Science & Technology - The Amazing Accomplishments of Muslim Scientists

Print Page | Close Window

The Amazing Accomplishments of Muslim Scientists

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=35083
Printed Date: 07 January 2025 at 7:41am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com

Topic: The Amazing Accomplishments of Muslim Scientists

Posted By: mscientist9
Subject: The Amazing Accomplishments of Muslim Scientists
Date Posted: 08 December 2015 at 1:08pm

Esselamu alaikum brothers and sisters. I have just published my new Android Application which is named Muslim Scientists. I hope you like it and get benefits a lot from that application. Thank you in advance...

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.astrobotech.mscientist.muslimscientists - Android Application Link on Google Play Store

Replies:

Posted By: airmano
Date Posted: 12 December 2015 at 11:27am

Why do you call these scientists "Muslim Scientists" ?

When you speak of Newton do you say "Christian scientist" ?
When you talk about Einstein do you say "Agnostic Scientist" ?
And mentioning Dirac: "Atheist Scientist" ?

Do you ? Airmano

-------------
The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses (Albert Einstein 1954, in his "Gods Letter")

Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 31 January 2016 at 8:05pm

airmano wrote:

Why do you call these scientists "Muslim Scientists" ?
When you speak of Newton do you say "Christian scientist" ? When you talk about Einstein do you say "Agnostic Scientist" ? And mentioning Dirac: "Atheist Scientist" ?
Do you ? Airmano

Good point. However, see if this kind of referral is encouraging them to be like them and leave the orthodoxy of dogmatic views about religion. What do you say when it is asked if the globe is better off with more 'Muslim' scientists than others? What we keep hearing from ortho folks is that science distracts them from the religion, but IMHO, it promotes Islam in the right way.

Posted By: airmano
Date Posted: 02 February 2016 at 10:06am

Ahmad:
Good point. However, see if this kind of referral is encouraging them to be like them and leave the orthodoxy of dogmatic views about religion.

I don't think so. This rather pesky insisting on "Muslim Scientists" is rather to hide the fact that there haven't been any (well, almost) for centuries. I guess it is rather the expression of an inferiority complex.

What do you say when it is asked if the globe is better off with more 'Muslim' scientists than others?

What I like about science is that there is no Christian, Jewish or Muslim science (even if some nutters in your area try to establish "Muslim science"). To your question: I guess it would, but may be for different reasons than you think. I am convinced that if there were more Muslim scientists, this "Scientific Miracles in the Quran" thing would quickly come to an end. I realize that this will be painful because it will take away quite a bit from the Muslim self-understanding but in the long run there is no way around it. At the same time it would be beneficial to the world because it would finally stop the extremists by making clear that the Quran can only be read as allegorical to be in line with modern knowledge. And this (and only this) will give it the necessary flexibility to adapt to the future.

Airmano

Ps: A good starter is http://scicom.ucsc.edu/publications/QandA/2011/guessoum.html - this guy whereas http://islam-science.net/does-islam-stand-against-science-2-3199/ - this article is for the advanced reader.

-------------
The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses (Albert Einstein 1954, in his "Gods Letter")

Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 03 February 2016 at 12:29pm

airmano wrote:

I don't think so. This rather pesky insisting on "Muslim Scientists" is rather to hide the fact that there haven't been any (well, almost) for centuries. I guess it is rather the expression of an inferiority complex.

I don't know why your guess work has to be insinuating? If you can call people from 'Muslim countries', why can't you also call them 'Muslim Scientists'? Not that it implies that science is associated with the religion, but the religion of the scientists; and there is no dearth of these people since time immemorial as opposed to your general knowledge.

Posted By: airmano
Date Posted: 08 February 2016 at 5:02am

Ahmad:
If you can call people from 'Muslim countries', why can't you also call them 'Muslim Scientists'?

When you call persons "people from 'Muslim countries" you insinuate that there is a link between their cultural/religious background and (typically) their behaviour or habits.

Calling the guy that built the bridge nearby: "black haired Engineer" is a construction you'd use only in very specific cases, since the colour of his hair got nothing to do with the work he did.

Braking this 'rule' in a persistent way makes me think that there is another motivation than "just" informing me about his shoe size.

To finish: If from now on - besides the shoe size- we [all] started to add the individual creed to each scientists name, the result would in any case not be very flattering for Islam anyway.

So, rather don't do it!

Airmano

-------------
The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses (Albert Einstein 1954, in his "Gods Letter")

Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 14 February 2016 at 2:10am

airmano wrote:

To finish: If from now on - besides the shoe size- we [all] started to add the individual creed to each scientists name, the result would in any case not be very flattering for Islam anyway.

Probably not as you think so. Similarly, if you think all scientists were/are atheist even then you are wrong. More so, Albert Einstein can't be considered as one that you think he was.

airmano wrote:

...So, rather don't do it!

If it personally hurts you, then sure we should avoid it. I agree.

Posted By: airmano
Date Posted: 15 February 2016 at 12:03am

Ahmad:
Similarly, if you think all scientists were/are atheist...

I don't.
--------------------------------------------------

More so, Albert Einstein can't be considered as one that you think he was.

I guess you try to tell me that you don't consider him the way I do ? Not a problem.
In any case: Difficult to ask him now, but may be you should read http://www.lettersofnote.com/2009/10/word-god-is-product-of-human-weakness.html - his letter .

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

If it personally hurts you, then sure we should avoid it. I agree.

Hurting is not the right term. It is as if I called Mohamed a "sect leader".
Historically undoubtedly true, but not adequate, at least to your understanding.

Airmano

-------------
The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses (Albert Einstein 1954, in his "Gods Letter")

Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 17 February 2016 at 12:29pm

Airmano wrote:

...I guess you try to tell me that you don't consider him the way I do ? Not a problem.
In any case: Difficult to ask him now, but may be you should read his letter...

I don't have any interest in what Einstein believed or what you believe about him. However, I do see people of both sides trying hard to show or claim that the Mr Einstein was indeed subscriber to their creed. For example http://www.deism.com/einsteingodletter.htm - this claim that he was't atheist. Similarly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Albert_Einstein - your Wiki call him agnostic and not atheist. But, its more amusing to see how you want to cling with his quote and show that you consider his ideas on faith as universal, no matter how wrong his own earlier scientific theories have been shown and to be inconsistent with his latter ones.

Posted By: airmano
Date Posted: 17 February 2016 at 3:33pm

Ahmad:
But, its more amusing to see how you want to cling with his quote and show that you consider his ideas on faith as universal, no matter how wrong his own earlier scientific theories have been shown and to be inconsistent with his latter ones.

Where did I say that I consider his "ideas on faith" as universal ?
What do you actually mean by "universal" anyway ?

Airmano

-------------
The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses (Albert Einstein 1954, in his "Gods Letter")

Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 18 February 2016 at 11:45pm

airmano wrote:

Where did I say that I consider his "ideas on faith" as universal ?
What do you actually mean by "universal" anyway ?

Oh, I thought your signature 'The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses' from Mr Einstein's quote matches with your faith (atheist or humanism or whatever...). Thus assuming this quote is your 'faith' or close to it, shouldn't the faith be universal (temporally and spatially) till proven otherwise? However, my argument is to show that since Mr Einstein kept changing (refining) his scientific ideas, how reliable could his 'faith' related ideas be, to put your 'faith' into his hands?

Posted By: airmano
Date Posted: 20 February 2016 at 11:04am

Ahmad:
Oh, I thought your signature 'The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses' from Mr Einstein's quote matches with your faith (atheist or humanism or whatever...). Thus assuming this quote is your 'faith' or close to it, shouldn't the faith be universal (temporally and spatially) till proven otherwise? However, my argument is to show that since Mr Einstein kept changing (refining) his scientific ideas, how reliable could his 'faith' related ideas be, to put your 'faith' into his hands?

You're still too much attached to the concept of "eternal truth".
History shows that especially the "eternal truths" are the most vulnerable ones. What is left from the Greeks is neither Zeus nor Hera, but Plato, Aristoteles, Mathematics, and the concept of Democracy, and Science.
A similar logic applies to the Romans, the Egyptians, the Phoenicians and so on.

I know that your reaction is: "This time [with Islam] it's different".
Havin' said so, you also know that all the other religions share exactly this thought - but not the content.

Islam exists now for 1400Y. Compared to the (estimated) 100.000y that societies and religions exist this is still a rather short period of time. For the moment I have no reason (Again I know that you won't agree here) to assume that Islam will not disappear just as all other cherished religions did in the past. I even suspect that Islam is probably the most vulnerable of all big religions. (I can give you my reasons if you want).

Obviously we can not settle this dispute now, because we will both be dead by then. I think however I can rightly claim that history is on my side.

I already wrote elsewhere, that I think we humans will never possess the universal truth and I see it as wishful thinking that your or any other God does. But we can get closer to truth doing exactly what Einstein suggests:

Progressing by analyzing, theorizing and testing, and adapting the existent when new evidence comes along.
That's the best we can do I'm afraid, despite our psychologically understandable hope/wish to have an omnipotent protector in the sky who knows everything.

You could also summarize it with the famous saying (the authorship is contested): Seek the company of those who search for truth; run from those who have found it.
I think that a large fraction of religious people adheres to the latter category.

Airmano

-------------
The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses (Albert Einstein 1954, in his "Gods Letter")

Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 27 February 2016 at 8:19pm

airmano wrote:

....What is left from the Greeks is neither Zeus nor Hera, but Plato, Aristoteles, Mathematics, and the concept of Democracy, and Science.
A similar logic applies to the Romans, the Egyptians, the Phoenicians and so on.

I know that your reaction is: "This time [with Islam] it's different".
Havin' said so, you also know that all the other religions share exactly this thought - but not the content....

Your comparison of Religion vs Science/democracy/mathematics reflects your own experience with those who profess their religions compartmentalized eg church vs state etc. Their dogmatic views (including some Muslims) consider their faith to be something other than Science and that is where the problem lies. Thus, IMHO, it is not correct to reject Islam assuming it in negation of science. Science is all about what humans have or can have knowledge about its finite surroundings. However, the concept of 'Infinite' God in Islam, while compelling people to understand the nature through science and logic and progress through it, it also opens up the infinite possibilities through which the 'yet' unknown to be understood. Thus, correct understanding of Islam, makes a person less dogmatic and not more. On the contrary, you will find majority of Muslims with dogmatic views, but that is not because of Islam, but because of many reasons including limited knowledge that too acquired through traditional ways such as heart by heart transfer and little or no time to ponder of their own. Their usual interaction with Quran is by keeping it in 100 folds of expensive cloth and putting it on the highest (and farthest) shelf of a cupboard. At max, they would recite it in Arabic without understanding a bit about it, assuming its magical effect on their lives and tremendous addition in their spiritual virtues. Now, when other people see the Muslims, you have truely highlighted, they don't find any difference in them as compared to other people of faith. On top of it, the present situation of war on terror, with many likes of Donald Trumps, has compounded the confusion about correct understanding of Islam through Quran.
It is the rationale thinking which is demanded by Quran to understand its verses with open and unbiased mind, but with only one condition and that is, one must be looking for God's help to make him understand them. Here, the assumption of God is not conditioned with Islam's concept of Allah, but knowing that all this universe can't exist without a creator, realizing who could be such a creator, what would be the attributes of such a creator and then looking for this creator's help to search for finding the 'eternal truth'. Here, I would recommend reading Quran with this approach, beside other thoughtful books on faith. If in the end, assuming you remained unbiased in this quest, there are chances, that you may also find the 'eternal truth' like many others who did eg Prof Jeffery Lang, the Professor of Mathematics and the author of the book 'If Angles Ask'. On the other hand, if you want to discuss the proof of the existence/non existence of God through science, I am not the right person to discuss about it. I am sorry, I am not qualified to do so. Hope you understand my own personal limitation. One last thing from your narration caught my attention to comment about where it is said Seek the company of those who search for truth; run from those who have found it. If by 'truth' you mean finding and discovering laws of nature, like the scientist do, I fully subscribe this notion. But if it implies search the existence of 'God', then IMHO, this search is a wasteful effort. Simply because of the limitations of our search tools to discover an infinite entity. This is the maximum that I can think of this topic and nothing more. Once again, hopefully you would excuse me for my own humble limitations.

Best regards!

Posted By: Tim the plumber
Date Posted: 28 February 2016 at 2:37am

Science is all about what humans have or can have knowledge about its finite surroundings. However, the concept of 'Infinite' God in Islam, while compelling people to understand the nature through science and logic and progress through it, it also opens up the infinite possibilities through which the 'yet' unknown to be understood.

If it is unknown as yet then pretending to know it, to make up answers, will block any ability to find out the right answer.

Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 01 March 2016 at 6:43pm

Search and exploration for wonders of nature created by some infinite divine being (Muslims call this being as Allah) is not restricted nor limited through any Islamic doctrine/principle.

Posted By: airmano
Date Posted: 03 March 2016 at 1:42pm

Airmano:
History shows that especially the "eternal truths" are the most vulnerable ones. What is left from the Greeks is neither Zeus nor Hera, but Plato, Aristoteles, Mathematics, and the concept of Democracy, and Science.

Ahmad:
Your comparison of Religion vs Science/democracy/mathematics reflects your own experience with those who profess their religions compartmentalized eg church vs state etc.

That's not correct, I did not compare, I just stated a fact.
-----------------------------------------

Thus, IMHO, it is not correct to reject Islam assuming it in negation of science.

This is also not my point. I don't think that Islam is per se anti-science, for example Islam has no (major) problem about recognizing the big bang. Having said so, as soon as science clashes with Islam (the same applies to other religions) the defense mechanism get very quickly put in place (keywords: Evolution theory, Embryology etc.)

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

It is the rationale thinking which is demanded by Quran to understand its verses with open and unbiased mind, but with only one condition and that is, one must be looking for God's help to make him understand them.

Here we obviously disagree. First, if you are honest to yourself, with "Unbiased mind" you mean in reality "with a positive/supportive attitude". That's however not a neutral (=truly unbiased) attitude.
In the end you approach the analysis by postulating: "God exists"[without any doubt], followed by "let's see which religion fits this concept best" and thirdly (but hidden): Since you already grew up with a religion you choose the obvious one(claiming that it is the best anyway).

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

Here, the assumption of God is not conditioned with Islam's concept of Allah, but knowing that all this universe can't exist without a creator, realizing who could be such a creator, what would be the attributes of such a creator and then looking for this creator's help to search for finding the 'eternal truth'.

Pretty much as above. Not surprisingly I contest the necessity of a creator and I have already posted links on how the Universe could have come into existence without a creator. That there was never any comment or reaction on this speaks for itself.
In any case: Proclaiming the existence of an eternal, omniscient and almighty creator leads forcibly & logically to a creator [process] devoid of free will. You could also calls this["him"] "Nature".

And this means you have a problem again !

Airmano

-------------
The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses (Albert Einstein 1954, in his "Gods Letter")

Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 04 March 2016 at 10:21am

airmano wrote:

ahmadjoyia wrote:

Thus, IMHO, it is not correct to reject Islam assuming it in negation of science.

This is also not my point. I don't think that Islam is per se anti-science, for example Islam has no (major) problem of recognizing the big bang. Having said so, as soon as science clashes with Islam (the same applies to other religions) the defense mechanism get quickly put in place (keywords: Evolution theory, Embryology etc.)

By this, you mean there are no practicing Muslim Biologists or Physicians or what? On the other hand, I did see same �defense mechanism� invoked by you sooner we talked about the Quantum Mechanics that initially confused Einstein as well. Isn�t it?

airmano wrote:

ahmadjoyia wrote:

It is the rationale thinking which is demanded by Quran to understand its verses with open and unbiased mind, but with only one condition and that is, one must be looking for God's help to make him understand them.

Here we obviously disagree. In the end you approach the analysis by decreeing: "God exists", followed by "let's see which religion fits this concept best" and thirdly (but hidden): Since you already grew up with a religion you choose the obvious (claiming that it is the best anyway).

As I said, science is not about finding God, thus your theory is not very compelling here. However, I do see how you appear to again falter on the same notion of separation of �church and state� or to stumble upon picking only one out of two ie. either �faith� or �science� and not both. But that is not what the Muslims have to be worried about at all.

airmano wrote:

ahmadjoyia wrote:

Here, the assumption of God is not conditioned with Islam's concept of Allah, but knowing that all this universe can't exist without a creator, realizing who could be such a creator, what would be the attributes of such a creator and then looking for this creator's help to search for finding the 'eternal truth'.

Although, I don�t know which links are you referring here, but I do see working of the same fallacy of assumption that if no one responded to your question, you assumed you are right!! What a delusion indeed!!

airmano wrote:

In any case: The existence of an omniscient almighty creator leads forcibly & logically to a creator without free will - "Nature".

This clearly shows how influencing your ancestral religious background could be that it virtually clogs your mind to evolve beyond it but to abhor it!! But how could you extrapolate it to say something like this about Islam?

Posted By: airmano
Date Posted: 05 March 2016 at 9:49am

No, I never said so, and I even posted examples of Muslims who realize that there is a problem, http://scicom.ucsc.edu/publications/QandA/2011/guessoum.html - like this one. . There was however no comment from your side.
In addition I (and Ron) already mentioned a second "effect", that is that Muslims don't seem to criticize other Muslims [openly] even if they tell the biggest nonsense (Remember Abu Loren and the flat earth or "The Saint" and his 'two hearts' ?).
In essence I think there are many (educated) Muslims that do see the dilemma between the Quran when taken literally and the many errors this implies, but for unclear reasons (fear ?) they don't stand up against it.
-----------------------------------------------------

I did see same �defense mechanism� invoked by you sooner we talked about the Quantum Mechanics that initially confused Einstein as well. Isn�t it?

I'm more than willing to clarify, but to do so I first have to understand what the problem is. Could you rephrase it please ?

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

Again, I really don't understand what your point is. Where did I mention [separation of] "church and state" ? Could you elucidate ?
-------------------------------------------------------

My sentence was: Not surprisingly I contest the necessity of a creator and I have already posted links on how the Universe could have come into existence without a creator. That there was never any comment or reaction on this speaks for itself. .
Does this sentence really sound like somebody that claims to be right 'at any cost' to you ? What I meant by the second sentence was not that this theory [see link below] is necessarily right, but that things that are in conflict with [your] religious doctrines get simply ignored.

Although I send the link already several times, https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/a-mathematical-proof-that-the-universe-could-have-formed-spontaneously-from-nothing-ed7ed0f304a3#.81q5zhm2y - here we go again.

It would be nice if yould you comment beyond "it's just a theory".

Airmano

-------------
The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses (Albert Einstein 1954, in his "Gods Letter")

Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 07 March 2016 at 10:57am

airmano wrote:

I am sorry where is the question about this Muslim�s views about Science & Islam? Also, how his views different than mine, though I don�t agree with him about Muslims� rejection of Aliens. This is because, �Jinns� are just one possibility of such creatures whose existence not only on earth but on some other planets, can�t be ruled out. Not as yet. So, if he is looking for them, IMHO this is perfectly understandable from Muslims� perspective.

airmano wrote:

In addition I (and Ron) already mentioned a second "effect", that is that Muslims don't seem to criticize other Muslims [openly] even if they tell the biggest nonsense (Remember Abu Loren and the flat earth or "The Saint" and his 'two hearts' ?).

You did put these remarks elsewhere as well during our discussions and if you go back to those pages, you should find that I did correct my brothers openly, wherever I thought they needed it. But you must not assume that I am a caretaker (or Moderator) over them for all their posts etc nor do I have much time to follow all their discussions.

airmano wrote:

In essence I think there are many (educated) Muslims that do see the dilemma between the Quran when taken literally and the many errors this implies, but for unclear reasons (fear ?) they don't stand up against it.

Only a logical argument can settle one�s satisfaction over the understanding of Quran, but there are very few Muslims who wants to go through this route. If by �stand up against� implies enforcing one�s views over others, I don�t think that�s a correct approach. Isn�t it exactly the opposite that we are professing against extremists� way of working?
-----------------------------------------------------

airmano wrote:

I did see same �defense mechanism� invoked by you sooner we talked about the Quantum Mechanics that initially confused Einstein as well. Isn�t it?

I'm more than willing to clarify, but to do so I first have to understand what the problem is. Could you rephrase it please ?

Its nothing serious but only surprising to see that even when it was shown to you that how Einstein got wrong in rejection of the Quantum Mechanics theory by saying �God doesn�t play dices�. This implied two things: (1) His own fixated view about his then understanding about the nature (2) Your own fixated view by rejecting Quantum theory and in favour of Einstein�s. Hence my point is that there is certain �Inertia� among people about their �faith� (whatever you call it scientific theory etc or religion) in rejecting the old thoughts and adopting the new ones. Thus, there is a natural �defensive mechanism� or the �inertia� that inhibits one to change for the new. Therefore, Muslim Scientists are not an exception here, if their �Defensive� mechanism kicks in.

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

airmano wrote:

My sentence was: Not surprisingly I contest the necessity of a creator and I have already posted links on how the Universe could have come into existence without a creator. That there was never any comment or reaction on this speaks for itself. .
Does this sentence really sound like somebody that claims to be right 'at any cost' to you ? What I meant by the second sentence was not that this theory [see link below] is necessarily right, but that things that are in conflict with [your] religious doctrines get simply ignored.

Although I send the link already several times, https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/a-mathematical-proof-that-the-universe-could-have-formed-spontaneously-from-nothing-ed7ed0f304a3#.81q5zhm2y - here we go again.
It would be nice if yould you comment beyond "it's just a theory".
Airmano

Thanks for sharing your evidence for concluding that : Not surprisingly I contest the necessity of a creator and I have already posted links on how the Universe could have come into existence without a creator. That there was never any comment or reaction on this speaks for itself. . How can you logically conclude that the mathematical proof of Big Bang supports your understanding that it happened without the Creator. Amusingly, the author says The question is: does the Wheeler-DeWitt equation allow this? �We prove that once a small true vacuum bubble is created, it has the chance to expand exponentially,� say Dongshan and co. . The highlighted and specifically the red colour text is mine just to highlight that all this proof shows that creation is mathematically possible, same as it is mathematically possible to show the existence of other natural phenomena. I simply don�t see probabilistic happening to be something �without� or �beyond� or �despite� God. Can you show us?

Posted By: airmano
Date Posted: 09 March 2016 at 10:46am

Airmano:
...Having said so, as soon as science clashes with Islam (the same applies to other religions) the defense mechanism get quickly put in place (keywords: Evolution theory, Embryology etc.)

Ahmad:
By this, you mean there are no practicing Muslim Biologists or Physicians or what?

Airmano:
No, I never said so, and I even posted examples of Muslims who realize that there is a problem, like this one.. There was however no comment from your side.

Ahmad:
I am sorry where is the question about this Muslim�s views about Science & Islam?

Apparently we are talking past each other. The way I understood your sentence ("Muslim doctors & biologist") was as if you had said: "Do you really think that [well educated Muslims] like doctors and biologists would not see the errors in the Quran [if there were any] ?"

I thought my answer was adequate.
------------------------------------------------------

Ahmad:
Also, how his views different than mine, though I don�t agree with him about Muslims� rejection of Aliens. This is because, �Jinns� are just one possibility of such creatures whose existence not only on earth but on some other planets, can�t be ruled out.

Your point of view about this is so spaced out in my opinion, that I'm not even willing to discuss it.
----------------------------------------------------

Airmano
In addition I (and Ron) already mentioned a second "effect", that is that Muslims don't seem to criticize other Muslims [openly] even if they tell the biggest nonsense (Remember Abu Loren and the flat earth or "The Saint" and his 'two hearts' ?).

Ahmad:
You did put these remarks elsewhere as well during our discussions and if you go back to those pages, you should find that I did correct my brothers openly, wherever I thought they needed it...

Not that I remember, but I leave you the benefit of the doubt. It has certainly not happened very often, though.

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

Amad:
Only a logical argument can settle one�s satisfaction over the understanding of Quran, but there are very few Muslims who wants to go through this route. If by �stand up against� implies enforcing one�s views over others, I don�t think that�s a correct approach. Isn�t it exactly the opposite that we are professing against extremists� way of working?

No that's not what I wanted to say. May be "Expresses his disagreement" would have been a better formula than "standing up against..."

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

Ahmad:
Its nothing serious but only surprising to see that even when it was shown to you that how Einstein got wrong in rejection of the Quantum Mechanics theory by saying �God doesn�t play dices�. This implied two things: (1) His own fixated view about his then understanding about the nature (2) Your own fixated view by rejecting Quantum theory and in favour of Einstein�s. Hence my point is that there is certain �Inertia� among people about their �faith� (whatever you call it scientific theory etc or religion) in rejecting the old thoughts and adopting the new ones. Thus, there is a natural �defensive mechanism� or the �inertia� that inhibits one to change for the new. Therefore, Muslim Scientists are not an exception here, if their �Defensive� mechanism kicks in.

I still don't understand why you keep on repeating that I reject QM (because I never said so), but I can agree on your point about inertia.
---------------------------------------------------

Ahmad:
Thanks for sharing your evidence for concluding that : Not surprisingly I contest the necessity of a creator and I have already posted links on how the Universe could have come into existence without a creator. That there was never any comment or reaction on this speaks for itself. . How can you logically conclude that the mathematical proof of Big Bang supports your understanding that it happened without the Creator. Amusingly, the author says The question is: does the Wheeler-DeWitt equation allow this? �We prove that once a small true vacuum bubble is created, it has the chance to expand exponentially,� say Dongshan and co. . The highlighted and specifically the red colour text is mine just to highlight that all this proof shows that creation is mathematically possible, same as it is mathematically possible to show the existence of other natural phenomena. I simply don�t see probabilistic happening to be something �without� or �beyond� or �despite� God. Can you show us?

Good point! First of all, you may have understood by now that I'm not an atheist but agnostic. So I do not rule out the possibility of a(!) creator.
Having said so I do rule out the attributes you associate with 'him', because of the logical inconsistencies this leads to.
Furthermore having read [parts of] the Quran: your messenger/Quran logic looks so implausible to me, that I'm not even considering investing much time into it either.

To the point: The possibility of the creation of a "small true vacuum bubble" is a direct consequence of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and can thus be explained by the known laws of physics.

The uncertainty relation reads: Δx*Δp ≥ ℏ/2 and can be relatively easily reformulated into Δt*ΔE ≥ ℏ/2
(Time times energy must be bigger than zero or at least equal to ℏ/2).

The ΔE in the second equation implies the creation of so called "virtual particles" popping in and out of existence (since E=mc2, thus ΔE=Δm*c2, Δm stands for [the mass of] these particles), but they generally only exist for a small amount of time (Δt). Now I don't want to go into heavy QM but a direct consequence of the latter is that there is no "true vacuum" (see the larger "≥" sign in the equation), the word for it is "Quantum fluctuations".
This is not purely academic, since effects caused by these 'virtual particles' can be measured (Casimir effect).
Now you can have a very small but real chance that ΔE (and thus Δm) exceeds "a critical mass" and a "small true vacuum bubble" - and thus ultimately a new universe is born in a purely probabilistic way.

BTW, it was exactly this (probabilistic) implication of QM (and the following unpredictability) that made Einstein say "God doesn't play dice" to Bohr at the time. Bohr answered something like: Don't tell God how he should run the Universe ! May be you should do the same and stop thinking in (too) simple terms of "holy books".

Once I have more time I may give you more details if you wish.

Airmano

-------------
The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses (Albert Einstein 1954, in his "Gods Letter")

Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 09 March 2016 at 8:11pm

Thanks for your elaborate reply with vaguely discussing QM and yet missing out to answer my key question i.e. ....I simply don�t see probabilistic happening to be something �without� or �beyond� or �despite� God. Can you show us? . Hopefully, my explicit and repeating question would not go unanswered, this time, please.

Posted By: airmano
Date Posted: 18 March 2016 at 2:56am

@Ahmad:

Although I think I did answer this question, I wil make a second attempt and go more into details - once I find the time, may be this WE.

Airmano

-------------
The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses (Albert Einstein 1954, in his "Gods Letter")

Posted By: Tim the plumber
Date Posted: 20 March 2016 at 5:38am

AhmadJoyia wrote:

Thanks for your elaborate reply with vaguely discussing QM and yet missing out to answer my key question i.e. ....I simply don�t see probabilistic happening to be something �without� or �beyond� or �despite� God. Can you show us? . Hopefully, my explicit and repeating question would not go unanswered, this time, please.

There are 2 possible situations;

1, Quantum events are randon, or at least the mechanism of determination is not currentky known and we are unable to predict them at all.

or

2, God does it. He chooses every sing quantum result across the entire universe. Every sing atom undergoing radio active decay and many other events are under the concious direction of God.

The first requires no evidence becasue it is what we see and is no claim other than stating what we know so far.

The second is a massive claim and thus requires loads of evidence. It's also a bit silly to have some sort of inteligence doing all that very boring job for the last 13.7 billion years without a break.

Posted By: Matt Browne
Date Posted: 28 March 2016 at 2:30am

Airmano, Tim:

Yes, the universe could have formed spontaneously from nothing. But this insight does not explain the mechanism behind it. The ultimate explaination of the explanation of the explanation of the natural laws will remain a mystery. Unless you resort to circular reasoning.

I disagree with the notion that God actively fools around with radioactive decay and other daily processes. What sense does it make, when the natural laws for which he might be the ultimate explanation do the job quite nicely?

-------------
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: airmano
Date Posted: 28 March 2016 at 2:12pm

A bit short of time at the moment, but I'll give it another try....

Ahmad
Thanks for your elaborate reply with vaguely discussing QM and yet missing out to answer my key question i.e. ....I simply don�t see probabilistic happening to be something �without� or �beyond� or �despite� God. Can you show us? . Hopefully, my explicit and repeating question would not go unanswered, this time, please.

Again I'm still not quite sure what you're after but at least I give you my view on "probabilistic" & God.

First, just to finish off the QM discussion have a look at https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/120709162715.htm - this article. .
There have been many experiments in recent years to settle the discussion about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_variable_theory - "hidden parameters" .
What does this mean? If hidden parameters existed this would simply imply that our present model called QM could (at least in principle) be further refined by including/explaining these hidden parameters, such that the inherent indeterminism of QM would vanish.

Unfortunately(?) all recent experiment hint that there are none [hidden parameters]. It is inspiring to read the core sentence of the article above:

"In our experiment, we show that any theory in which there is significantly less randomness is destined to fail: quantum theory essentially provides the ultimate bound on how predictable the universe is."

followed by:

Randomness in quantum theory is one of its key features and is widely known, even outside the scientific community, says Tittel. "Its appeal is its fundamental nature and broad range of implications: knowing the precise configuration of the universe at the big bang would not be sufficient to predict its entire evolution, for example, in contrast to classical theory."

Please read it again and make sure that you understand the meaning.

Now, you can of course argue (just as Bohr did at the time) that God may dispose of means that are outside of the physical reality(!) of nature (or call it 'laws of nature' if you wish).
Nobody can stop you from doing so, so my answer to your question "I simply don�t see probabilistic happening to be something �without� or �beyond� or �despite� God. Can you show us?" is 'No', and no reasonable person will be able to do so. I'am also sure that you know the https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/145/Proving_Non_Existence - fallacy of proving non-existence , and since you ask me this (fallacious) question over and over again it seems to me rather rooted in rhetorical tactics than genuine curiosity.

Leaving this little side-sweep aside, you also have to see the price you pay for your assumption. It is pretty much as Tim the plumber wrote:

To maintain determinism you'll need an arbitrator for all the events amongst all the 10^80 particles suspected to exist in the universe - all the time, 'till' infinity. What a boring Job to do !

As if all this was not enough - if I understand you correctly you apply an even heavier speculation to this being: That he's nice to people believing in his existence, that he has created us to venerate him, that amongst the zillion planets that there are, our earth has a special status, that he likes to inform his creation about his existence in form of messengers and holy books, as much as he likes to torture those that do not believe in messengers and holy books in hell forever and that he even likes to impose a dressing code on us (and so on).

Honestly, sit down for a minute and think.
All these additional assumptions, without any proof for their correctness whatsoever - just in the vague hope to save determinism ?

Well, Airmano

-------------
The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses (Albert Einstein 1954, in his "Gods Letter")