Anti-science madness

AhmadJoyia wrote: Tim the plumber wrote: AhmadJoyia wrote:   Wow! If Quran is not anti-science, hence its validity in today's scientific world is all the more logical, unlike any other religious book (to my limited knowledge). Secondly, I don't know what is your definition of "Scientifically useful and innovative information"? What is useful and not, how can you quantify it to gauge any book? The Koran is just scientifically irrelivant.[COLOR="#000099"]The basis for decieding if something (an idea) is scientifically useful is that it has to make predictions that are not obvious and turn out right. O dear! Tim the Plumber my brother, please don't bother yourself too much on science. Nevertheless, your zeal and spirit to dwell into science is well appreciated. Can you please provide any authentic reference to support your definition of Scientifically useful stuff when you say "The basis for decieding if something (an idea) is scientifically useful is that it has to make predictions that are not obvious and turn out right." Without any qualification of 'Prediction', IMHO, your definiton is highly unscientifc. For example,if we find my brother Tim betting in a horse race and winning, should we consider him a scientist? or his prediction as scientifically useful, just because it came out to be true? I don't think so, but if you persist, please don't bother replying back but invite your mentor to help you understand what I meant here. May be your next step, by using this definition of sceience, is to prove that the Bible is scientifically useful, simply because, accord ing to you, all its predictions turned out to be true, or if not yet, would turn out to be true in near future. Hence, as per your difinition, the bible is more scientifically relevent than any other book? Am I correct??

1, I am my own mentor.

2. The Bible is no more scientificaly useful than any other religious book.

3, Making predictions that are not obvious and come true is not about predicting that a great King will arise in the West because there is no date and not enough detail there for it to be testable. The predictions need to be failable.

For example, If I have a catapult and say that if I fire it and shoot a stone it will fly off a long way then I am not predicting anything surprising at all. If I say that I have measured the speed at which the stone will fly off and that by putting the catapult at a particular angle I will get the stone to land exactly on that castle door. That is useful and not obvious. It is also clearly failable.

The horse racing thing, well if I am able to consistently win and make a profit then I am onto something. 1 race is not enough though.

@Asep

The Quran tells to mankind to work earnestly in finding and improving their knowledge both physical and spiritual knowledge, both must be aligned so as not to lame.

But what do you do when the two start to clash with each other ?
Do you close your eyes pretending that the Quran is right at any circumstances ?


Airmano


Edited by airmano - 11 October 2016 at 10:59am

Dear Airmano,

---------------
But what do you do when the two start to clash with each other ?
Do you close your eyes pretending that the Quran is right at any circumstances ?
--------------
I won't despair, and I will continue to await the development of science, I'm sure the scientists will continue to develop their researches to find the certainty of his opinion. And when some of scientists have found the end point of the development of research that can't be refuted by other scientists, then the two things that clash will not happen again.

It reminds me of some theories of experts, including:

Plato (427 � 347 BC) argued: �Circle and ball are the most perfect geometry forms. Therefore, all the sky objects moved around the earth in tracks which shape is circle.�
His theory was not the same as that expressed by Claudius Ptolemy (140 BC), who explained in his book entitled Almagest. He explained that: �all of the sky objects moved surrounds a point.�
While Copernicus (1473-1543 AD), argued: �All sky objects move surround the sun in circle tracks.� This is known as the Heliocentric theory which was presented in his book entitled De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium.

Their theories perfected by the theory of �Law of Universal Gravitation� from Sir Isaac Newton (1642 AD), and he argued: �Every object in the Universe attracts every other object with a force directed along the line of centers for the two objects that is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the separation between the two objects.� His theory has similarity meaning that the sun also has an orbit to circulate, it's in accordance with the word of God in the Quran 36:38

I don�t close my eyes pretending that the Quran is right at any circumstances, but I believe that all of God's words are true, it depends on human efforts how to interpret and obtain proof of the truth of His words.

I am a muslim who supports science, because there is a command of God in the Quran to think and reveal the phenomena of the universe. The advantage to me about science is in addition will add my knowledge, also to strengthen my faith personally.

Regards.
Asep

Asep

1. Experts unfinished in their researches, and maybe someday there will be new discoveries that may challenge the experts opinion before. 2. There are differences in interpreting the verses in the Quran, because there are words of God written in the form of parable sentences, and also there's a command from God to pay attention to such sentences.

The Quran consists to a very high percentage (>> 50%) of:
- Unprovable statements of the type: "Those that do not obey will be punished and eternally tortured"
- Repetitions: "Allah is above all", "this is a sign...", "Don't they see...", "How deluded they are..."

Besides that there are indeed some predictions/statements in the Quran, but they are of the - "King in the West" - type (see Tim the plumber above).

Like it or not:
Given the rather low information content and the fact there are many contradictions within the Quran, as well as many contradictions with respect to modern science I think that there is a much more likely explanation:

A) The error is human
B) The Quran is (thus) man made


Airmano


Edited by airmano - 12 October 2016 at 2:03am