quran and science
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=28659
Printed Date: 21 November 2024 at 8:31pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: quran and science
Posted By: zoya fatima
Subject: quran and science
Date Posted: 21 April 2014 at 11:42am
| yellowhow quran is explaining scirnce.give some examples |
Replies:
Posted By: airmano
Date Posted: 10 May 2014 at 2:27pm
|
I'm afraid there are none.
The Qur'an is a spritual book that has no scientific intentions. All the mediocre interpreters that seek for scientific knowldege in and from the Qur'an always come late - well after the scientific issues have been formulated and published by competent scientists. Claiming to be "first" after somebody else has done the the work is unfortunately common but nevertheless bad practice. Airmano |
Posted By: Quranexplorer
Date Posted: 13 May 2014 at 12:28pm
|
Quran is the ultimate book of wisdom which covers all aspects of human life and contains a number of scientific references far beyond the level of scientific knowledge that was available at the time of its revelation. Some examples below among many stands testimony to its divine origin having mentioned scientific facts known only as late as in the last couple of centuries, some 14 centuries ago:
Al Anbiya 21:30: 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? - This is perfectly in line with the modern scientific idea of primary nebula followed by separation of elements resulting in formation of galaxies. Also a clear reference to the aquatic origin of life. Nooh 71:15-16: See ye not how Allah hath created seven heavens in harmony, And hath made the moon a light therein, and made the sun a lamp? - A clear differentiation between sun which is in a state of combustion producing both light and heat whereas the moon as an inert body reflecting only light. It is not logically correct to say that scientific interpretations from Quran comes well after these are established by modern science because it is the Quran that came 14 centuries earlier and it remains same but the scientific knowledge became available only in the last few centuries and this in fact really points to the limitation of modern science like any other human tools that nobody could really understand the depth of scientific meaning that is available in the Quranic verses revealed some 14 centuries ago! The Quran & Modern Science by Maurice Bucaille is an excellent read on this topic https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=uld0Y-mLoVQC |
Posted By: schmikbob
Date Posted: 15 May 2014 at 1:02pm
|
You are saying that "the heavens and the earth were of one piece, then We parted them" means "the modern scientific idea of primary nebula followed by separation of elements resulting in formation of galaxies" and "hath made the moon a light therein, and made the sun a lamp" means "sun which is in a state of combustion producing both light and heat whereas the moon as an inert body reflecting only light".
I'd say you are reaching for miracles where none exist. These verses could mean what you say or they could and probably do mean something completely different. This reminds me of the canonization of saints in the Christian faith where miracles are attributed to famous figures to get them up to the required 2 miracle minimum. You should read about some of those miracles, definitely a stretch of the imagination. |
Posted By: airmano
Date Posted: 15 May 2014 at 2:44pm
|
Ha, nice ! Let's go:
First a question: Do you speak Arabic ? If 'yes' does Arabic distinguish between "heaven and sky" or is there only one word for both meanings - as it is the case for most languages ? More to this Surat once you've replied. Next one: "See ye not how Allah hath created seven heavens in harmony, And hath made the moon a light therein, and made the sun a lamp? Have you ever been to Saudi Arabia in Summertime? If 'yes' did you feel the effect of the sun during daytime and what the moon does to your skin at nighttime ? Does it really require supernatural knowledge to claim that one of the two shines brighter/heats whereas the other does not ? Furthermore, look at this one - http://history.stackexchange.com/questions/7890/who-discovered-first-that-the-moon-does-not-have-its-own-light Admittedly I didn't check any further whether this link is reliable but knowing the Greeks I'd bet it is! And well -sorry for your claim- they did it almost a thousand years ahead of the Qur'an. Last not least: How many Nobel prices have been won, based on knowledge distilled from the Qur'an ? I guess you know the answer. |
Posted By: Quranexplorer
Date Posted: 16 May 2014 at 9:54am
|
Quran is a miracle not only because of the scientific references it has but also because of a number of unique characteristics which clearly sets it far above any of human works, including the superior moral lessons, an unmatched ease in handling a variety of subjects as complex as creation of the universe to matters of our daily life, an impeccable consistency of facts throughout its verses, the fact that it has and will remain the same always, the superior elegance of its language, the sound reasoning it provides on various subjects, and the universal and timeless nature of its message etc.
Even if you are unsure about the interpretation, is it reasonable to think that the verse itself "the heavens and the earth were of one piece, then We parted them" came from a human source 1400 years ago when they had no access to such knowledge? Anybody who takes an effort to appreciate some of the miraculous characters of Quran mentioned above cannot do so. However, I am happy that you are still open to the light when you say �These verses could mean what you say or they could and probably do mean something completely different� and do hope Allah will guide you to the true path someday. |
Posted By: airmano
Date Posted: 17 May 2014 at 12:50am
|
Quranexplorer: "Quran is a miracle not only because of the scientific references it has"
No, you keep pretending the same thing in a more disguised form. I'm still missing the convincing scientific miracle. I replied to one surat/example - but from your side no recognition of the greeks that found out long time before the Qur'an. No comment on my question about "heaven and sky" either. Last not least: How can a book which states: "and We have revealed the Book to you explaining clearly everything (16:89)" or "These are the verses of the book that make things clear(26:2)" leave so much room for (mis-) interpretation ? Very last not least: Could you give me the objective linguistic criteria (so no tautologic Qu'ran citation) which shows the linguistic superiority of the Qur'an to non-believers as well ? |
Posted By: Quranexplorer
Date Posted: 17 May 2014 at 6:38am
|
To answer airmano:
Going by the logic of your question �Have you ever been to Saudi Arabia in Summertime? If 'yes' did you feel the effect of the sun during daytime and what the moon does to your skin at nighttime ? Does it really require supernatural knowledge to claim that one of the two shines brighter/heats whereas the other does not ?� the stars that appear in the sky also should be inert bodies just giving light without heat, whereas they are not. The stars are bodies of combustion producing both heat and light and the Quranic verses have no contradictions on this aspect as well. So if you living in this century of information can get your statement wrong, whereas the Quran-a book 1400 years ago gets everything right always, doesn�t that look a bit supernatural?? - see we are already getting more reasons why Quran is a miracle! The Arabic word used in this verse is Samawaat (a plural of 'Samaa') that refers to the sky and any part of the wider expanse of the universe (courtesy to this link http://quransmessage.com/articles/heaven%20and%20paradise%20FM3.htm) - by the way your �Greek link� did not take me anywhere, it just brought me back to this page! And coming to the Nobel Prize, again human weakness-created ones not able to comprehend the creator's wisdom. |
Posted By: airmano
Date Posted: 18 May 2014 at 7:21am
|
Wow, When you write:
"The stars are bodies of combustion producing both heat and light and the Quranic verses have no contradictions on this aspect as well. So if you living in this century of information can get your statement wrong, whereas the Quran-a book 1400 years ago gets everything right always, doesn't that look a bit supernatural?? - see we are already getting more reasons why Quran is a miracle!" As a response I feel like making a very bold statement, which is: "A is true". First it is it's obvious simplicity which is intriguing. "A" being true is not in conflict to any known law of physics. "A" will always be true, no matter what happens to the world. Even when you and me are long gone, future generations will realize that "A" remains true. It is therefore a statement of ultimate wisdom. I even challenge the world to come up with a simpler (and "truer") statement and as long as there's nobody succeeding in this task I will even declare my statement as being divine. So, jokes aside: It is the predictive and selective power which makes a statement important. When you say that the Qur'an is not in conflict with the modern knowledge of [thermonuclear reaction inside] stars and this is a sign of the Qur'an being true or divine I think you should rather consider "A" (being simpler) as the better theory to explain the universe (according to Occams razor). Next: You where right about about my link to the Greeks, but simply copying the link and sticking it to the address bar of your browser will give you the information. To your translation: Can "Samaa" also mean "heaven" in a purely religious sense ? To finish: You insinuate that modern knowledge (and the associated Nobel prices) are completely irrelevant compared to the creators wisdom. Why is it than so important to you that the Qur'an is supposed to contain scientific knowledge ? Regards: Airmano |
Posted By: schmikbob
Date Posted: 18 May 2014 at 8:32am
| Quranexplorer. To satisfy my curiosity I'd like to know if your parents are believers, in Islam specifically. |
Posted By: Quranexplorer
Date Posted: 18 May 2014 at 10:58am
|
schmikbob, now even I am a bit curious what relevance this has got to the discussion!
However, I can say my father was not a practicing muslim but my mother is very much a practicing muslim, even though only Allah can have full knowledge on one's real faith. |
Posted By: schmikbob
Date Posted: 20 May 2014 at 9:40pm
| Just wondering if you find it significant that most of the people on the planet follow the same religion as their parents. |
Posted By: Quranexplorer
Date Posted: 22 May 2014 at 1:15pm
|
Airmano:
The problem is you are quoting a statement told in one context in a totally different context. Let me explain you this way: Quran gives clear differentiation of sun being a body of combustion, moon being an inert reflector and there are no contradictions on stars as well even though there are multiple references of stars in Quran including shooting stars � it makes sense when you read all these together, but if you pick only the stars part, then it doesn�t make any sense just like your �A is true� statement � if you are still in doubt, just give me an example of your �A is true� type statement in Quran which I have used in this discussion. There are two characteristics of Quran which I would like to point out from the sun-moon-star discussion 1) Scientific references far beyond its time to differentiate the light source of sun and moon � yes, the copy-paste option worked for the �Greek link� but looks even you are not sure of its authenticity 2) Quran strikingly is devoid of human errors � you made one by making a general statement indicating moon and stars to have the same kind of light source and if you look at the �Greek link� there are plenty of examples. Regarding �Samaa� you should have all answers at this link I referred earlier http://quransmessage.com/articles/heaven%20and%20paradise%20FM3.htm I never said modern knowledge (and the associated Nobel prices) are completely irrelevant compared to the creators wisdom, but my point is to put to perspective that science is only a human tool and the creator�s wisdom is all encompassing far beyond any of human wisdom including science, so it is natural that Quran contains some scientific references among all other wisdom and some of these are testified by modern scientific knowledge � in a nutshell science should be viewed as an enabling factor for man to understand the grandeur of the creator, not as a tool to deny the creator. |
Posted By: Quranexplorer
Date Posted: 23 May 2014 at 9:04am
|
schmikbob:
I get your point and agree that parents� religion has a great influence on their children, but only to the point one�s faith is challenged by his own reason. Because in an absolute sense the only thing you can say you have control is your limited free will to think and choose the path you want to follow. It is up to the individual to use his limited free will to choose the right path. And I find it in perfect harmony when I submit my will to the will of one god-Allah. I understand my limitations as a human that none of the human tools including science or my reason has the capability to be an absolute authority to answer everything. I find it extremely soothing when I humble my mind in front of this absolute power and use my human faculties to the extent it is capable and then seek Allah�s guidance when the demand is beyond my capabilities. This Quranic verse sums up my experience: Al Rad 13:28: Verily in the remembrance of Allah do hearts find rest! |
Posted By: airmano
Date Posted: 23 May 2014 at 2:09pm
Airmano:
Could you tell me what I missed/hid/ misunderstood ? What I see however is that a really trivial statement like "the sun is hot/heats" gets quickly re-interpreted into a miracle. Where do I find knowledge about the interplay between nuclear force and Coulomb potential, the CNO-cycle, the opposing forces of heat/expansion and gravity/shrinkage inside a star, in the Quran ? Again the Greeks: The fact that I was to lazy to check doesn't prove me wrong - did you check and find a differing information ? Now to Samaa: I found this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soldiers_of_Heaven - Samaa . This makes me believe that Samaa may also mean "heaven". In this sense the interpretation of the verse: "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?" makes much more sense when taken as the biblical logic of man being expelled from paradise than any pseudo-scientific interpretation. Now:
Last not least: The Quran always right? Do you seriously believe that 23:14 "Then We made the sperm-drop into a clinging clot, and We made the clot into a lump [of flesh], and We made [from] the lump, bones, and We covered the bones with flesh; then We developed him into another creation" is really in line with modern knowledge of embryology ? (please! No Keith L. Moore here !) Glad to be of service: Airmano |
Quranexplorer wrote:Posted By: Quranexplorer
Date Posted: 24 May 2014 at 6:06am
|
Airmano,
Looks like this is just going around in circles � I just explained above why just picking the stars part alone from the discussion does not make any sense just like your �A is true� statement, but you again come back with the same argument. The bottom line is you seems to come from a view point that you can accept anything but not Quran and nobody can really convince you because you�ve already decided you don�t want to � a straight interpretation of �samaa� verse from Quran won�t impress you but you have no qualms to believe a biblical logic which makes no sense in this context! And what surety is there you will accept Quran if it expressly mentions the �thermo nuclear� and stuff like that, because human excuses can have no limit. I�m not surprised because Quran talks about this behaviour also : At-Tur 52:44: And if they were to see a fragment of the heaven falling, they would say: A heap of clouds. Al-Baqara 2:118: And those who have no knowledge say: Why doth not Allah speak unto us, or some sign come unto us? Even thus, as they now speak, spake those (who were) before them. Their hearts are all alike. We have made clear the revelations for people who are sure. I�m not really concerned about the Greek link as I find the overall wisdom of Quran much above any of human sources. However, if you really have some reasons to believe that 23:14 have some contradictions with the modern scientific knowledge I am happy to discuss. |
Posted By: airmano
Date Posted: 27 May 2014 at 2:05pm
For me the trouble with all these scientific interpretations of the Quran is that statements like "See ye not how Allah hath created seven heavens in harmony, And hath made the moon a light therein, and made the sun a lamp?" are systematically turned into miracles. - The 7 heavens are worthless from a scientific viewpoint (science just doesn't care about heaven(s) be it 1 or 7) - but this must not stop you to believe in it ! (I don't). -Again, that the sun is hotter than the moon is trivial and even giving it a scientific twist (by the interpreter) still doesn't change the fact that the Greeks stated the reflection business of the moon almost a thousand years earlier and opposite to the Quran in a really explicit way. Claiming defiantly that the Quran is better anyway doesn't make this fact go away and honesty (or call it scientific practice) should make you mention the true inventor ! Now to:
More to the embryology another time. Airmano |
Posted By: Quranexplorer
Date Posted: 30 May 2014 at 2:27pm
|
Good, let�s get in to the basics now:
I am kind of surprised at this illusion of science being projected as the ultimate tool to testify anything and everything � because science itself is a human tool with all human imperfections that it can only testify what is in its limited realm. The best example could be the list of planets. I grew up hearing about a solar system with 9 planets including Pluto and we understand now Pluto has been eliminated from the list, and there could be new addition(s) to this list � the only thing certain in science is the uncertainty and that�s what is driving it forward. And with this history of science, no man of science can make a statement like below because something not known to science today does not mean it is not there
Quantum Theory - Heisenberg�s uncertainty principle states that the measurements in Quantum mechanics can never be precise Newton�s Mechanics � Classical Newton�s Mechanics does not work in relativity realms General Relativity � There are indications of speeds exceeding light which could impact this theory If you find the evidence of these theories which cannot stand the test of time and can be proved wrong anytime �overwhelming� but the wisdom of Quranic verses including the scientific references therein which stands the test of time don�t impress you � don�t you think there is something fundamentally wrong. But I like the Heisenberg�s uncertainty principle because it really kind of accepts the human limitation and this will stand the test of time for sure Having seen there is nothing in science to be in competition with Allah and his revelation: Al-Baqara 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. the real question now boils down to whether you want to believe or you don�t want to believe? and I absolutely agree with you the choice is yours because this is something Allah has bestowed on human � the limited free will to choose the right path and I wish Allah could guide you to this path someday. |
Posted By: airmano
Date Posted: 19 June 2014 at 8:15am
Quranexplorer:
The Quran does not express a theory which is/can be measured or supported by data. It is not a science book. It does not contain any "scientific miracles". Airmano |
Posted By: Quranexplorer
Date Posted: 20 June 2014 at 7:53am
Let me make it very clear, I am not anti-science, I admire the good things science has done, but has a problem only when people try to use science as an excuse for their non-belief, because science has nothing to stand against Allah, however advanced it gets.
|
Posted By: airmano
Date Posted: 24 June 2014 at 2:37pm
Airmano |
Posted By: Quranexplorer
Date Posted: 04 July 2014 at 12:47pm
|
Posted By: airmano
Date Posted: 12 July 2014 at 11:40pm
Quranexplorer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IAU_definition_of_planet - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IAU_definition_of_planet Obviously we will never agree since even the specialists in the field do not agree on their definitions(!). To make live easier I will give you some better examples: Classical (Newtonian) mechanics was found to break down on very small scales which lead to the formulation of Quantum mechanics. Furthermore Newtonian mechanics did also not hold at high speeds, high gravitational fields and so on and thus Mr. Einstein had to extend Newtons view for these cases as well. This does however not mean that Newton "was wrong". It simply meant that his theory had to be extended. When you take a plane or drive over a bridge good old Newton still does a marvellous job. I can even agree that there were scientific theories which had to be abandoned, like Lamarcks theory on the evolution (but his theory is still of use in the description of progress in science). May be you can look at these statements as soothing , but before you get overjoyed you should however realize that your claim that the "Quran has withstood any tests for 1400 years flawlessly" is also "wrong" in the same sense. With modern knowledge it is easy to see that the story about Noah's arc is impossible. In ancient times Muslims (as well as Christians) did believe in these stories in a literal sense. You don't need rocket science to find out that there is not enough water on earth to immerse all our continents, not to talk about the impossibility to construct a boat large enough (with the means of the time) to hold all air breathing animals (+ the dinosaurs + the food) inside. There are many more examples in the Quran (like people turning into monkeys) which - when taken literally are shear nonsense. Islam - like Christianity adapt to these changes (imposed by science) by shifting prior "explanations" of our world into metaphorical meanings. So don't tell me that [the interpretation of] the Quran has withstood all tests without changes. BTW: Looking at the "sun as a lamp", you still find people here in the forum that take this claim literally, but science tells a different story. In clear terms: The Quran get's permanently adapted to science, not the other way round ! Wicked people would call this behavior: "Moving the goal-posts". Now to your link: https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=uld0Y-mLoVQC - https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=uld0Y-mLoVQC which you repeat twice. I refuse to respond to links (films) and books without any prior explanation from the posting person. I hope it doesn't sound rude, but to me this looks like: "I have no clue, but may be the one who wrote the book knows more". If the book got really something important to say, break it down in a couple of lines and I'm willing to discuss it. Embryology. You're right, I should have answered earlier. Let me group my answer together with your last question regarding the clay:
Most of the clays are (Alumina-)Silicates like Kaolin (Al2Si2O5(OH)4), they are thus Silicon based. So already on the level of (chemical) elements our body and clay got nothing in common. Therefore this statement is thus simply wrong when taken literally. I guess that Mohamed saw that clay and "flesh" are similar in the sense that they are both soft and easily "malleable". Some forms of clay also look similar to the color of our skin, so nothing supernatural here and in the best case some (wrong) analogy. As usual there is of course nothing about proteins, peptides, DNA and so on in the Quran. No surprise: The Quran is not a science book ! Now more specifically to embryology. In 23:12 it is written:
Concerning the clay I just responded. Now, the "drop of fluid". (Islamic) literature is full of interpretations of this "drop of fluid". Sometimes it is referred to as sperm which brings us the incredible news that kids are coming from sexual intercourse. Next the lump of flesh, mostly interpreted as an embryo: Natural abortions did and do happen all the time (and the likelihood for it to happen goes up if you have several women and also with the age of the man). So you don't need to be Gods messenger to find out that foetuses are (mainly) a "lump of flesh". It is also of no magic to state that what we call "uterus" today can be called a "safe place" for an unborn child. Now to the last sentence "...made that lump into bones, and We clothed those bones with flesh" - No, a foetus never gets converted into bones to become covered by flesh afterwards. This is shear nonsense in the light of modern knowledge. To finish "...and later We made him into other forms" is a bit like my "A" statement. May be true, but so vague that it becomes meaningless. Glad to be of service: Airmano |
Posted By: marcello
Date Posted: 18 July 2014 at 6:34am
It is well known that the Quran contains many, many internal contradictions and inconsistencies. Muslim "scholars" have, for centuries, spent many lifetimes standing on their heads to try to explain these away. Just a few are documented at http://answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/. |
Posted By: Quranexplorer
Date Posted: 25 July 2014 at 6:27am
Thanks for that link and the examples. Frankly there is nothing soothing or to feel overjoyed in these statements for me. Because it is a known fact that science being a human tool was, is and will always be imperfect with a very limited realm of operation, and as with anything human, science is expected to make mistakes and then correct it, and it is this human imperfection that is really driving science forward.
I have never made this claim that the interpretation of the Quran has withstood all tests without changes, but what I have said and continue to say is that QURAN HAS WITHSTOOD THE TEST OF TIME ON ALL ASPECTS AND WILL CONTINUE TO DO SO TILL THE DAY OF RESURRECTION. Now, let�s look at the difference in these two statements. Quran is the word of Allah the almighty and it remains the same always. Whereas the interpretations are made by mortals like me and you with all the human limitations. It is perfectly normal for these human interpretations to get evolved as the human understanding gets improved especially in fields like Science. I will give you this example: Al Anbiya 21:30: 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? - This is perfectly in line with the modern scientific idea of primary nebula followed by separation of elements resulting in formation of galaxies. Also a clear reference to the aquatic origin of life. Now, how can you expect someone who interpreted the Quran with no scientific knowledge on this subject to give you the same interpretation as someone who interprets this verse with the background of the modern knowledge - hope you get my point. The point is that the Quranic verses with their profound meanings remains the same always, but in some cases it takes man considerable time to really understand its meanings to the fullest potential. In fact you brought a very important point � it is one of the unique characteristic of the Quran that it really raises to the level of the reader, a layman looking at the surface level meaning will get only that and for someone who dives deeper in, Quran can really challenge your thoughts to the limit to make you wonder at the magnificence of the ultimate creator. A book which can prompt the reader to look for higher meanings as his understanding gets better � can you think of any other book on the face of this earth which can do this? So in a nutshell, Quran is the same always and as scientific understanding improves, science helps in a supporting role to understand some of the profound meanings in the Quranic verses � that should be clear and people should not get confused with illusions like Quran gets adapted to science or science has got something in competition with Quran and Allah. As we have already discussed here and elsewhere in this forum, there is no point in trying to testify religion with science as matters of faith are clearly beyond the realm of science. However, we can have a look at the specific cases you have quoted: Prophet Noah�s (pbuh) Ark : Let�s see what the Quran says: Hud 11:36-44: And it was inspired in Noah, (saying): No-one of thy folk will believe save him who hath believed already. Be not distressed because of what they do. (36) Build the ship under Our eyes and by Our inspiration, and speak not unto Me on behalf of those who do wrong. Lo! they will be drowned. (37) And he was building the ship, and every time that chieftains of his people passed him, they made mock of him. He said: Though ye make mock of Us, yet We mock at you even as ye mock; (38) And ye shall know to whom a punishment that will confound him cometh, and upon whom a lasting doom will fall. (39) (Thus it was) till, when Our commandment came to pass and the oven gushed forth water, We said: Load therein two of every kind, a pair (the male and female), and thy household, save him against whom the word hath gone forth already, and those who believe. And but a few were they who believed with him. (40) And he said: Embark therein! In the name of Allah be its course and its mooring. Lo! my Lord is Forgiving, Merciful. (41) And it sailed with them amid waves like mountains, and Noah cried unto his son - and he was standing aloof - O my son! Come ride with us, and be not with the disbelievers. (42) He said: I shall betake me to some mountain that will save me from the water. (Noah) said: This day there is none that saveth from the commandment of Allah save him on whom He hath had mercy. And the wave came in between them, so he was among the drowned. (43) And it was said: O earth! Swallow thy water and, O sky! be cleared of clouds! And the water was made to subside. And the commandment was fulfilled. And it (the ship) came to rest upon (the mount) Al-Judi and it was said: A far removal for wrongdoing folk! (44) Now tell me where does it say that the whole of earth was submerged in water? It only talks about a specific people to whom prophet Noah (pbuh) was sent. It is described as a flood caused by heavy downpour with water gushing from inside reservoirs � a typical flood. So why can�t be there enough water quantity to cause this flood? The Ark was to carry a pair of living beings from his location, prophet Noah�s (pbuh) family and the believers, not the entire beings on the earth. So where is the problem of a large enough boat?
No problems, even I don�t follow links unless there is some background information. The only reason I didn�t elaborate was because I was not sure if you would be genuinely interested to discuss its contents. This is a 36 page booklet based on a transcription of a lecture given by Dr. Maurice Bucaille originally in French. I liked it because it is very short and direct to the point on a variety of scientific references in Quran including creation of universe, astronomy, sun moon, orbits, embryology etc. to name a few. Frankly, I don�t have the luxury of time to discuss each of these scientific references in detail, but I would love to do this at some point when I have time.
In a human body living tissues contain 95% carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorus and sulphur, with a total of 26 different elements including Silicon, with oxygen being 65% and Hydrogen 9.5% by weight. So we can see there is much in common between human body and clay at the elemental level and the quranic statement of man being created from the essence of clay is very well substantiated.
Great! Going by your logic, if I go and ask an illiterate man in the desert how a human baby is created, he should be able to give such a detailed explanation as in the Quran. Whereas, even an educated man today won�t be able to explain with such precision unless he has specific knowledge in the field of embryology. But I�m not surprised, this behavior of selective loss of thinking is something observed in human beings especially when they are shown the truth which they are adamant not to accept. Now if you want to get in to the specifics of Quranic verses on embryology, I think the below link in this forum provides some good insight with some interesting pictures: http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=25473 |
Posted By: Quranexplorer
Date Posted: 25 July 2014 at 12:37pm
Really? If you are convinced, why don't you share your understanding on some of these so called contradictions? Maybe we can save some "scholars" spending their lives upside down! |
Posted By: airmano
Date Posted: 25 July 2014 at 8:41pm
Quranexplorer
Than:
Just sum up your own numbers: 95% Carbon, 65% Oxygen, 9.5% Hydrogen? Anyway that's not the point: According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composition_of_the_human_body - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composition_of_the_human_body the mass fraction of Silicon in our body is 20�10−6 and even its biological usefulnes is disputed. So forget about the clay, don't dig any further.
Just think for one second: I take from your (Quranic) post: "And it (the ship) came to rest upon (the mount) Al-Judi " Now, floodings of "deluge size" happen in flatland (remember Katrina in New Orleans ?). For a ship to come to rest on top(!) of a mountain -which implies at least something like a 1000m above sea level to be able to call it such- you need more than just a local flooding. Even if all arctic ice melted away (what did not happen for millenials) the sea level would "only" rise by some dozens of meters and only in a slow process over centuries and not days. Forget it !
In a nutshell the statment in the Quran is "An embryo is a sticky lump of flesh". Even the most illiterate person on earth could have made this observation (the women provided). And again: I hope we don't have to discuss the link between babies and sexual intercourse. Furthermore, Mohamed was indeed illiterate, but as a prior salesman he was certainly not uneducated and by the nature of his job in contact with many other people (where he also learned about christianity). The second claim "Flesh to bones than covered by flesh" is indeed more precise but unfortunately still wrong. Body tissues and bones develop in parallel not sequentially (and even less in this order). So, another failed test I'm afraid. I could add viciously: As soon as the Quran gets a bit more precise (what is rarely the case anyway), the associated claims tend to go wrong more often along with it. Now to your http link at the end. It is always the same story: By showing glossy pictures they try to insinuate the existence of a connection between what is written in the Quran and modern science. But a (wrong) few line statement about "embryology" in the Quran remains a wrong few line statement - whatever number of glossy pictures you add. BTW: This verse ends with "So blessed is Allah , the best of creators." I thought there was only one creator in Islam ? (I stop counting here). C'est la vie: Airmano |
Posted By: marcello
Date Posted: 30 July 2014 at 10:24am
There are literally hundreds of contradictions, just take a look at the link I provided. The research has been done, the explanations are there. |
Posted By: Quranexplorer
Date Posted: 02 August 2014 at 2:30am
There are thousands of sites on the net with so much nonsense. I won't waste my time looking at links provided by someone who can't even share his understanding on something which he is so sure about. |
Posted By: Quranexplorer
Date Posted: 02 August 2014 at 11:35pm
Once you are able to appreciate this human imperfection, that should be the starting point to look for something perfect and at this point a sincere approach to the Quran can guide you. I quote the below verses from the Quran as a representative example: Al-Baqara 2:2-5: This is the Scripture whereof there is no doubt, a guidance unto those who ward off (evil). (2) Who believe in the Unseen, and establish worship, and spend of that We have bestowed upon them; (3) And who believe in that which is revealed unto thee (Muhammad) and that which was revealed before thee, and are certain of the Hereafter. (4) These depend on guidance from their Lord. These are the successful. (5) Someone who starts reading these words with a sincere intent would naturally continue further and he would find the Quran as: A book that exhorts man to live a righteous life submitting his will to the will of Allah � a book that asks man to look at the signs available around him including the unity of design of this universe to understand the sovereignty of Allah � a book that talks about perfect justice to all with an ultimate level of personal responsibility � a book full of positivity and optimism and so on. Once having made a sincere approach to the Quran, the only reasons someone would deny Allah and Quran really boil down to the following: 1. Man�s love with the pleasures of this world � he finds it very difficult to sacrifice some of the pleasures of this world for the eternal success in the hereafter 2. Man�s high level of ego � he finds it very difficult to accept the truth that is different from the system in which he is currently in All other reasons are just the mental projections that are intended to somehow cover these basic reasons.
Just to clarify the numbers � 95% refers to the entire group of 6 elements (carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorus and sulphur) out of which oxygen is 65% and Hydrogen 9.5% by weight. Hope this clarifies.
I have used �aspect� to mean as below (you get this if you google aspect meaning): �a particular part or feature of something." synonyms: feature, facet, side, characteristic, particular, detail, point,ingredient, strand; More Regarding prophet Noah�s (pbuh) Ark: First of all, Quran does not say the Ark came to rest on �top� of the mountain, it could be anywhere �on� the mountain. Second, to quote Mark Twain "Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." � there are many things in history and still happening that are beyond the human possibilities. And considering the overall wisdom of Quran, I won�t waste my time speculating on possibilities that have no value.
Now comes the double standards typical to the rejecters of truth. When you want to prove a point, the most impossible kind of things are portrayed as the most obvious and when you want to deny the truth, the most obvious of interpretations become the most impossible one for you! Al-Mumenoon 23:12-14: Verily We created man from a product of wet earth; (12) Then placed him as a drop (of seed) in a safe lodging; (13) Then fashioned We the drop a clot, then fashioned We the clot a little lump, then fashioned We the little lump bones, then clothed the bones with flesh, and then produced it as another creation. So blessed be Allah, the Best of creators! (14) What you are trying here is to pick one statement at a time from the above verses and look for some kind of a reason to reject it by trying to fit a rare possibility, and conveniently ignore other statements which you fail even to find that rare possibility � overall it comes out as a disgusting attempt to manipulate the truth � but for anyone who looks at these verses sincerely, the truth is obvious � a clear description of the development of a human embryo in stages. There was no way prophet Muhammad (pbuh) could be certain of the staged development of an embryo 1400 years ago with such details: 1. How can he be sure of �safe lodging�? � if you dig deeper, you will understand the significance of �safe� that the embryo is not clinging inside the stomach just like that but is really in a protective environment 2. How does he know the drop later became a clot? 3. How does he know it later became a lump? 4. How does he know the bones started developing at a later stage? 5. How does he know the muscles covered bones at a further later stage? (your comment further down indicating otherwise is wrong) Another striking thing is that Quranic description is devoid of any of the widespread misconceptions on embryology at that time.
No, you are wrong. In the development of human embryo the bones develop inside the mass and are then covered with muscles � time to get your facts right!
I can only see you making wrong statements and applying double standards here.
You have got your facts wrong, so first get your facts right. There is no point in generic personal opinions like �wrong few line statements� etc. And once you get your facts right, how do you explain other quranic statements on embryology?
That is addressed to those who think there are multiple creators. No need to get confused. |
Posted By: airmano
Date Posted: 04 August 2014 at 2:50am
Quranexplorer:
-------------------------------------------------------- Than you speculate about the reasons why somebody rejects the (divinity) of the Quran. I think you've forgotten about point three:
-------------------------------------------------------- Now to my statement ("we are not made out of clay = Silicates", as the Quran states):
------------------------------------------------------- Now to Noah Ark:
You do nothing else than appealing to a miracle here! What would stop the water from running off into lower areas? A gigantic wall that God built to retain the water and drown the people?? This is exactly the point that I observe quite often in discussions with Muslims: On the surface the saying is: "Islam is pro-science" As soon as science contradicts the Quran - as it is the case here - (be it "top" or "on" the mountain it still implies something like >1000m) the eyes are shut by saying "And considering the overall wisdom of Quran, I won�t waste my time speculating on possibilities that have no value". You could as well say: "If reality enters in conflict with the Quran, the Quran is automatically right. (or worse). --------------------------------------------------------- Than to my post:
Actually, I do get confused! If you're interpretation was correct, Mohamed (or God) would deliberately lie to those that believe in multiple creators: Knowing that there is only one creator - but saying that there are many! Is Allah a liar ? ------------------------------------------------------- To end the embryology story: Could you provide me with a neutral link (like Wikipedia or University pages) or cite the line(s) in a chapter of a medical/science book supporting your theory(-ies)? i.e. on the sequence: "...made that lump into bones, and We clothed those bones with flesh". To repeat, the temporal sequence: A) lump transforms into bones and than B)(These)bones [are] getting covered/surrounded by flesh, where you insist so heavily on its correctness. I do have access to libraries to check. When I say "neutral", this implies obviously a scientific and not a (biased) Islamic link/website or book. Eagerly awaiting your answers Airmano |
Posted By: marcello
Date Posted: 06 August 2014 at 9:35am
How can you say it is nonsense if you refuse to look at it? You have clearly fallen into the deep well of ignorance populated by so many religious people: don't trouble me with facts or new information, the Quran (New Testament, Old Testament, etc.) is all I need! I therefore won't waste my time paraphrasing and interpreting for you material that is well-researched and well-explained elsewhere. |
Posted By: Quranexplorer
Date Posted: 11 August 2014 at 7:03pm
No worries, you have your opinion and I have mine. In a discussion forum like this, I choose to discuss with people who have their own understanding on issues and not those who just quote external links from some source. So maybe we can discuss some other time when you have time to share your own understanding on something specific. |
Posted By: Quranexplorer
Date Posted: 11 August 2014 at 9:40pm
Since you have added point no. 3, I understand you are in agreement with the first two points. In that case, if you really work on the first two points, you will see that the point no. 3 disappears automatically. It really works!
You specifically asked for the numbers and I replied. You made a wrong statement as below:
This has been already replied, again quoted below:
Even Aluminium is present in the human body. So at an elemental level all the elements in your clay formula Al2Si2O5(OH)4 are present in the human body.
I don�t see the need for any miracles here and I don�t see science contradicting Quran either, but I see your personal speculation contradicting Quran, which is fine. I have no problems with scientifically established facts, but I have a problem with mere speculations presented under the disguise of science. If you can scientifically establish without any trace of doubt that a flood destroying the people of prophet Noah (pbuh) was absolutely impossible, then there is a case for discussion. Otherwise, there is no point in wasting time on speculations. Going by your logic, there shall be no flooding on earth as the water always has an opportunity to drain off to a lower area as there is something below the earth surface always, but I see floods happening around the world all the time. And I don�t see any scientific contradiction in this as my simple logic of physics tells me that a flood is possible anywhere if the water inflow exceeds the water outflow! ---------------------------------------------------------
I�m not surprised if you are confused, because I see this is something you are really good at! Man is given with the free will to choose his path and you are responsible in choosing your path. So if you choose not to accept the remaining 6,235 verses from Quran and get confused with this one verse, don�t blame Allah and prophet Muhammad (pbuh) for that. -------------------------------------------------------
I have already referred to the Quran and it�s interpretations by experts in the field of embryology with an understanding of these Quranic verses. Now you are free to quote your neutral libraries if you have any disagreement. |
Posted By: airmano
Date Posted: 12 August 2014 at 8:26pm
|
Point 1-3: Would you know what a logical conjunction is ?
Especially the difference between "And" and "Or" bindings ? -------------------------------------------------------- To the "clay business": After your Silicon got debunked you try the Aluminium. Well, Al is even ten times more rare in our body than Si and there are even speculations about the "effect" of Al in our body like: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/02/140212093300.htm - Alzheimer May be that this is the problem !? ----------------------------------------------------- Than to Noah's ark you wrote:
----------------------------------------------------- Than regarding the "multiple creators": you go the ususal path by saying nothing else than: I don't care about this (wrong) statement (or lie ?) in the Quran since the rest is great ! -------------------------------------------------------- And to the embryology [in the Quran], when I asked you about non-islamic sources to prove its correctness. You wrote:
Why am I not surprised ? Airmano |
Posted By: Matt Browne
Date Posted: 04 October 2014 at 3:23am
I totally agree. The Muslim scientists of the Golden Islamic Age read the Quran to enhance their spiritual lives, but they rediscovered the ancient Greek scientific texts, in order to understand them and improve them. Trying to discover science in Quranic verses is like contemplating the shape of cumulus clouds. This looks like a sheep, doesn't it? Or a goat. Perhaps a cat. ------------- A religion that's intolerant of other religions can't be the world's best religion --Abdel Samad Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people--Eleanor Roosevelt |
Posted By: Quranexplorer
Date Posted: 11 October 2014 at 3:31am
|
It's good to be back after a break!
To Airmano: I didn't see any logical conjunction in your reply but just a new point no.3 added at the bottom. No worries, I know you won't be able to agree with the points 1 and 2 in any case and that doesn't need any reasoning with conjunctions. You have clearly failed to prove wrong the clay statement in Quran as all the elements in your clay formula are present in the human body. Looks like once you fail on the elemental composition, it's time to look at the quantitative composition as the next excuse? Noah's Ark: There is no point in denying the possibility of a flood with some speculative limits set by limited human knowledge. I can agree with you if you can definitively establish a scientific proof that no flood is possible above 400MSL. Can you? Your confusion on multiple creators: Al-Baqara 2:2577 Allah is the Protecting Guardian of those who believe. He bringeth them out of darkness into light. As for those who disbelieve, their patrons are false deities. They bring them out of light into darkness. Such are rightful owners of the Fire. They will abide therein. The choice of light or darkness is yours. On embryology: I have given my version based on the Quran and you are the one looking to deny the Quran. So what is stopping you from quoting your so called neutral libraries if you think you have some ground to deny the Quran?? |
Posted By: Quranexplorer
Date Posted: 11 October 2014 at 5:51am
Quran is the ultimate book of wisdom from the creator to guide humans to the right path to achieve the ultimate goal of human existence - the success in the hereafter. Quran uses a variety of ways to drive home the unity of Allah and the need for humans to match their will with the will of Allah - references to various phenomena in the natural world are one of them to guide men of understanding. Some of these references fall within the limited realm of science. Whereas the Quranic realm is far beyond the limited realm of science. For someone who approaches the Quran with the right intent these scientific references in Quran are clear and are strikingly far beyond the the general level of knowledge available at it's time of revelation. A generic statement of denial is the easiest way, but a look at the details will clearly show the folly in such statements. It would be a good idea to read this thread from the beginning to understand some of these scientific references before jumping to wrong conclusions. |
Posted By: Matt Browne
Date Posted: 18 October 2014 at 3:32am
|
There is no ultimate book of wisdom. We will see many wise books in the years and centuries to come. There is wisdom in the Bible and Quran, but it is not ultimate or absolute. And it doesn't cover everything we need to know. ------------- A religion that's intolerant of other religions can't be the world's best religion --Abdel Samad Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people--Eleanor Roosevelt |
Posted By: qasim nabeel
Date Posted: 20 October 2014 at 4:59am
| MashALLAH members explain it so vastly .... |
Posted By: airmano
Date Posted: 27 October 2014 at 1:52pm
@Quranexplorer
---------------------------------------------------- Than
---------------------------------------------------- and than:
---------------------------------------------------- Last not least:
I'm sure you won't find any - besides the unfortunate Moore (who pulled back from it later). ---------------------------------------------------- Just to cut a long story short: I think I will stop discussing with you and let the grown up reader decide between the arguments you brought up and those that I formulated. From time to time I will nevertheless check on the "renowned scientists" you'll list in order to corroborate your claims. Airmano |
Posted By: Quranexplorer
Date Posted: 27 October 2014 at 8:23pm
Finally, something I can agree with you right away. Personally, I had been thinking about this for quite a while. The only thing that kept me going was the thought if this could be of any value to the sensible readers out there. |
Posted By: Quranexplorer
Date Posted: 27 October 2014 at 8:28pm
Shukran brother. Happy to know you find the discussion interesting. Jazakallah Khair. |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 28 October 2014 at 10:58am
This is like saying that the human body is made of atoms, and clay is made of atoms, therefore the human body is made of clay. What you're missing, and what clay is missing, is carbon. As any science fiction fan will tell you, humans are "carbon-based units". A molecule is considered organic, by definition, if it contains at least one carbon atom. Clay contains essentially no carbon. It is inorganic, by definition, and no lifeform can be made from it. (At least not any lifeform we have ever seen on earth. Maybe the Quran was originally drafted for silicon-based creatures in some other galaxy, and this clay reference was overlooked in the editing process.  ) ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: Quranexplorer
Date Posted: 28 October 2014 at 12:08pm
Let us have a look at what the Quran says: Sad 38:72 And when I have fashioned him and breathed into him of My Spirit, then fall down before him prostrate It is clear that there were two separate processes here.1) Creation of human form out of clay and 2) Imparting life to the form by breathing the spirit of Allah. Now,I wonder if some of our science fiction fans were present during the second process to vouch there was no Carbon involved during this process. And I just get further curious, with these extremely talented scientific minds around, combined with such high level of knowledge on the constituents of a life form, why is it not possible to mix all these components in the right proportion to create life? Surely worth all the efforts considering the so many troubled minds wandering in if's,but's,speculations and uncertainties 
|
Posted By: airmano
Date Posted: 30 October 2014 at 7:40am
|
Here: http://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/may/20/craig-venter-synthetic-life-form - Synthetic Life
Any other questions ? Glad to be of service: Airmano ---------------------------------------------------- Ps_I: For once I'm interested: What does the Quran say about synthetic life ? Ps_II: Any news on "...many experts in the field of embryology" ? |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 30 October 2014 at 8:50am
1) Since virtually every molecule of the human body contains carbon, what would it mean to "fashion" a body without using carbon? 2) Oh, so Allah's "spirit" is made of carbon? 
We're making progress (see airmano's response). Considering that it (allegedly) took Allah about a billion years from the time the earth was formed, I'd say we're doing pretty well. ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: Quranexplorer
Date Posted: 30 October 2014 at 12:49pm
A significant achievement for science indeed. But how can incorporating a synthetically generated genome to an existing bacterium (that too a single cell organism) to develop a new species be compared even remotely to the original creation of countless infinitely complex life forms by a single command of Allah? Having understood the complexity and the precision behind the creation of a life form even as micro as a bacterium, how can people still be deluded away to believe that all the complex life forms in existence just happened out of mere chance without a reason? PS I: Why do you think this has to be there in Quran? PS II: My arguments are already there and you are free to quote your sources. Don't wait for me on this. |
Posted By: Quranexplorer
Date Posted: 30 October 2014 at 1:28pm
Let's not waste time on the usual if's and but's under the disguise of science. Have you got something solid to establish with 100% certainty that no Carbon could have got into the life form during the process 2 I mentioned above.Otherwise it is pointless to just talk on the possibilities,uncertainties etc.
So does that mean the so called "We" have started making something completely on their own? But all I can see is simple human beings living on the earth of Allah utilizing all the resources freely available to them. Apart from being thankless for all the mercies that Allah has bestowed on his creatures,they become full of arrogance and think they are comparable to Allah just by achieving something infinitely insignificant in comparison to Allah's creation (see my response to Airmano). |
Posted By: airmano
Date Posted: 01 November 2014 at 11:56am
QE
Hint: Just google "Darwin and Evolution".
Are there cases where the Quran has nothing to say ? Which ?
Still waiting. Airmano |
Posted By: NABA
Date Posted: 02 November 2014 at 2:19am
| Allah in ch 96 v 1-2 of Quran says-"proclaim! In the name of thy lord and cherisher, who created-created man out of mere clot of congealed blood".word alaq besides meaning a congealed clot of blood also means something that clings, a leech like substance.Dr.keeth moore who was professor of embryology and chairman of department of anatomy at university of Toronto, canada, had no knowledge whether an embryo in initial stages appears like a leech.to check this he studied initial stage of embryo under a very powerful microscope in his lab and compared what he observed with a diagram of a l.eech and he was astinished at striking resemblance between the two. |
Posted By: airmano
Date Posted: 02 November 2014 at 7:30am
I knew that we'd end up with Moore  !
He's the only "renowned scientist" expressing that "there is some truth to the claims of the Quran" but QE spoke of "many scientists". Where are the others? Moore used this statement to please the Saudi Family at the time. When he saw that his words were heavily abused for religious purposes (as here) he didn't even want to be reminded of his own claims later on. Here, this is what most of the renowned scientist think about him nowadays: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/11/03/islamic-apologetics-in-the-int - Iqra ! Airmano |
Posted By: Quranexplorer
Date Posted: 03 November 2014 at 11:21am
Now let the sensible readers out there decide whose words are more credible here: First we have an eminent embryologist (Dr. Keith Moore) who conducted a detailed study on the quranic references on the embryo development and has presented his findings at the world stage with detailed scientific supporting showing what the Quran said 1,400 years ago matches with the scientific facts known now. Moreover, the fact that he published his results being a non-muslim should be proof enough to show that he was not doing it from religious motives. Also the fact that even his critic here (with a clear personal interest) has no doubt on his caliber having acknowledged all his works except this one on quranic references on embryology should be proof enough to show that he definitely has the authority to comment on these matters. Second we have a hardcore atheist (PZ Myres) who mostly resorts to personal attacks to denounce the work of someone whose works he acknowledges as good except this one on quran! And that is obviously understandable considering his personal interests to protect something that he believes in. And coming to your �Saudi Family� comment, do you have something to prove it or is it the same baseless allegations as usual when people find themselves on shaky grounds? |
Posted By: airmano
Date Posted: 03 November 2014 at 11:51pm
|
To QE
You wrote in person that "many renowned scientists/embryologists confirm the [embryologic] claims of the Quran". Everybody can check that you used the plural and that I already warned at the beginning that I want somebody else than Moore. Still waiting. Airmano Ps: I come to Moore once you've given some names from your allegedly long list. I bet you will say "Gimme your comments about Moore first" - simply to hide that you have no other names. |
Posted By: Quranexplorer
Date Posted: 04 November 2014 at 1:49am
This is what I said earlier:
Since the Quranic statements are available in the public domain for any sort of scrutiny, the natural way to discuss any differences is for the disputer to bring his arguments with solid proofs, which I have not seen from your side. Now if you insist, here is a http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Science/scientists.html - list of experts giving their opinion on the quranic references including embryology so that you don't have to use its absence as the next excuse. |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 04 November 2014 at 7:46am
Let me ask again: is Allah's "spirit" made of carbon? Because it would have to be, if "process 2" (breathing His "spirit" into a body made of clay) would add carbon atoms.
No, we are not comparable to Allah. In the first place, we actually exist, whereas Allah does not. More importantly, we are not so arrogant to suggest that we can reproduce in a single laboratory experiment the product of billions of years of evolution. The point of the experiment mentioned by airmano is not that we can create life "from scratch" in a test tube (yet). The point is that the creation of life is a purely physical process -- still beyond our capabilities, but there is nothing mystical about it. ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 04 November 2014 at 9:53am
Where is this "detailed study"? Moore is not a Quranic scholar. He was one of many scientists who were http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB1011738146332966760 - bribed and manipulated into endorsing the Quranic claims of Islamic fundamentalists, notably Abdul Majeed al-Zindani (close friend of a certain Osama Bin Laden). Many of these scientists have repudiated and retracted those decades-old endorsements. Moore is apparently too embarrassed to comment at all. None of them are standing behind their claims.
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PZ_Myers - Wikipedia , Myers is an American scientist and associate professor of biology at the University of Minnesota Morris (UMM).
The major source of Moore's alleged support for the Quran is from the book he "co-authored" with al-Zindani, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology with Islamic Additions. It was commissioned by the World Muslim League, which is primarily funded by Saudi Arabia. However, the base text, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, was written several years earlier; the "Islamic Additions" were added by al-Zindani. Moore contributed little to the revised version, but was presumably well paid merely for allowing his name to be attached to it. ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: Quranexplorer
Date Posted: 04 November 2014 at 10:28am
See how these discussions are opening new frontiers for science to explore! Unfortunately, I am neither a so called science fan to blindly speculate and theorize, nor am I a "know it all" to answer your question.
And you admit that absolute creation is beyond human capabilities, then on what grounds you say there is nothing mystical about something which is clearly beyond your capabilities! |
Posted By: airmano
Date Posted: 04 November 2014 at 11:52am
|
...and to finish the story:
Needless to say that Moore never became a Muslim, and as the Wall Street Journal contacted him about this subject a bit more than ten years ago he declined to be interviewed. Reached in Toronto at the time, he said he was busy revising his textbook and that "it's been 10 or 11 years since I was involved in the Quran". Here: http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB1011738146332966760 - WSJ Any other questions ? And now: Who are the other renowned embryologists endorsing this claim ? (V <- this my counter from now on(roman 5), counting how often I asked you this question without getting an answer) Airmano |
Posted By: NABA
Date Posted: 05 November 2014 at 2:15am
| E Marshall Johnson, T.V.N persaud, Joe Leigh Simpson were covinced about Quran being word of Allah. |
Posted By: airmano
Date Posted: 05 November 2014 at 3:11am
|
Just as a starter:
Do a "Find" on "Joe Leigh Simpson" in the WSJ article/link I gave in my previous post. T.V.N Persaud and Moore published together, same gang. More later Airmano |
Posted By: airmano
Date Posted: 05 November 2014 at 1:12pm
|
I couldn't find much information about "E Marshall Johnson" (of course there are a lot of wildly speculating Islamic pages).
Having said so all the videos about him are old and I couldn't find anything recent about him. There doesn't seem to be a Wikientry under his name (so he was probably not only half as important as claimed) and I also couldn't find anything about his personal/religious convictions. Well after all, let's agree that a rather unknown Professor once said that the Quranic claims about embryology are correct. So what ? Airmano |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 05 November 2014 at 5:54pm
Here is Johnson's " http://islamvsatheism.wordpress.com/2012/11/05/dr-e-marshall-johnson/ - ringing endorsement " ( ) of the Quran: "I see no evidence for the fact to refute the concept that this individual, Muhammad, had to be developing this information from some place. So I see nothing here in conflict with the concept that divine intervention was involved in what he was able to write."In exchange for which, he got a free trip to Saudi Arabia, a stay in a posh hotel, fancy banquets, etc. Shucks, with a deal like that I'd happily say the same thing! And not incidentally, all of the guys mentioned by NABA were invited to the same Saudi conference and were bribed/duped by al-Zindani in exactly the same way. (Although in Johnson's case, I'd say he duped them.  )
------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: Quranexplorer
Date Posted: 05 November 2014 at 7:20pm
I know some people may find these news paper stories of conspiracy, bribe etc. amusing. But not all would buy such speculative stories in the absence of solid evidence. Further: 1. It is hard to believe that men of such academic background were so naive to act like puppets in someone's hand to endorse something they did not actually believe that could damage their reputation so badly. 2. They were already well established in the society in reputable positions (that will mean even financially) and with excellent previous track records, so there is no reason to believe that they were just after the money to risk all the good reputation they have earned so far. So the bottom line is on one hand we have the real endorsements by real people out there in public domain and on the other hand we have all these speculative stories attributing bribery, hidden motives etc. based on shaky grounds as usual. So it is up to the neutral minds out there to choose what they want to believe. Moreover Dr. Maurice Bucaille is a Muslim now. Prof. Tejatat Tejasen is a Muslim now. |
Posted By: NABA
Date Posted: 05 November 2014 at 9:55pm
| @airmano so u r proved wrong, u asked the names besides moore I gave it. |
Posted By: airmano
Date Posted: 06 November 2014 at 12:56am
|
Wrong ? How can a question be "wrong" ?
I asked QE 5 times he never gave an answer to my request to supply more [credible] names than Moore. What is "Wrong" in asking 5 times ? Than: If I interpret the sentence Ron put in correctly (I did not check for more/other sentences):
This is about as saying: "I see no [logical] conflict between the birds singing and the stock market going down". Well, I don't see a conflict there either ! Needless to say that there is even an error in his sentence, Muhammad was illiterate, so it was certainly not him writing anyway. I.a.w.: he doesn't seem to know much about the Quran either. Airmano |
Posted By: NABA
Date Posted: 06 November 2014 at 9:49pm
| U asked names other than moore, I gave it!!!! Its upto u what u want to interpret |
Posted By: Quranexplorer
Date Posted: 06 November 2014 at 11:00pm
As NABA said, he has already given you names other than Moore. So your statement that there is nobody else other than Moore endorsing the Quranic references on embryology is proved wrong. I have also given a list of experts, just to stop your excuses. You can find this if you scroll further down along the comments. Now coming to Johnson's comment, I'm not sure whether it is a case of you being confused (as it seems always) or you are trying to use the age old strategy "if you can't convince then try to confuse". In either case it comes out as such a poor attempt. For anyone who reads the statement, the crux of the matter is clear that he is pointing at the divine origin of Quran. |
Posted By: NABA
Date Posted: 08 November 2014 at 1:51am
| 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. |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 08 November 2014 at 8:19am
I interpret that you were reluctant to give these names at first because you knew what a weak response it would be. All these guys attended the the same conference and all of them were bribed and tricked in the same way by al-Zindani. And as far as I can tell none of them stand by their initial statements. ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 08 November 2014 at 8:41am
No, he is saying that the evidence presented to him does not refute and is not conflict with a divine origin. I'm not surprised that you can't see the difference, though. That's exactly the kind of logical confusion that leads to irrational beliefs. In fact, it mat be the fundamental difference between science and religion, come to think of it. A scientist says, "I won't believe it until you can prove it." A theist says, "I'll believe it until you can disprove it" -- and thinks he's saying the same thing. [edit -- double post.] ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: Quranexplorer
Date Posted: 08 November 2014 at 9:59am
Now, let's look at this a bit closer: When Johnson says the evidence presented to him does not refute and is not in conflict with a divine origin, it clearly means that he is eliminating the possibility of any other source from where this information could have come in the Quran, because in such case that possibility would have been definitely in conflict with a divine origin of Quran. Now you are saying for a man of science that is not enough - you need proof. Below are the questions that I raised before regarding the proofs in a different thread, but never got a credible answer: Now coming to the �proof business� which seems to be the last resort of escape for the proponents of science and reason: Having already seen both human reason and science when applied alone are not good enough even to explain or prove many things in the human world, please give some credible answers to below questions if you are serious about the proofs: 1. What proof are you looking at for you to believe in Quran and Allah? 2. What mechanism do you suggest to establish this proof having already seen the failure of both human reason and science to fully establish such proofs even in the much limited human world, let alone the realm of Allah? |
Posted By: airmano
Date Posted: 09 November 2014 at 8:54pm
Naba:
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: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClHuG880pqU - Alfred Kr�ner In case you have more time, here's an even more funny one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKa61I0_8e8 - 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: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Josephson - 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: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/17/science/17einsteinw.html?_r=0 - Einstein ? Before we go any further: Did you read the article about Einstein up to the end this time ? Nice talking to you ! Airmano |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 13 November 2014 at 8:46am
It doesn't mean that at all. I cannot refute that a " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russells_teapot - 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.
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? ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: Tim the plumber
Date Posted: 13 November 2014 at 1:56pm
|
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. |
Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 13 November 2014 at 3:17pm
|
Ron,
God leaves each one of us to deny or accept His existence after He has given us the tools and guidance. If it is easy for you to deny His existence because He does not have a website or did not contact you with an email directly, honestly be ready to give that as an answer if you think that that represents the outcome of your level of intelligence and understanding. Nothing is hard for God, He only gives us chance to reflect by giving us another day, another night, another moment, but there is an end point to it. Hasan ------------- The friends of God will certainly have nothing to fear, nor will they be grieved. Al Quran 10:62 |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 13 November 2014 at 5:26pm
|
Again, I'm not denying the existence of God. I'm saying, along with http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=28659&PID=192314#192314 - 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!
------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: airmano
Date Posted: 14 November 2014 at 9:59am
Honeto:
Why ? Airmano |
Posted By: Quranexplorer
Date Posted: 14 November 2014 at 12:49pm
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.
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. |
Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 15 November 2014 at 1:16pm
Dear friend, we all know we can choose what we believe or do, that's what I meant. The reason we are here is for nothing else, to make our choices. If we choose to obey God, God has left that on us to do so. If we choose to disobey God, it is our choice. God has given us a clear picture of what will happen with each choice we make. Thus it is clear that God, after has given us the picture of the outcome leaves us to make our choices. Hasan ------------- The friends of God will certainly have nothing to fear, nor will they be grieved. Al Quran 10:62 |
Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 15 November 2014 at 1:56pm
|
Dear Ron,
please correct me if I am wrong, but you give me a perception that your belief in God is dependent upon what goes on in this world on a daily basis, acts of people, what people do. If people do bad on earth you doubt that there is any God, I assume, if there was peace on earth you would say your belief in God is firmer? Ron, I am sure you are aware of the verse of the Quran that says God has given Adam and his children a time on earth so each one of them can have a chance to prove themselves and thus earn their eternal destination in peace and happiness or else. If we fail in this chance which is given to us we have ourselves to blame for not doing the right thing. We see that each one of us is free to do good things, save lives, or do bad things and shed blood. It is not because God does not exist or cannot control what he has created, no, but because God has appointed a day on which this world will come to end and until then there will be good and bad on this earth. As a command from God to those who believe, they must follow the way of justice and goodness. On the day of Judgement, the court will be in session, justice will be served. It will be after that that none will be able to choose or do bad things anymore. Those who did bad, and shed blood will be punished accordingly, while those who sincerely made effort to obey God, do good, value life will rejoice as they are announced as the winners that day, and rewarded. Can the reward for doing good be anything but good? can reward for doing bad anything but bad? This is very important because we are told that Justice will be done to the tinniest detail possible, and that nothing is hidden from the sight of God. What a relief that is to a believer. Hasan ------------- The friends of God will certainly have nothing to fear, nor will they be grieved. Al Quran 10:62 |
Posted By: airmano
Date Posted: 15 November 2014 at 2:22pm
Hasan on my Question: Why [God leaves each one of us to deny or accept His existence]:
Again (in explicit form): Why does God want us to accept his existence ? And to add another layer: Why would God want us to worship him ? Airmano |
Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 15 November 2014 at 3:18pm
|
Airmano,
God is free of all wants or need. God does not need our worship to be God, we need Him however, we are dependent upon Him. If Nokia makes a phone and that phone does not serve it's purpose what you do think Nokia will do with it? To love and serve and worship my maker is only my act, my acknowledgement that He made me, gave me the faculties of seeing, hearing, feeling, thinking, comprehending and so on. It is my recognition and thanking and serving Him that come out natural when I make sense of things. You can tell someone all day that you love them, but that love only becomes real when you do something beside lip service, that doing something is putting words in practice. If we don't serve our purpose what use we have other than to be used as fuel for fire. Hasan ------------- The friends of God will certainly have nothing to fear, nor will they be grieved. Al Quran 10:62 |
Posted By: Tim the plumber
Date Posted: 16 November 2014 at 3:24am
Choosing what you believe is called misleading yourself. I do not choose what I believe. I believe what I do. If something comes along which causes me to change what I believe then I am forced to change my mind and admit that I was wrong. |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 16 November 2014 at 7:58am
No, not what people do, but what God does. Which, as far as I can see, is nothing at all. The world operates exactly as it would without God.
I have no problem with being punished if I fail to do the right thing (though I have to say that God's punishments often far exceed what is warranted by the crime). I just don't see why I should have to suffer because of other people's failings. Especially if God claims to care about me and promises to protect me.
It's no relief at all for me to know that bad people will be punished. I don't want them punished. I want them stopped. I want them prevented from hurting others. If a policeman sees someone assaulting me (and assuming the policeman can stop it), I expect him to intervene and protect me from harm. I would be angry if he simply stood there watching and did nothing. It would be little comfort to know that he would be a good witness at my assailant's trial later. P.S.: To quote your own words to airmano, "You can tell someone all day that you love them, but that love only becomes real when you do something beside lip service, that doing something is putting words in practice." ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 16 November 2014 at 9:57am
I'm not sure I see the difference. If I wrote a book claiming the existence of the Celestial Teapot, and asked an expert in teapots to evaluate my book, would that then be a "real situation"? If the expert responded that based on my book, he couldn't refute the claim, would he then be endorsing the existence of the Celestial Teapot?
It doesn't worry me that my reason is in conflict with your fantastic tale. It should worry you that your fantasy is in conflict with reason.
But is it filling the gaps with truth, or with fantasy? And how do you know, unless you too are relying on reason to evaluate the Quran?
"I must emphasize that this is a list of the most influential persons in history, not a list of the greatest. For example, there is room in my list for an enormously influential, wicked, and heartless man like Stalin, but no place at all for the saintly Mother Cabrini." - Michael H. Hart, https://archive.org/stream/100MostInfluentialManInHistory/100_most_influential#page/n23/mode/1up - The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History
I am not free at all to make the choice. I have to accept the evidence and the results of my own reason, just as you do. As http://www.davidpbrown.co.uk/nota-bene/believe-the-impossible.html - Alice put it (in Through the Looking-Glass), "There's no use trying. One can't believe impossible things." ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 16 November 2014 at 2:39pm
Ron, I will reply to all your points but one at a time. Here is the reply to the first part. Ron, God does not interfere because it is our test, except if it is in His plan (saving Jesus or Moses, pbut). Since it is our test and we are given time and tools to go through it, the results will be handed out when this term is finished. In an examination hall an exam conductor does not help a student who is doing bad, nor reward the one doing good. That part of rewarding or punishing, the results come later. Position of each one of us on this earth is that of a student in the exam room. Hasan ------------- The friends of God will certainly have nothing to fear, nor will they be grieved. Al Quran 10:62 |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 16 November 2014 at 6:13pm
Hi Hasan, If you don't mind, I think I'll wait until you have answered fully before I respond myself. Sometimes I can combine several points into a single response, which makes the conversation less confusing and repetitious. By the way, feel free not to respond in detail to every point if you don't want to or don't have time. Sometimes these discussions can grow out of control and become tedious and time-consuming, rather than entertaining and informative. It may be best for both of us just to drop certain minor points and focus on the main ones. If you omit something that I think is critical, I'll come back to it; and I hope you will do the same for me. ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: airmano
Date Posted: 17 November 2014 at 12:23pm
My Question to Honeto
Your (Honeto's) Answer:
Now: On one side you write "God doesn't need our worship" (why shall we than worship him ???) but on the other side you speak of "purpose". From your first sentence I conclude that our purpose is not "worshiping him". What is it than ? Confused: Airmano |
Posted By: NABA
Date Posted: 17 November 2014 at 11:09pm
| Allah says in ch 67 v 2 of Quran Allah created life and death to test us who is good in deeds.Allah wants to see whether we obey him or not.Allah in ch 51 v 56 says Allah created humans and jinns only to worship him.Allah in ch 40 v 60 of Quran says ask Allah so that he will give you and anybody who is refrained from this will go to hell.so it is for our betterment we worship Allah.Allah in ch 4 v 28 says Allah is here to remove difficulties, he created man weak.so when we pray we pray so that we can be successful in this world and hereafter.Allah also gave a prayer to us-"oh lord grant us good in this world and hereafter and save us from torment if fire"(ch 2 v 201), in fact Allah to increase the weight of prayer said in ch 37 v 143-144 that if prophet jonah (pbuh) would not asked Allah for help, Allah would have kept him in belly of whale till judgement day. |
Posted By: airmano
Date Posted: 18 November 2014 at 9:10am
Naba
So after all, our [only] duty is to worship him ? Any idea why He wants this [especially since he even doesn't even need it] ? More and more confused: Airmano |
Posted By: Quranexplorer
Date Posted: 18 November 2014 at 11:10am
"My choice of Muhammad to lead the list of the world's most influential persons may surprise some readers and may be questioned by others, but he was the only man in history who was supremely successful on both the religious and secular levels. Of humble origins, Muhammad founded and promulgated one of the world's great religions, and became an immensely effective political leader. Today, thirteen centuries after his death, his influence is still powerful and pervasive. The majority of the persons in this book had the advantage of being born and raised in centers of civilization, highly cultured or politically pivotal nations. Muhammad, however, was born in the year 570, in the city of Mecca, in southern Arabia, at that time a backward area of the world, far from the centers of trade, art, and learning."
|
Posted By: Quranexplorer
Date Posted: 18 November 2014 at 11:19am
Sorry to jump the line, can you please let us know your understanding of "worship of Allah". Maybe the source of confusion lies right there! |
Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 18 November 2014 at 12:53pm
Yes I see that pretty well. When you go only after key words with a set mind it will take away your ability to understand the message contained in the whole writing, and your ability to learn. What I am saying is that God is free of any needs. It is us the humans or any of His created things and being that are in need. We of ourselves cannot do anything. On the other hand God does not need anything or anyone, God is free of that what we are not. I hope up to this point you understand what I mean. In order to get the good of hereafter we are told, WE NEED TO WORK TOWARD IT. So, if you want any part in the life of the hereafter YOU WILL NEED TO WORK AS GOD HAS DIRECTED, THUS YOU WILL BE WORSHIPING HIM. If you do not want any part in the life of the hereafter, or don't believe in it, or don't care what it is, and for you everything is now, Allah says you will not have any part in the hereafter. Not only that for your denial of the one who created you and provide for you, and for doing whatever your heart desires, thus committing excesses He will punish you exactly as much as you deserve according to you deeds, because God is Just. Those who serve and worship Him (for the purpose He made us) He will be pleased with and will reward them something better than ever and they will live forever in a place of desirable comforts and blessings. Hasan ------------- The friends of God will certainly have nothing to fear, nor will they be grieved. Al Quran 10:62 |
Posted By: airmano
Date Posted: 18 November 2014 at 2:10pm
|
Well, sorry for being so stubborn,
A) I realize that after all you also think we should worship him [in our own interest]. It took a while but ...OK! But this still doesn't answer my question: B) Any idea why He wants this [especially since he even doesn't even need it] ? Please try to be precise and short (and without any Quran citations) in your answer. Airmano |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 18 November 2014 at 7:45pm
|
Airmano, I think you're raising a similar question as Justin Schieber does in an argument against the existence of God. I heard http://freethoughtblogs.com/reasonabledoubts/2012/08/29/rd-extra-the-problem-of-non-god-objects/ - Scheiber's presentation of this argument quite a while ago, so I hope I am recalling it correctly; but as I remember it, it goes something like this: God, by definition, is perfect, in the sense that he is the best possible god, and nothing can be added that would improve Him. From the above, we can conclude that such a God would have no wants and no needs (because unfulfilled wants or needs would imply that He is not perfect). In particular, such a God would neither want nor need to create anything, because that would only add something inferior to God and/or would be of no benefit to God (so why would He want or need it?). Therefore, such a God could not have been responsible for creating the universe. You might find the podcast interesting. My apologies if I have misdirected you. ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: NABA
Date Posted: 19 November 2014 at 2:16am
| It is for our betterment we worship Allah, so that we can enter paradise, asAllah says in Quran in ch 36 v 77 we all are a liquid ddrop.means we all are originated from sperms, so I meant to say that Allah wants to see whether we become humble or obey Allah or be boastful, because whatever we including u are is because of Allah. |
Posted By: airmano
Date Posted: 19 November 2014 at 10:01am
|
@Naba & Honeto
Hm, I get the impression that you're both shying away from my question. @ Ron: I'll reply to your post later, very busy at the moment.... Airmano |
Posted By: NABA
Date Posted: 20 November 2014 at 1:46am
| Airmano you are complicated you asked names of embryologists other than moore, I gave it y8 u r not satisfied.u r avoiding us by asking questions. |
Posted By: airmano
Date Posted: 20 November 2014 at 4:00am
Naba:
I actually prefer answers instead of asking back: "Why do you ask ?" So, could you please try to answer (or admit that you don't have any answers) ? BTW., to your so-called embryologists: Did you notice that after you gave the names I did not ask for more ? Did you also realize that I asked QE at least 5 times for (these) names he claimed to exist and he never delivered ? However I also noticed that after I debunked "the claims" of these "top scientists" there was (and still is) a total silence from your side on this subject. There may be a message in this as well... Airmano |