
Date Posted: 25 October 2018 at 3:45am
He is who created the seven skies one above another. You
will not see any imperfection in the creation of the Most Gracious. So
turn your vision again. Do you see any flaw? Well, yes, the cosmic background radiation pattern is, for example, not uniform. Without this origional disturbance in the universe there would not be any stars or other irregularity. The sun for example is a constant battle of explosion vs collapse. One day the collapse will win. The whole idea of a black hole is a flaw in the universe. It is a breaking of spacetime.
|