Alleged Affirmations of Scientifically Accurate Verses

[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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

 

[asadxyz]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

Would you please state that at the time of revelation

1. human being knew that every thing is created in pairs.
2. Secondly did mankind knew that "life originated from water "

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

As far as I can see, it's a marketing ploy and nothing more.

Peace

 

[asadxyz]

Greetings,

As far as I can see, it's a marketing ploy and nothing more.

Peace

An irrational thought 'design is possible without a designer" bearers cannot even think of such things.It is beyon their capacity.So no wonder.

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

An irrational thought 'design is possible without a designer" bearers cannot even think of such things.It is beyon their capacity.So no wonder.

So, who designed the designer?

The logic (if I can call it that) of your own argument leads naturally to this question.

Peace

 

[tetsujin]

Would you please state that at the time of revelation

1. human being knew that every thing is created in pairs.
2. Secondly did mankind knew that "life originated from water "

No, I would not.

I take it to mean that you want me to explain those references.


The proposal itself is vague, but false nonetheless.

If by "pairs" you mean sexually compatible mates of the same species then there are quite a few that do not follow that rule.
Under asexual reproduction, various forms of budding, gemmules, fragmentation and regeneration can produce offspring. And it is not just the sponges and starfish who perhaps can conceivable be disregarded as important in the lives of humans but the numerous Oligochaeta and micro organisms that make human life even possible.

Earthworms, to take an example, are hermaphrodites and contain a full set of the necessary organs to reproduce "Sexually" but what is more interesting is that the will just as often reproduce asexually by simply folding their own bodies in half. Without these creatures in abundance, working our soil to make it more conducive for plant life, we may have given up farming many parts of the world.

Mitochondria, to take in internal example, are not part of the human cell structure in that our bodies to not produce them. These microorganisms and other bacterium living inside our bodies essentially create a world within our bodies that even allows for us to survive by producing the chemicals and proteins necessary for us to survive. This was only discovered recently. Like other bacterium, these organisms reproduce asexually through a process called binary fission.

If by "pairs" you mean mutually beneficial partnerships among plants and animals, in order to facilitate their lives, then unfortunately even that is false. Not all creatures have such pairs.

Unless you happen to take the evolutionary approach of arguing that a gazelle should be grateful for cheetahs because it has evolved to become a faster land animal in order to escape it's death, and cheetahs should be grateful for such an elusive prey for the same reason, only to be give up their kills on average to scavengers such as hyenas.


As for the Water idea. You really must read about other creation myths. 12th century BCE Sumerian, Assyrian, and Babylonian mythology created even their gods in the water let alone humans.


All the best wishes,

Faysal

 

[tetsujin]

An irrational thought 'design is possible without a designer" bearers cannot even think of such things.It is beyon their capacity.So no wonder.

Who is claiming that anything was designed? You've begged the question, but as far as I've seen, none of the atheists make such an argument.

Please read David Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, and you will understand why the design argument was utterly defeated before we even grasped a firm understanding of evolution (the appearance of design without the need for a designer). Hume did not have an alternative explanation available to him at the time but he conclusively showed that it is an argument from ignorance.

Edit:

To quote myself from another thread,


Arguments from ignorance, i.e. "I do not know, therefore...", are in and of themselves useless because once you claim to not know then you must forgo the ability to lay positive claims to truth.

I do not know how wormholes are created, I do not for a moment use my ignorance of an event which can be measured and evaluated naturally, to assert divine authority, nor can I use it, if it happen to be a singularity, to extrapolate vague theories which cannot be tested in order to establish positive claims about anything else.

In short, if you don't know then just admit it and try to find out, if you think you can't do it yourself, that still means you just have to admit you don't know.




All the best wishes,


Faysal

 

[جوري]

What is the abstract you'd like us to consider with your above manifesto?
You've already assumed your conclusions in the premises of your questions ( I am not seeing much room for a methodical or logical reasoning this is more a free style writing for one!~.. Are you looking for validation from fellow atheists or simply promote atheist philosophy in such a way that it appears as final and authoritarian method to broach the topic of God or theology?


cheers

 

[tetsujin]

It's quite simple.


You have two options.

1) You can read the Qu'ran, and make positive claims about the world and the universe.

or

2) You can read the Qu'ran, and not make positive claims about the universe.


I'm simply asking why one would choose to do the first, and use it to convert or otherwise advertise the divine revelation.


For example, the fact that the earth was a sphere was put forth by Pythagoreans as early as 500 BC and that it rotates as early as 455 BC, and even Aristotle contemplated a spherical earth in 340 BC. Simple devices such as the use of an effect known as parallax helped to determine this.


All the very best,


Faysal



Edit:

You didn't seem to like my methodical approach last time.

 

[جوري]

let's rather ask this..
Let's forgo the laws of chance and probability, forgo the earth's age and its climate that makes for favorable living conditions, forgo what we know of mutations, jumping genes, DNA breaks, forgo the 100, million species or so that inhabit this planet, forgo the real leap of faith it takes for a paramecium to dictate upon itself the laws of evolution incorporating every few years or so more base pairs ex nihilo to fully evolve into erect thinking, feeling human beings -- and not say have stopped at a more prospering cockroaches or other nightly insects.. as one would be full of unanswered questions, but those more erudite amongest us, it seems have done all the thinking, thus disabling the rest of us from treading those grounds out of dread we'd be labeled of those largely illitrate Arabians.. would still leave us with one simple question though at the bottom of it all... Where did that first organism come from? and why does it favor life, why does it favor evolution, why does it favor sentience, why does it favor speciation? What is the purpose of our existence? and how exactly does evolution confute a Creator?

Also, why is it that atheists are so full of sterility and lack imagination?

once a person has forgo the element of curiosity and wonderment, are we left with these sort of compositions... I sometimes wonder if any of you just sit and watch the sun rise or set at the end of the day and are in awe of any of it...


in closure, as I tend to despise these kinds of fruitless discussions.. I'll end with an excerpt by William Blake

To see a world in a grain of sand,
And a heaven in a wildflower:
Hold infinity in the palm of your hand,
And eternity in an hour.
from 'Auguries of Innocence'


cheers

 

[tetsujin]

You would surely have loved the late Carl Sagan. The universe is a wonderful and marvelous place, and I fail to see how atheism sterilizes one's world view.

Isn't is wonderful to know that white light as perceived by us is constituted by all the other colors we can imagine. But no, even Isaac Newton for his discoveries in optics was attacked for taking the wonder and mystery out of this world. The more we know about our universe the more we have to appreciate it and it's intricate laws. Why must one invoke a god for us to stand here dumbfounded in order to imagine a universe full of exciting things.

But no, praise be to god for all that is good and holy and all that we do not understand.

Sometimes I wonder why I am not deist.

Edit: If you do not wish to contribute to the discussion then please try not to stifle it.


All the very best,


Faysal

 

[جوري]

It's quite simple.

I know.. one can only go as far as their mind can take them!

You have two options.

1) You can read the Qu'ran, and make positive claims about the world and the universe.

or

2) You can read the Qu'ran, and not make positive claims about the universe.

I don't actually have only two options.. those are the two options that you've posed to create a theme for this thread, as if merits some deep mental effort. I choose neither!

I'm simply asking why one would choose to do the first, and use it to convert or otherwise advertise the divine revelation.

The divinity of the Quran isn't determined by the 'scientific conditions' or circumstances that follow that premise, whether proven or otherwise...

Further I haven't seen people using scientific evidence to echo its truth or to seek validity.. I can't think of a worst time for Muslims to go out there to convert others, but notwithstanding it still is the fastest growing religion on its own accord. Perhaps folks look deeper and find their answeres therein? Perhaps they think on different planes than you do?
People like you and Hume exist it is true.. but also people like Dr. Gary Miller, Dr. Murad Wilfred Hofmann, Dr. Jeffrey Lang etc etc.. Perhaps it is all to give contrast.. I don't particularly think they sat there and listened to a lecture by Hume or Deedat to resolve whether or not they should be Muslims.. the same thought that has lead you to be an atheist, has lead another to Islam!

For example, the fact that the earth was a sphere was put forth by Pythagoreans as early as 500 BC and that it rotates as early as 455 BC, and even Aristotle contemplated a spherical earth in 340 BC. Simple devices such as the use of an effect known as parallax helped to determine this.

Aha? so?

Edit:

You didn't seem to like my methodical approach last time.

it wasn't that great I am afraid--I mean this is along the lines of free-lance writing..

to impress upon us your atheism?!.. and you are so entitled..

all the best to you too


cheers

 

[جوري]

You would surely have loved the late Carl Sagan. The universe is a wonderful and marvelous place, and I fail to see how atheism sterilizes one's world view.

Atheists echo sterility to me.. I suppose the same way Muslims echo a 'largely illitrate' population to you!

Isn't is wonderful to know that white light as perceived by us is constituted by all the other colors we can imagine. But no, even Isaac Newton for his discoveries in optics was attacked for taking the wonder and mystery out of this world. The more we know about our universe the more we have to appreciate it and it's intricate laws. Why must one invoke a god for us to stand here dumbfounded in order to imagine a universe full of exciting things.

You have every free will not to invoke him.. believe ir or not, some of us are only happy to give thanks and be in awe of all this splendor..

Sometimes I wonder why I am not deist.

Good question, I am sure only you can answer that!

Edit: If you do not wish to contribute to the discussion then please try not to stifle it.

I thought the topic was/is enfeebled from the outset?.. I doubt I can do much damage to it!

All the very best,

and to you..

cheers

 

[tetsujin]

I know.. one can only go as far as their mind can take you!


I don't actually have only two options.. those are the two options that you've posed to create a theme for this thread, as if merits some deep mental effort. I choose neither!

Out of curiosity, what would you choose, if you could make up your own option?

The divinity of the Quran isn't determined by the 'scientific conditions' or circumstances that follow that premise, whether proven or otherwise...

Great, I don't see where I've stated otherwise.

Further I haven't seen people using scientific evidence to echo its truth or to seek validity.. I can't think of a worst time for Muslims to go out there to convert others, but notwithstanding it still is the fastest growing religion on its own accord. Perhaps folks look deeper and find their answeres therein? Perhaps they think on different planes than you do?
People like you and Hume exist it is true.. but also people like Dr. Gary Miller, Dr. Murad Wilfred Hofmann, Dr. Jeffrey Lang etc etc.. Perhaps it is all to give contrast.. I don't particularly think they sat there and listened to a lecture by Hume or Deedat to resolve whether or not they should be Muslims.. the same thought that has lead you to be an atheist, has lead another to Islam!

Great! That's wonderful. I would like to find out what they're thinking. There's obviously something that they have found that I have yet to discover. Why keep it bottled up? Share with the infidels and maybe they'll save a few souls.

This is a refutations board, yes? Surely you expected to find some opposition to the Islamic teachings.

In any case, a quick search of the words Qu'ran and modern science will lead to hundreds of books and websites claiming what you suggest I have imposed as the truth. From the Harun Yahas to the Zakir Naiks and many literate scholars in between.

If it's not the case, I apologize.




Faysal




Edit:

Atheists echo sterility to me.. I suppose the same way Muslims echo a 'largely illitrate' population to you!

I've never said that. Clearly if the word was revealed to an illiterate nation, they could not already be Muslims.

 

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

^^ Ummm bro i suggest u edit ur post. none of that stuff on here...+o(

Edit. k good.

 

[tetsujin]

^^ Ummm bro i suggest u edit ur post. none of that stuff on here...+o(

I'll make a note of it.

What's the customary way of showing platonic love in Islam?


Peace be with you,


Faysal

 

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

We don't show "love" to the opposite sex, except with respect in modesty. We dont hug and kiss or anything. Talking with dignity and respect is better than anything.

Peace.

 

[tetsujin]

We don't show "love" to the opposite sex, except with respect in modesty. We dont hug and kiss or anything. Talking with dignity and respect is better than anything.

Peace.

I hope I've shown nothing less than dignity and respect. To be sure, I wouldn't actually run up and hug and kiss a woman. I suppose I could have chosen other words.





Faysal

 

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

I wasnt implying that, you just asked for a better way. So I gave you one, that's all

 

[snakelegs]

It's quite simple.


You have two options.

1) You can read the Qu'ran, and make positive claims about the world and the universe.

or

2) You can read the Qu'ran, and not make positive claims about the universe.


I'm simply asking why one would choose to do the first, and use it to convert or otherwise advertise the divine revelation.

there are many more options than the 2 above. you can read the qur'an and think it's really kinda cool how god is always drawing your attention to his creation as a way of showing that he works through nature.
personally, i see no reason to try to use the qur'an as a science text book and i don't think that was the purpose.