quran and science

Naba:

Airmano is himself tangled in his web, he accepted that Prophet Muhammad S.A.W ( pbuh ) was illiterate so accidentally he accepted that Allah is author of Quran.finally airmano unwillingly accepted the truth.

Airmano:

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

Now to your scientist and their "claims".
It seems to me that you didn't read the WSJ article Ron and I have put in. If you had read it to the bottom of the page you would have found out that other scientist being invited by the Saudi " Commission on Scientific Signs in the Quran and Sunnah" clearly stated that the Saudis tried to manipulate them:

Marine scientist William Hay: "I fell into that trap and then warned other people to watch out for it,"

than geologist Allison  Palmer who refused the "divine origin" game from the start on

Professor Goeringer who probably expresses it the best:
"It was mutual manipulation," he says. "We got to places we wouldn't otherwise go to. They wanted to add some respectability to what they were publishing."

and last not least the comments of Prof Simpson discredit this "Commission" (and many of  the scientist that fell into this trap) even more.

If you're still in doubt, take this final nail in your coffin: Alfred Kr�ner
In case you have more time, here's an even more funny one: Armstrong

Apparently you are so desperate to find western scientists supporting the "Quranic claims" (why are there no renowned "muslim scientists" ?) that you grasp what ever you can find; even dodgy cases like Moore and Co.

Interestingly enough: none of them  converted to Islam (to my knowledge), strange isn't it ?

It is in human nature that even for the wildest claims you may find top scientist supporting them. Just have a look at this Nobel price winner: Brian Josephson and than go to chapter "Parapsychology" . Nobody in science takes this bloke serious any more !

Since you are so fond of getting "scientific support" for the Quran why not going right to what many people would consider the top authority in this matter: Einstein?

Before we go any further: Did you  read the article about Einstein up to the end this time ?

Nice talking to you !

Airmano




Edited by airmano - 11 November 2014 at 1:23pm

The basic idea of a scientific approach to the world involves treating all claims as bogus unless there is something which causes you to have confidence in them.

I have confidence in the theory of thermodynamics because, although I could not grasp it, it is the theory which is used to work out how to build jet engines and they do a very good job of making jet engines.

In order for me to believe in any god I would need to have some sort of evidence that supported that idea. I see no such evidence, so I don't believe there is any god. Or gods.

If you wish to argue for a monotheistic religion, which denies all other gods as drivel, you have to not only supply evidence to support your single god being there but also this evidence must not be just as supporting of other gods. That's going to be tricky.


Edited by Tim the plumber - 15 November 2014 at 3:34am

Again, I'm not denying the existence of God.  I'm saying, along with E. Marshall Johnson,, that I see no evidence to refute the God hypothesis -- nor to endorse it.  (I do see evidence every day in the news that denies the existence of a loving God, but that's another story.  If Allah wants to cast me into Hell to convince me otherwise, I hope at least that He appreciates the irony.)

By the way, Hasan, I hope you will be ready with an explanation for your belief in "Allah", if His name turns out to be Jesus or Yahweh or Zeus or Brahman.  Frankly, I like my chances better, but good luck!

Ron Webb wrote: It doesn't mean that at all. I cannot refute that a "celestial teapot" is orbiting the Sun, but I don't for a moment believe it and I'm not eliminating the possibility that it's completely bogus. What he is implying is that he is not impressed by the vague "information" in the Quran.

What you are talking about is a hypothetical situation where nobody can verify and establish the truth. So there is no point in refuting or accepting a claim in such a situation.

What Johnson talked about is a real situation based on what is written in the Quran, his expertise in the field of embryology and the general level of information which was available at the time of revelation of the Quran, that based on all these he cannot refute a divine origin of Quran. That is an endorsement.

Ron Webb wrote: 1. Speaking for myself, I'm not looking for proof. As with the Celestial Teapot hypothesis, the (Muslim) God hypothesis is framed in such a way that neither proof nor disproof is possible.2. If God is omnipotent, then He should have no difficulty in proving his existence. Why not start with a Web site and/or email address? No, I'm not kidding. That's what most people do these days when they want to get their message out. Is this too hard for God?

Good that at least we are out of the proof business.

Now, let�s see who�s a better believer:

You believe in your reason as the only way of guidance, fully knowing that even the best of human reason is not good enough even to partly comprehend the natural world. And in spite of that, whenever you find your reason in conflict with the will of Allah you think your this imperfect reason is superior to Allah's perfect wisdom.

Whereas, I fully acknowledge the limitation of my reason and I find the Quran filling all the gaps where the human reason fails miserably. And again the teachings of Quran is not set in a hypothetical situation, but it has been practically tried and tested through the life of prophet Muhammad (pbuh) as the most successful teaching available to mankind, having transformed 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").

As Hasan pointed out, you are free to make the choice, but that choice of course comes with an absolute personal responsibility to justify how you exercised that choice.