Alleged Affirmations of Scientifically Accurate Verses

I fail to see how Islam is being marketed to atheists when they come to an Islamic forum on their own volition?
By same token, they too come here to market their philosophies/doctrines?.

Surely on a religious forum, catering to Muslims, you'll have to expect a gamut of articles addressing all aspects of Islam no different than a dawkin forum addressing all sorts of atheist doctrines and so-called humanist articles?

^^I was thinking the same. You come to an Islamic forum, so expect it to be about just that.

do you believe that that which cannot be put in a test tube or under a microscope automatically doesn't exist?

Thank you for the correction, not sure why said Leviathan to begin with.

It was the dialogue between David Hume and William Paley that one would be interested in. The argument is that if you find a watch on the beach with no footprints in sight and no sign of anyone else around, you would still assume that the watch had been crafted by a designer.


If anyone is interested, Leviathan is an awesome read as well.

format_quote Originally Posted by snakelegs

do you believe that that which cannot be put in a test tube or under a microscope automatically doesn't exist?

No, I don't see how I can.

If there was not a smidgen of evidence to support a theory for the existence of God, that would not mean God does not exist. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. However, it is also not evidence of presence.

format_quote Originally Posted by Carl Sagan

What in general should we do in a dialogue like this? Here I am. I say that my mind is open. I am happy to see the evidence, and the response I sometimes get is, "I've had this experience. It's compelling to me. But I can't give it over to you." Now, doesn't that prevent any dialogue whatever? How are we to communicate?

format_quote Originally Posted by tetsujin

For which scientific discovery or law does anyone say they have absolute proof? You're being disingenuous or deliberately obscuring what it means to have scientific understandings of fact, theory and law.

My reply was a response to this statement by your person.

format_quote Originally Posted by tetsujin

Science is not advanced through a democratic process. even if tomorrow everyone got up and said that earth is flat, it could be demonstrated, quite easily, that it isn't. Scientists don't get paid to have a consensus, they get paid to provide evidence for or against theories.

Thus I believe the one being 'disingenuous' here is you? as far as I am concerned, you are the one who made a statement of absolution!

1988, Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time", Chapter 8
In simple terms that you could understand.

Are you attempting reverse psychology on me? cute

As for Dawkins, I would suggest reading "The Blind Watchmaker", "Climbing Mount Improbable" or "Unweaving the Rainbow" if you haven't done so already. Particularly the last one if you find us atheists depressing...

I don't waste my time on things that are of no interest to me.
It would be like reading a book on the dark arts or witch crafts.. I can think of better use of my time!

In any case, the universe does not owe us a sense of purpose or satisfaction, it does not have to fulfill our desires or wishes to be understood in any one particular way. That's the marvelous thing about it. I truly hope you don't make decisions because in your "heart" you find one explanation satisfying, and conclude that it is true.

I think it prudent for an atheist to focus on his own existence and worry of his own well being, and not expand it so, to include all those miserable lost souls who seem to waste their life seeking God.. It is rather pathetic on your part don't you think?. Please don't feign to know what forces drive me down one path or another!

Do you believe I or other atheists came here not expecting pro-Islamic articles and arguments?

I don't spend my time thinking of you or other atheists.. thus your expectations are of no interest or consequence to me!

Have you thought that maybe I could see past that and ask a general question?

see above!

And yes, there are many religious people on Non-theism or Anti-theism forums.

I am most delighted with that declaration.

cheers

format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson

That's close to being a good point, although obviously Muslim apologists pushing the "scientific miracles" argument do not only exist on this forum.

Oh mr CZ gibson.. I can't tell you how delighted I am at your quasi approval at a semi good point!
Further, so what the scientific miracles threads don't only exist on this forum? I see atheist miasma campaigned on every crevice of the web.. either deal with it, or simply don't browse a thread and or a website that doesn't agree with your belief system!..

Sometimes - like I just did above.

You haven't been especially clandestine about it.. but thank you for stating the obvious!

Obviously true, although my point was really that the "scientific miracles" argument is a marketing ploy and nothing more. In other words, beyond the hype, there is no substance to these claims at all.

Thank you, for your usual wide-sweeping views, it would be refreshing for a change if you all weren't so predictable.. and rather than engage you the route of vain discourse, I'll rebuff your beliefs aside as they tend to lack any sort of distinction, consideration, critical review or common sense... all one really needs to do is browse through your old posts with Ansar Al'Adl to get a sense of just how deep your intellectual penetration!

You've got me thinking, though, and I can see that my initial comment was wrong. As well as being a marketing ploy, the "scientific miracles" argument does also help to legitimise to Muslims their own beliefs, and to add a veneer of supposedly scientific credibility to them.

Peace

aha.. here we are yet again, with one of your strained, agonistic and oversimplified conclusions as is the case always when overcome in an argument or when you have nothing of substance to impart-- my applause!

cheers

on a seperate note and regarding this quote

Originally Posted by Carl Sagan
What in general should we do in a dialogue like this? Here I am. I say that my mind is open. I am happy to see the evidence, and the response I sometimes get is, "I've had this experience. It's compelling to me. But I can't give it over to you." Now, doesn't that prevent any dialogue whatever? How are we to communicate?

It is fascinating to me indeed how something so personal can also be universal, yet needs to be on a low enough a common denominator for sterile minds to understand...
Let's consider for instance having a headache...

How does one apply fact, precision and reason to having a headache?

If someone presented to the hospital (where doctors congregate) with an occipital or temporal headache the worst ever experienced --how can any scientist support that view? it is a subjective report, there is no test to quantify or measure what one is experiencing-- there is NO ( headache-O-Meter) no looking directly at pain.. in fact short of taking a proper history, there is much doubt to differentiating a grade 6/10 concentric headache to someone suffering factitious disorder... Yet here we set the standards to classify and distinguish thunderclap from migraines, from tension, from sinus from cluster headaches and based entirely and solely on the subjective opinion of the one experiencing it.

Can there be any doubt that headaches exist? that we've all been touched by them.. folks across the globe, across races, of all ages can universally understand and relate to someone speaking of a headache-- and still at times, it is a non-descript manifestation of many a pathological phenomenon!


So why do we remain hypocrites? find a thousand and one story from a thousand and one philosophers to Put reason for us and make comprehensible the most vague subjective incidents, yet fail to use that same calm, rationale to answer what is quite visible all around us and to the naked eye?


All I can say.. Is sob7an Allah 3amma yasifoon!

format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson

It's been a while since I was insulted by you - glad to see you're maintaining your standards in debate.

Peace

Would love to have seen a 'debate' by your person... you really ought to look the word up, perhaps you'd have seen that, there should be some sort of proposition with discussions and reasons for and/or against it.. not a Potemkin village designed to give the appearance of an educated fact!

Better luck with your next vehement declamation!

cheers

Look out CZ! The SHARKS!!!.....THE TRAPDOOR!

Meh too late

Anyway, avoiding the perfectly valid comment CZ made is simple verification that his post had weight.
If something cant be countered-simply denounce or un-think it.

It would be wonderful if he could be hooked to your bait/ buoy and together you can both stand on a united front.. I fear worst than being an atheist though, is not being able to make up your mind on who or what you actually are!

Pick a way of life and stick with it :smile:

cheers

Greetings,

format_quote Originally Posted by Skye Ephémérine

Would love to have seen a 'debate' by your person... you really ought to look the word up, perhaps you'd have seen that, there should be some sort of proposition with discussions and reasons for and/or against it.. not a Potemkin village designed to give the appearance of an educated fact!

Better luck with your next vehement declamation!

cheers

Keep 'em coming!

Look at the state of me now > :laugh:

format_quote Originally Posted by barney

Look out CZ! The SHARKS!!!.....THE TRAPDOOR!

Meh too late

Terrifying, isn't it?

Peace

format_quote Originally Posted by Originally Posted by tetsujin

Science is not advanced through a democratic process. even if tomorrow everyone got up and said that earth is flat, it could be demonstrated, quite easily, that it isn't. Scientists don't get paid to have a consensus, they get paid to provide evidence for or against theories.

format_quote Originally Posted by Originally Posted by tetsujin

For which scientific discovery or law does anyone say they have absolute proof? You're being disingenuous or deliberately obscuring what it means to have scientific understandings of fact, theory and law.

format_quote Originally Posted by Skye Ephémérine

Thus I believe the one being 'disingenuous' here is you? as far as I am concerned, you are the one who made a statement of absolution!

I failed to see how any of that was disingenuous, or where I made an absolutist claim.

To say that something could be demonstrated is not the same as saying you have absolute proof.

format_quote Originally Posted by Skye Ephémérine

I don't waste my time on things that are of no interest to me.
It would be like reading a book on the dark arts or witch crafts.. I can think of better use of my time!

You mean to say you're not wasting your time on this thread? Gee, here I thought you had no interest.

format_quote Originally Posted by Skye Ephémérine

I think it prudent for an atheist to focus on his own existence and worry of his own well being, and not expand it so, to include all those miserable lost souls who seem to waste their life seeking God.. It is rather pathetic on your part don't you think?. Please don't feign to know what forces drive me down one path or another!

So seeking to understand the opinions and philosophies by which others live is pathetic, or is it pathetic for just an atheist? I don't think you understand what it means to be an atheist, but since you have in interest in finding out I suppose I shouldn't waste time trying to explain why/how one could be passionate or sympathetic without believing God.

Then again, that's simply what I think, you have no obligation to respond to that.

format_quote Originally Posted by Skye Ephémérine

I don't spend my time thinking of you or other atheists.. thus your expectations are of no interest or consequence to me!

You've spent enough time on this thread responding to us, I mean it wouldn't matter to you if we went on asking other people the same questions right? Why would you subvert the topic and be disrespectful to other posters?

format_quote Originally Posted by Skye Ephémérine

It is fascinating to me indeed how something so personal can also be universal, yet needs to be on a low enough a common denominator for sterile minds to understand...
Let's consider for instance having a headache...

How does one apply fact, precision and reason to having a headache?

If someone presented to the hospital (where doctors congregate) with an occipital or temporal headache the worst ever experienced --how can any scientist support that view? it is a subjective report, there is no test to quantify or measure what one is experiencing-- there is NO ( headache-O-Meter) no looking directly at pain.. in fact short of taking a proper history, there is much doubt to differentiating a grade 6/10 concentric headache to someone suffering factitious disorder... Yet here we set the standards to classify and distinguish thunderclap from migraines, from tension, from sinus from cluster headaches and based entirely and solely on the subjective opinion of the one experiencing it.

Can there be any doubt that headaches exist? that we've all been touched by them.. folks across the globe, across races, of all ages can universally understand and relate to someone speaking of a headache-- and still at times, it is a non-descript manifestation of many a pathological phenomenon!


So why do we remain hypocrites? find a thousand and one story from a thousand and one philosophers to Put reason for us and make comprehensible the most vague subjective incidents, yet fail to use that same calm, rationale to answer what is quite visible all around us and to the naked eye?


All I can say.. Is sob7an Allah 3amma yasifoon!

Who is denying the existence of spiritual experiences? Yes, they too come in all shapes and sizes. Some go to a cave, some have dreams, some sit quietly and meditate, some travel great distances without food or water, some fall ill and nearly die. Is there any doubt that one can have a spiritual experience? No.

The Jews have them, the Christians have them, the Muslims have them, the Hindus have them, the Buddhists have them, the Jain have them, the Quakers have them, the Olympians had them, the Vikings had them. Every society I can think of has had spiritual experiences and probably used them to validate their belief in YHWH, Jesus, Allah, God, Zeus, Thor, Mithras, Bayal etc...

Great, that's fine and dandy.

Tell me. Medicine is your field, right? I'm not sure and I wouldn't want to assume the wrong thing. Is there a difference in the ability to treat a disease between one competent doctor and another equally knowledgeable and competent doctor, in the same field, if they happen to be of different faiths? Would you feel any different if you had required an important surgery and you had the choice of choosing a doctor of a particular faith? It seems irrelevant to me, but this is a personal opinion.

How do you treat headaches? The Jews have them, the Christians have them, the Muslims have them, the Hindus have them, the Buddhists have them, the Jain have them, the Quakers have them, the Olympians had them, the Vikings had them. Do you treat them according to the person's faith? Do you simply treat the type of headache?

A headache is still a headache, and a spiritual experience is no less real because one's personal faith has compelled them to attribute the phenomenon to YHWH, Jesus, Allah, God, Zeus, Thor, Mithras, Bayal etc...

So how does one make that connection from having a personal experience to finding an intelligent agency as its root cause? Is there a way you can communicate that logical process to anyone else? That, my friend, was the question. I apologize if it wasn't clear from the onset.


All the best wishes,


Faysal

format_quote Originally Posted by tetsujin

No, I don't see how I can.

If there was not a smidgen of evidence to support a theory for the existence of God, that would not mean God does not exist. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. However, it is also not evidence of presence.

ok - we are not in disagreement here at all. most of my life i didn't believe in god one way or the other. over the last decade i have come to feel his presence and so now i do, based on my experiences. key word: belief
his existence can neither be proven or disproven.
we're "on the same page" on this one.

format_quote Originally Posted by tetsujin

I've spent some time now checking and rechecking references in the Qu'ran for the various propositions about the nature or the state of life, our world, and the universe.

From the supposed embryology references to the water cycle, everything stated seems to have been discovered already, in so far as the Qu'ran makes the references, by philosophers and naturalists from previous centuries.

Are you implying that, the largely illiterate population of the of the middle east at the time were able to comprehend and extract fine details of the alleged embryological studies conducted by civilizations from way before the Quran was revealed to Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him)?

format_quote Originally Posted by tetsujin

That's not an issue for me. Okay sure, maybe it's a book of signs and not science and as to what could be revealed to a largely illiterate population in the middle east, that's as far as god went in describing the world.

It wasn't a book just for the illiterate mass of the middle east, but rather a book to the whole man-kind till Judgment day.

format_quote Originally Posted by tetsujin

Why is it that these "signs" are used as confirmation of god's divine revelation when there's nothing new in it or that the vague description, when interpreted, could be applied to our understandings today and to those of the Greeks without any conflicts.

Why shouldn't anyone see these signs as confirmation of Allah's revelation?

format_quote Originally Posted by tetsujin

Is it an acceptance of science as a means to validate a holy book? If so, why not accept all scientific understandings of this day, since the process by which human knowledge and societies progress in any scientific field is that same as the one that confirmed your beliefs.

Firstly, Muslim's believe in the validity of Quran. And according to Islam the pursuit for knowledge is itself a form of worship. According to the Qur’an only men of knowledge really fear Allah most. Positive fear of God (taqwa) can be attained only by those who have knowledge (H.Q 35:28). One of the indispensable conditions in relation to the spiritual state of the soul, in getting closer to Allah, is the attainment of knowledge.

Scientific gathering of knowledge is an on-going process, which garners new knowledge as well very often bring in to light new evidences which amends previous understandings and are integrated into the previous knowledge. Therefore it is an oversimplification to state that Muslim's reject part of science.

format_quote Originally Posted by tetsujin

Or is it that as a Muslim you cannot have any doubt, and that whatever science discovers (good or bad) is of no concern since the truth (the one and only) is already known?
So, is it really just a marketing ploy to recruit more members, or has anyone actually put more thought into it than say the lovely Zakir Naik (who on one hand credits science for it's discoveries and on the other rejects evolution on the basis that we're just rebelling against a church for the past 200 years).

I cannot state the Islamis view on evolution; but I can state here I have not come across any verse of Hadith that rejects evolution. And no one can deny, that science itself have a lot to learn and understand on how the first species came about to earth. Even if there is overwhelming scientific data supporting evolution.