In science it's good to test the limits of a hypothesis to ask what it would take to reject that hypothesis. So for example if we found the skeleton of rabbit in the pre-cambrian layer it would necessarily rule out evolution. My question to Muslims just as a thought experiment, is what would necessarily invalidate the Islamic faith? Would the discovery of a textual Quranic variant for example to that?
O you who have believed, do not ask about things which, if they are shown to you, will distress you. But if you ask about them while the Qur'an is being revealed, they will be shown to you. Allah has pardoned that which is past; and Allah is Forgiving and Forbearing.
A people asked such [questions] before you; then they became thereby disbelievers. [Al-Ma'idah: 101-102]
Asking such hypothetical questions is strongly discouraged. There is nothing in any part of the universe that can disprove Islam. Because it is the Truth.
Asking such hypothetical questions is strongly discouraged.
Asking questions like those in the OP might well be discouraged by those who have an interest in preserving a belief system, but neutral observers with no axe to grind face no such prohibition.
In fact, asking rigorously sceptical questions has led humanity through several scientific and intellectual revolutions, which have made many aspects of modern life possible, far beyond the imaginations of earlier generations of our species. For example, the fact that we are able to have this discussion on an internet forum at all is evidence of technological breakthroughs that rest in large part on a relentless interrogation of the natural world, the formulation of falsifiable hypotheses and rigorous testing of them.
Closing down such a questioning attitude is a willing surrender of the critical faculties, and is a demand to occupy and preserve an intellectual blind alley.
There is nothing in any part of the universe that can disprove Islam. Because it is the Truth.
At this point you exclude yourself from the debate, because your position is logically no different to that of a small child who says "it's mine!" having just stolen something from another, and who will not listen to any persuasion, or a psychiatric patient who insists he is Napoleon and will not be disabused of the notion.
In science it's good to test the limits of a hypothesis to ask what it would take to reject that hypothesis. So for example if we found the skeleton of rabbit in the pre-cambrian layer it would necessarily rule out evolution. My question to Muslims just as a thought experiment, is what would necessarily invalidate the Islamic faith? Would the discovery of a textual Quranic variant for example to that?
Sojourn
As your a christian I'm sure no textual variant of the NT will convince you of Jesus pbuh not dying for your sins or not being the son of God. So I'm not sure how the "scientific method" can even be applied to any religion including your own?
I mean we both believe in the virgin birth and that Moses pbuh split the sea in half right? So I'm not sure if this whole idea is going to work. Religions are ultimately based on trust in prophets who were receiving divine Revelation not the scientific method.
They merely:
Veiled themselves and didn't flaunt it
Sought forgiveness and didn't persist
Took ownership of it and don't justify it
And acted with excellence after they had erred - Ibn al-Qayyim
As your a christian I'm sure no textual variant of the NT will convince you of Jesus pbuh not dying for your sins or not being the son of God. So I'm not sure how the "scientific method" can even be applied to any religion including your own?
I mean we both believe in the virgin birth and that Moses pbuh split the sea in half right? So I'm not sure if this whole idea is going to work. Religions are ultimately based on trust in prophets who were receiving divine Revelation not the scientific method.
Thank you for your response Zafran, I appreciate it's honesty. Personally I can only speak for myself, but if it can be proven that say, Jesus was never crucified and that he in fact lived a long life and died a natural death, then yes that would invalidate Christianity. I can say that with no reservation, but you are right there is "belief" which in some way is beyond a rational argument. People are emotionally and psychologically attached to their beliefs and so detachment by rational argument can prove futile often. Perhaps the question can be reversed, what makes one believe Muhammad is a prophet? Why trust him at all?
In science it's good to test the limits of a hypothesis to ask what it would take to reject that hypothesis. So for example if we found the skeleton of rabbit in the pre-cambrian layer it would necessarily rule out evolution. My question to Muslims just as a thought experiment, is what would necessarily invalidate the Islamic faith? Would the discovery of a textual Quranic variant for example to that?
Sojourn
Peace be with you too, Sojourn.
Mostly of paleontologist and archaeologist in Indonesia are Muslims. But discover fossil or ancient civilization does not make them doubting islam. I myself familiar with evolution theory because it's taught in school, and nobody protest.
Not every Muslim is narrow minded or easy to doubt their faith.
There was a story narrated about the prophet. When he had to make his first public announcement. He called the everyone. They gathered and he asks them words to the effect of "If I were to tell you that there was an army behind those hills ready to invade, would you believe me? " to which they said "Surely! You are truthful" and when he declared his prophet hood they called him a liar. They confirmed him as being truthful and chose not to believe him.
@Sojourn
, have you read anything on Muhammad (saw)? You might see it..
In fact, asking rigorously sceptical questions has led humanity through several scientific and intellectual revolutions, which have made many aspects of modern life possible, far beyond the imaginations of earlier generations of our species. For example, the fact that we are able to have this discussion on an internet forum at all is evidence of technological breakthroughs that rest in large part on a relentless interrogation of the natural world, the formulation of falsifiable hypotheses and rigorous testing of them.
Closing down such a questioning attitude is a willing surrender of the critical faculties, and is a demand to occupy and preserve an intellectual blind alley.
Nobody is stopping anyone from asking rigorous skeptical questions on science. But Religion is different. Science only deals with observable phenomenon. What about the unseen? The basis of our religion stands on the belief in unseen.
Allah says at the beginning of Surah Al-Baqarah, chapter 2 of the Holy Qur'an,
[1] Alif, Lam, Meem.
[2] This is the Book about which there is no doubt, a guidance for those conscious of Allah -
[3] Who believe in the unseen, establish prayer, and spend out of what We have provided for them,
[4] And who believe in what has been revealed to you, [O Muhammad], and what was revealed before you, and of the Hereafter they are certain [in faith].
[5] Those are upon [right] guidance from their Lord, and it is those who are the successful.
I had posted this on another thread not long ago,
Scientific observations are limited by the limitation of the resources available at hand.
These pictures below explain the formulation of a scientific theory. There are 10 images, please wait for them to load.
As you can see, scientific theories are not always true. Over the course of history, we have seen several scientific theories proved wrong, and corrected by newer discoveries. Science can never explain the truth fully because it is limited by many factors, such as limits in human intelligence, resources, practical evidences etc...
The truth is what Allah has revealed on the Prophet . And theories and assumptions are what science might tell us.
Now regarding the unseen and unobservable aspects, such as the life after death, the Paradise and Hell, the angels etc, can science explain anything about it? No. So Allah has sent several Prophets and Messengers throughout history to explain everything to mankind. It is only logical to accept what Allah has revealed instead of being skeptical and losing your hereafter.
At this point you exclude yourself from the debate, because your position is logically no different to that of a small child who says "it's mine!" having just stolen something from another, and who will not listen to any persuasion, or a psychiatric patient who insists he is Napoleon and will not be disabused of the notion.
Peace
Allah says immediately after the verses that I quoted above,
Indeed, those who disbelieve - it is all the same for them whether you warn them or do not warn them - they will not believe. [Al-Baqarah: 6]
But I ask you this, before you were born, did you remember anything? no. I know.
Before I was born, I was completely unaware, I didn't even exist, lifeless. Now, I know for a fact, that I came into this world, without REMEMBERING. I KNOW I did NOT create or made anything of this world!
Therefore, no HUMAN can ever claim, they "made themselves". Cuz that is utter nonsense. Similarily, with the hereafter, we can not see it, but just like this world existed, without us being here, or knowing, etc. So does the hereafter.
It is only logical to believe in afterlife. Cuz we did not create this world, nor ourselves, so there must have been someone else, that is who we call God
And the complexity proves the existence of a creator. we humans are more complex than a shoe, house etc. Yet we made, and build the house, for a purpose.
For example, a house, why did we build a house? To seek shelter etc. Comfort. But we, humans, are MUCH more complex than a house! How insulting to say we have no purpose when something more low than us, and something we ourselves made, was made for a purpose. Similarily, we too were made for a purpose.
Thank you for your response Zafran, I appreciate it's honesty. Personally I can only speak for myself, but if it can be proven that say, Jesus was never crucified and that he in fact lived a long life and died a natural death, then yes that would invalidate Christianity. I can say that with no reservation, but you are right there is "belief" which in some way is beyond a rational argument. People are emotionally and psychologically attached to their beliefs and so detachment by rational argument can prove futile often. Perhaps the question can be reversed, what makes one believe Muhammad is a prophet? Why trust him at all?
his teachings unwavering monotheism in a society of polytheist
his life, killing of his followers, the persecution of his people, death of his beloved family members and yet still he succeeded and forgave his enemies. His ability to transform his adversary to his friends.
his impact on history etc.
Ultimately the message of calling people back to the God Abraham, Jacob, Issac, Ishmael, Moses, Jesus and many other Prophets. No other religion on the planet does that.
They merely:
Veiled themselves and didn't flaunt it
Sought forgiveness and didn't persist
Took ownership of it and don't justify it
And acted with excellence after they had erred - Ibn al-Qayyim
Nobody is stopping anyone from asking rigorous skeptical questions on science. But Religion is different. Science only deals with observable phenomenon. What about the unseen? The basis of our religion stands on the belief in unseen.
Belief in the unseen is a very shaky foundation indeed. What is the difference between something that is unseen, undetectable and impossible to observe, and something that is simply not there?
The scientific method is the best investigative tool that humans have come up with, both in its pure form and in the various dialectical and logical forms in which it can be found in philosophy. This critical, questioning attitude can be used to approach every part of our existence, and you may wish to change the rules when it comes to religion, but, as I say, by doing so your are simply preserving a blind alley.
These pictures below explain the formulation of a scientific theory. There are 10 images, please wait for them to load.
Thank you for this. I am already aware of how scientific theories are formed, but I suppose these images might be useful for somebody.
As you can see, scientific theories are not always true. Over the course of history, we have seen several scientific theories proved wrong, and corrected by newer discoveries. Science can never explain the truth fully because it is limited by many factors, such as limits in human intelligence, resources, practical evidences etc...
True. I would go further, and say it would be a grand assumption to assume that any scientific theory is entirely true and without scope for refinement or improvement. In fact, it is better to say that the best scientific theories we have today are the ones that appear to be least false.
The truth is what Allah has revealed on the Prophet . And theories and assumptions are what science might tell us.
But you have no evidence for this. At least science produces tangible results.
It is only logical to accept what Allah has revealed instead of being skeptical and losing your hereafter.
This is Pascal's wager, which suggests a grubby reason for belief in God: hedging your bets. Surely an omniscient God would see through such a shallow motive for belief. Also, the wager offers no guarantee that we would be believing in the right God; there are so many to choose from, and the wager would apply to them all.
Allah says immediately after the verses that I quoted above,
Indeed, those who disbelieve - it is all the same for them whether you warn them or do not warn them - they will not believe. [Al-Baqarah: 6]
This doesn't cover my position at all. I am perfectly willing to give consideration to evidence that is even moderately compelling. If I was shown a miracle, or God made himself blindingly apparent to me in any form, I might well believe.
Your position is different though - what could possibly convince you to change your mind?
Greetings and peace be with you czgibson; I have just noticed we have both been here over ten years, something keeps us coming back for more
Belief in the unseen is a very shaky foundation indeed. What is the difference between something that is unseen, undetectable and impossible to observe, and something that is simply not there?
The truth!
Creation is history, either at least one God created the universe and life, or there is no god at all. Which is the truth? You could flip a coin, heads its God, tails there is no god, you could be a hundred percent right, or a hundred percent wrong.
The scientific method is the best investigative tool that humans have come up with, both in its pure form and in the various dialectical and logical forms in which it can be found in philosophy. This critical, questioning attitude can be used to approach every part of our existence, and you may wish to change the rules when it comes to religion, but, as I say, by doing so your are simply preserving a blind alley.
Can science explain how the universe and life came into being without God?
This is Pascal's wager, which suggests a grubby reason for belief in God: hedging your bets. Surely an omniscient God would see through such a shallow motive for belief.
A few people may believe according to Pascal's wager, but I feel the vast majority of believers have a deep faith and trust in God.
Also, the wager offers no guarantee that we would be believing in the right God; there are so many to choose from, and the wager would apply to them all.
God is big enough to create as many religions as he chooses, he can even grant salvation through each religion. I believe there is a sound reason that God would create more than one religion. Mankind want to do things their own way, there is only one Jesus, so it makes sense that there would only be one Christian religion, but there are a thousand denominations, each one with the truth. This division is probably the biggest argument against Christianity.
However, if Christians were Christian towards each other , then our differences would not be so important. We are all created by the same God, so we should be kind towards each other despite our differences.
In the spirit of praying to 'One God'
Eric
You will never look into the eyes of anyone who does not matter to God.
Greetings and peace be with you czgibson; I have just noticed we have both been here over ten years, something keeps us coming back for more
The truth!
Creation is history, either at least one God created the universe and life, or there is no god at all. Which is the truth? You could flip a coin, heads its God, tails there is no god, you could be a hundred percent right, or a hundred percent wrong.
Can science explain how the universe and life came into being without God?
A few people may believe according to Pascal's wager, but I feel the vast majority of believers have a deep faith and trust in God.
God is big enough to create as many religions as he chooses, he can even grant salvation through each religion. I believe there is a sound reason that God would create more than one religion. Mankind want to do things their own way, there is only one Jesus, so it makes sense that there would only be one Christian religion, but there are a thousand denominations, each one with the truth. This division is probably the biggest argument against Christianity.
However, if Christians were Christian towards each other , then our differences would not be so important. We are all created by the same God, so we should be kind towards each other despite our differences.
In the spirit of praying to 'One God'
Eric
Some of what you say resonate in my mind of what an old man said lol.
That even if we may differ in faith, we are still humans, and thus need to help each other on worldly matters, to ensure safety for all.
Just because people of different faiths cooperate does not mean we agree. for example, I hold Islam to be the only truth, while you hold christianity to be true. We might disagree on that, but still work together on safety for humanity..
One does not have to agree, one can totally disagree, and still work for a better society.
Idk. xD
May Allah forgive me if I said something wrong. Ameen.
Thank you for your response Zafran, I appreciate it's honesty. Personally I can only speak for myself, but if it can be proven that say, Jesus was never crucified and that he in fact lived a long life and died a natural death, then yes that would invalidate Christianity. I can say that with no reservation, but you are right there is "belief" which in some way is beyond a rational argument. People are emotionally and psychologically attached to their beliefs and so detachment by rational argument can prove futile often. Perhaps the question can be reversed, what makes one believe Muhammad is a prophet? Why trust him at all?
Greetings,Asking questions like those in the OP might well be discouraged by those who have an interest in preserving a belief system, but neutral observers with no axe to grind face no such prohibition. In fact, asking rigorously sceptical questions has led humanity through several scientific and intellectual revolutions, which have made many aspects of modern life possible, far beyond the imaginations of earlier generations of our species. For example, the fact that we are able to have this discussion on an internet forum at all is evidence of technological breakthroughs that rest in large part on a relentless interrogation of the natural world, the formulation of falsifiable hypotheses and rigorous testing of them. Closing down such a questioning attitude is a willing surrender of the critical faculties, and is a demand to occupy and preserve an intellectual blind alley.At this point you exclude yourself from the debate, because your position is logically no different to that of a small child who says "it's mine!" having just stolen something from another, and who will not listen to any persuasion, or a psychiatric patient who insists he is Napoleon and will not be disabused of the notion. Peace
your also speaking like a spoilt child who dares to say his own father ''you did nothing, I (all atheists) was born myself with the help of big bang theory''
If a Muslim's belief in the Prophet Muhammad is rational, what would it take for a believer to swing towards disbelief?
For example, would textual variants of the Quran invalidate belief?
I think I get it. Well if you believe Islam is the truth and believe in the SIGNS of the Qu'ran and even signs that scientists took only recently find out than you first of all go with the Qu'ran.
I am no scholar but we are told to be rational. For example, the theory of evolution is called theory not fact of evolution and the only thing that contradicts Islam from my understanding is Humans sharing a common ancestor which the belief is the Prophet Adam had no ancestors and was created with the hands of God.
We always take the Qu'ran and the teachings of the Prophet SAW takes first and observes the others like if it fits. But generally, there isn't much since science is a observation based upon evidence and drawing a conclusion that may not be hundred percent of the truth but it 'regarded' as closer to the truth but not absolute certantity sinces law have the potential to always be changed. Tomorrow, 2 + 2 might = 1 since laws aren't certainty.
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
says,
. And theories and assumptions are what science might tell us.
Serinity liked this post
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks