Astrophysics says that this universe is created by the big bang . Even Quran explains how big bang created the universe. But most astrophysicists don't believe in God? Stephen Hawkins didn't believe in God . Science hasn't approve the concept of heaven and hell . What do you have to say about this?
Astrophysics
- Thread starter Nashita
- Start date
- Replies 36
- Views 16K
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Halal Food Gastronomy | vBulletin 4 php 8.0 patch
Big Bang is not a living creature so it cannot create anything. Allah created the universe by initiating the big bang.
The discoverer of the big bang was Georges Lemaitre, a Belgian astronomer and at the same time a catholic priest....so a god fearing man.
Big bang is not a living creature but it's a process which explains how the universe got created.
Well I don't know whether he is a priest or not and even if he is , I want to know to know why he believed in God and his religion Christianity?
Unfortunately we cannot ask him why he believed in God and why he wasn't Muslim...he is dead.
Big bang theory indeed explains the creation of the universe perfect.
I think the question you are asking here is:
how come that scientists can believe in the big bang theory...but still not believe in God?
Science is a tool for us to explain how everything around us works. you see some strange phenomenon, thinks out a possible explanation for it, test this possibility whether is feasable or not...if not you think out another explanation, if so, you can investigate a little deeper.
So science is always an approximation of the reality.
pure science is only interested in providing logical explanations for yet unknown phenomenon using facts and experiments which can reproduce this or similar phenomenon...sometimes on a smaller or controlable scale and environment.
Therefore, science is not interested in stuff which are not provable, logical or spiritual in the first place.
So, some scientiscts understood this and they still believed in God...others were not aware of this, and got fooled by the illusion of the power of science that it can explain everything...and they were atheists.
In reality, science will never prove, not disprove the existence of God...because if it could...then the whole concept of coming to this world has no use anymore.
Big bang theory indeed explains the creation of the universe perfect.
I think the question you are asking here is:
how come that scientists can believe in the big bang theory...but still not believe in God?
Science is a tool for us to explain how everything around us works. you see some strange phenomenon, thinks out a possible explanation for it, test this possibility whether is feasable or not...if not you think out another explanation, if so, you can investigate a little deeper.
So science is always an approximation of the reality.
pure science is only interested in providing logical explanations for yet unknown phenomenon using facts and experiments which can reproduce this or similar phenomenon...sometimes on a smaller or controlable scale and environment.
Therefore, science is not interested in stuff which are not provable, logical or spiritual in the first place.
So, some scientiscts understood this and they still believed in God...others were not aware of this, and got fooled by the illusion of the power of science that it can explain everything...and they were atheists.
In reality, science will never prove, not disprove the existence of God...because if it could...then the whole concept of coming to this world has no use anymore.
Science is definitely interested in proving something which is very much in popular and in demand and which also happens to be not proved yet(Like God).
Some scientists don't believe in God is because they feel that Science might discover in future all that which is yet to be proven .
Who's running the universe? Some will answer it's God while some will answer it's Science. Both are logical as both the answers can be proved logically.
An atheist will question who created God ? While someone who believes in God will use the theory of probability and question how can something so perfect like the universe exist because of an accident?
Both questions are logical and valid !! How will you approach both the questions?
Good brother
Esteemed Member
- Messages
- 209
- Reaction score
- 21
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Islam
Hawkins said we don't need a creator because we have gravity !!!!
Who made the gravity? Who put the gravity as a property in matter?
Can you answer this simple question ?
All the evidence points to a beginning. And if there is a beginning, then the question of what caused the universe to come into being needs to be answered.
Science cannot answer this question because science trades on material causes, and you can’t have a material cause before the origin of material reality itself. Whatever caused the universe to come into being must be immaterial, timeless, non-spatial, powerful, and intelligent.
Laws of nature don't create themselves.
The problem of Hawking (Turn on subtitles):
You may ask: Who created God?
God is uncreated by definition.
We take God as a God because He is uncreated. If he was created He would not be God, and therefore we would not take him as God. This is much more convincing belief than doubt (of the atheists) who have no answer. One of the attributes of God is that He is Eternal. By definition Eternal is forever with no beginning; therefore the question is absurd. Only temporal/non-eternal beings are created. By logic, everyone agrees with the fact that there was something Eternal which gave life to this universe and its inhabitants. We believe that the Eternal is everlasting and intelligent being and we call Him God.
Take the example of the bullet that was fired by a soldier, we ask him: Who give you the order, he responded: My commander who also received the order by an officer with a higher rank , this goes on until we reach the top commander who must exist to give the original order, otherwise, there would be no bullet fired in the first place. So, Eternal Creator is the only plausible answer for this world of creation.
That's why the argument address any human who has a mind. It's direct, simple and doesn't require any extraordinary efforts to grasp.
Who made the gravity? Who put the gravity as a property in matter?
Can you answer this simple question ?
All the evidence points to a beginning. And if there is a beginning, then the question of what caused the universe to come into being needs to be answered.
Science cannot answer this question because science trades on material causes, and you can’t have a material cause before the origin of material reality itself. Whatever caused the universe to come into being must be immaterial, timeless, non-spatial, powerful, and intelligent.
Laws of nature don't create themselves.
The problem of Hawking (Turn on subtitles):
You may ask: Who created God?
God is uncreated by definition.
We take God as a God because He is uncreated. If he was created He would not be God, and therefore we would not take him as God. This is much more convincing belief than doubt (of the atheists) who have no answer. One of the attributes of God is that He is Eternal. By definition Eternal is forever with no beginning; therefore the question is absurd. Only temporal/non-eternal beings are created. By logic, everyone agrees with the fact that there was something Eternal which gave life to this universe and its inhabitants. We believe that the Eternal is everlasting and intelligent being and we call Him God.
Take the example of the bullet that was fired by a soldier, we ask him: Who give you the order, he responded: My commander who also received the order by an officer with a higher rank , this goes on until we reach the top commander who must exist to give the original order, otherwise, there would be no bullet fired in the first place. So, Eternal Creator is the only plausible answer for this world of creation.
That's why the argument address any human who has a mind. It's direct, simple and doesn't require any extraordinary efforts to grasp.
Zeal
Elite Member
- Messages
- 453
- Reaction score
- 24
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Islam
Good brother
Esteemed Member
- Messages
- 209
- Reaction score
- 21
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Islam
Science is simply our observations and utilization of resources in the existing world.
- - - Updated - - -
If there are people specialized in science who believe that they are created by God, others don't.
pg 57 https://books.google.com.au/books?id=3jrbmL-DgZQC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false
There is no way to prove or disprove God. Any attempt to prove that is pseudoscience. Of course people are interested...they are also interested in the loch ness monster, bigfoot, chupacabra, frankenstein, lord dracula, etc.
What they can do is investigate the history and try to find evidences that Muhammed pbuh, or any other prophet had actually lived...stuff like that...but still...nothing about the existence of God.
Exactly what I am saying...some scientists are fooled by the "power of science" that they think science can explain everything eventually...but they do not realise that even science has a limit.
Science is running the universe? who will ever say that?
No. That is not logical nor valid. you cannot ask "who created God"...that would be half rejecting...pay attention...that very question of the atheist (who created God) is NOT logical. this question does not consider the existence of God at all, because it already rejects half of it.
God is omnipotent and ever existing. So, if you assume that God might exist...then you cannot ask the question "who created him?"
in other words, the atheist that asks the question "who created God" acknowledges the possibility that there might be a God who created the universe....but at the same time fails to understand that God is ever existing...It is all or nothing...not just half of it...that is not logical.
I hope you understand what I am trying to say here.
Abz2000
Abz Iz Back!!!
- Messages
- 5,358
- Reaction score
- 589
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Islam
Firstly science isn't a being hence that which isn't something cannot say anything - rather it is a description of research, and those who are truthful to Allah, to themselves, and to others - research within Allah's limits and without commiting crimes such as torturing people to see how long they can bleed whilst jotting down observations.
Allah can be proven through the process of logical elimination to a deep thinking mind.
The shahaadah which first negates false matrices and then confirms the undeniable fact (similar to the way in which Ibrahim :as: came to the truth) actually points us in this direction.
Chicken first or egg first? We can carry on arguing one over the other but will not be left with any tangible answer unless we accept that something preceded both, then we can go backwards through to bacteria, to amino acids to basic chemicals to radiation until we come to the understanding that:
--- either something preceded the something which preceded the something until the atheistic throwing in of the hat and trying to convince oneself that the immediately previous answer is more valuable than the eternal chain of unanswerable answers therefore only whatever is present and tangible is of value - though this is obviously false - since the present task/link cannot exist without the first command/link in the chain, nothing present would exist since the command chain would be impossibly eternal without primary command/primary link.
Therefore - "laa ilaah" is a nonsensical term without a confirmation of what is.
------ or - there must exist SomeOne eternal who is independent of time and above the chain of command, and this someone has unified control over all laws - otherwise each other would have attempted to reach the Supreme Throne and there would be chaos in the universal laws.
- and this Eternal Someone Who has no equals or likenesses is called Allah :swt: in the Arabic language.
La ilaaha illa Allah :swt: now adds up soundly and nothing matches it.
The messengers are then sent to confirm the fact in human speech, to guide people on how best to get through it all, to give glad tidings, and to warn.
Anyways - think about that stuff deeply and i'm certain that the truth of Allah's majesty is undeniable.
BTW, i just conjured this up when thinking of the sun, the moon, and the planets - can anyone find any flaws in it?
"A" is magnetic attraction and "R" is magnetic repulsion. ("R" is current cog position - "A" positioning is after 180° turn) The vertical "moon" orbit for "R" value may be tilted in order to make strength and timing adjustments but does not spin on its own axis and its respective "R" side always faces it's planet/cog.
View attachment 6464
Allah can be proven through the process of logical elimination to a deep thinking mind.
The shahaadah which first negates false matrices and then confirms the undeniable fact (similar to the way in which Ibrahim :as: came to the truth) actually points us in this direction.
Chicken first or egg first? We can carry on arguing one over the other but will not be left with any tangible answer unless we accept that something preceded both, then we can go backwards through to bacteria, to amino acids to basic chemicals to radiation until we come to the understanding that:
--- either something preceded the something which preceded the something until the atheistic throwing in of the hat and trying to convince oneself that the immediately previous answer is more valuable than the eternal chain of unanswerable answers therefore only whatever is present and tangible is of value - though this is obviously false - since the present task/link cannot exist without the first command/link in the chain, nothing present would exist since the command chain would be impossibly eternal without primary command/primary link.
Therefore - "laa ilaah" is a nonsensical term without a confirmation of what is.
------ or - there must exist SomeOne eternal who is independent of time and above the chain of command, and this someone has unified control over all laws - otherwise each other would have attempted to reach the Supreme Throne and there would be chaos in the universal laws.
- and this Eternal Someone Who has no equals or likenesses is called Allah :swt: in the Arabic language.
La ilaaha illa Allah :swt: now adds up soundly and nothing matches it.
The messengers are then sent to confirm the fact in human speech, to guide people on how best to get through it all, to give glad tidings, and to warn.
Anyways - think about that stuff deeply and i'm certain that the truth of Allah's majesty is undeniable.
BTW, i just conjured this up when thinking of the sun, the moon, and the planets - can anyone find any flaws in it?
"A" is magnetic attraction and "R" is magnetic repulsion. ("R" is current cog position - "A" positioning is after 180° turn) The vertical "moon" orbit for "R" value may be tilted in order to make strength and timing adjustments but does not spin on its own axis and its respective "R" side always faces it's planet/cog.
View attachment 6464
Last edited:
I do not agree with these statements at all. The entire universe and all it contains is a clear and convincing, conclusive proof and evidence for the existence of the Creator. In all that Allah Created, we find nothing but order, precision, and symmetry. The fact that we can even have a thing called "science" is proof that the universe was created. The order and meticulous nature of the universe is why we can so conveniently compile books of scientific laws--Rules which never break and are fixed and are organized in a way that Man could never emulate.
See: Why a scientist believes in God: https://www.missionislam.com/science/scientist.htm MUST READ
Throughout history, the overwhelming majority of scientists have been believers in a Creator. Our own history has testified to this fact. As early as 800 CE Muslim scientists laid down some of the foundations of which modern day science is built. That is only 200 years after the Prophet (Salalahu 'Alaihi wa Salaam). This is clear proof that these scientific achievements were a direct result of Islam. (The Arabs before Islam were nothing more than superstitious ignorant dogs of the desert)
Setting the Record Straight: https://www.missionislam.com/science/record.htm ALSO A MUST READ
The problem with atheists is that they are in extreme denial.
Abz2000
Abz Iz Back!!!
- Messages
- 5,358
- Reaction score
- 589
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Islam
What do yous think of this:
(I hope someone who has access to neodymium magnets tries it if it seems feasible and lets us all know the results - i used to have loads but no longer have internet transaction after closing my shop).
The "N" value of the magnets can be increased by stacking them.
View attachment 6465
"R" or moon can be added later as a regulator (mawaaqeetu li an Naas) if it starts accelerating as imagined.
Be ready to run out of the room (mr iron man - can you regulate).
- - - Updated - - -
The books containing scientific OBSERVATIONS of laws are always subject to change as knowledge increases - and most technological inventions are usually based on inspiration from Allah :swt: via observation of natural phenomenon - aeroplanes - birds, tall buildings - trees, car - horse, pump - heart etc
Last edited:
Very eloquently put, brother. It is for this reason that prior to becoming a Muslim I was an agnostic. I believed in God and the oneness of God, I simply didn't belong to any particular religion. That has changed.
Abz2000
Abz Iz Back!!!
- Messages
- 5,358
- Reaction score
- 589
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Islam
Those links to the magnet disappeared, i'll try again, but this time add the 1999 kw4 orbit - or what's been presented as the orbit (the phases and relative speeds could possibly be different from the simulation) for additional thought:
Couldn't find the other model with "r" - but here's a basic one to get thinkers thinking:
Click to enlarge:
View attachment 6703
If 11n is placed sideways instead of perpetually facing the horizontal chain like the others - the "R" pole on the 11n magnet (facing left) in the 1-11n cylinder ought (in theory) to repel the magnets on the horizontal chain which have already passed - thereby increasing efficiency - even though the total pull of 1-10n ought to be greater than 11n.
The spike from viewer vantage point increases as the "moon" arrives on near side - indicating that the "moon" could be acting as a magnetic shield/offsetter.
Notice how (ideal) moons usually face their hubbies - indicating magnetic polar attraction:
Yusuf 12:4
إِذْ قَالَ يُوسُفُ لِأَبِيهِ يَٰٓأَبَتِ إِنِّى رَأَيْتُ أَحَدَ عَشَرَ كَوْكَبًا وَٱلشَّمْسَ وَٱلْقَمَرَ رَأَيْتُهُمْ لِى سَٰجِدِينَ
Behold! Joseph said to his father: "O my father! I did see eleven stars and the sun and the moon: I saw them prostrate themselves to me!"
Couldn't find the other model with "r" - but here's a basic one to get thinkers thinking:
Click to enlarge:
View attachment 6703
If 11n is placed sideways instead of perpetually facing the horizontal chain like the others - the "R" pole on the 11n magnet (facing left) in the 1-11n cylinder ought (in theory) to repel the magnets on the horizontal chain which have already passed - thereby increasing efficiency - even though the total pull of 1-10n ought to be greater than 11n.
The spike from viewer vantage point increases as the "moon" arrives on near side - indicating that the "moon" could be acting as a magnetic shield/offsetter.
Notice how (ideal) moons usually face their hubbies - indicating magnetic polar attraction:
Yusuf 12:4
إِذْ قَالَ يُوسُفُ لِأَبِيهِ يَٰٓأَبَتِ إِنِّى رَأَيْتُ أَحَدَ عَشَرَ كَوْكَبًا وَٱلشَّمْسَ وَٱلْقَمَرَ رَأَيْتُهُمْ لِى سَٰجِدِينَ
Behold! Joseph said to his father: "O my father! I did see eleven stars and the sun and the moon: I saw them prostrate themselves to me!"
Last edited:
Very interesting discussion.
I would like to challenge your statement that scientists are interested in "proofs." While it is true that scientists use experiments and observation to substantiate old theories or form new ones, I do not think that their aim is ever to discover any kind of absolute truths. On the contrary, the main goal of science is to disprove existing theories.
This is because humans will never achieve omniscience (knowing everything). The universe is vast, and we are but a very small part of it. As another poster pointed out, all we can do is formulate theories to explain the limited amount of data that we have. As we gain more data, these theories must be modified or replaced.
For example, the ancient Greek astronomer Ptolemy devised a theory of the universe in which the Earth was at the center, and the stars and planets revolved around it. Given the observable data available at that point in history, his theory worked extremely well. It did a good job of predicting the seasons and the motions of planetary bodies. It worked so well that it continued to be the dominant theory of astronomy for hundreds and hundreds of years.
After the invention of the telescope, mankind was blessed with a huge influx of new data. It became clear that Ptolemy's theory was no longer sufficient to explain what we saw. Due to the brilliant work of men like Copernicus, Galileo, and Kepler, a new theory of astronomy was devised -- one that placed the Sun at the center of the universe. Sir Isaac Newton later created a mathematical theory of gravity which even better explained the observable data.
For hundreds of years, Newton's laws of gravity continued to serve as the best model for our understanding of the universe. But it would be a mistake to hold that his laws were "proofs" or absolute truths. In fact, new data was discovered in the 19th century that contradicted Newton's laws. For example, if you apply them to the revolutionary orbit of the planet Mercury, you get the wrong answer. (We now know that Newton's laws always give the wrong answer if you look closely enough.) A new theory had to be devised. Enter Einstein.
Einstein's theory of relativity is now the standard for how we look at the observable universe on a grand scale. So far, his theory gives the right answer for what we see. But again, I think it would be a huge mistake to think that relativity is any kind of absolute truth. It is only a human approximation that does the best job (so far) of explaining the world as we see it.
As science and technology continue to progress, the aim of scientists is not to continue to "prove" that Einstein was right. Instead, ever more complex experiments are continually devised to try to find instances where his theory gives the wrong answer. And the scientific world fully expects that this will happen. It's only a question of when and how.
The way I look at it, it would be unfair to say that Ptolemy's theory was false from the beginning. Given the data available at the time, his model of the universe was the best available. The same goes for Newton, Einstein, and whoever comes next. Even when their theories are disproven, this does not imply that they are false. They are true given a certain context of knowledge. But our context of knowledge is continually expanding by way of new experiments and observations.
The same holds true for the big bang theory. For right now, it is the best explanation for what we see. But consider that this theory is not even a hundred years old yet. It is entirely possible that tomorrow a new discovery will be made that forces us to throw the big bang theory out the window and come up with something different. This will always be the case for any scientific theory.
I am very passionate about this topic because it serves as a continual reminder to stay humble. Whenever I start to feel that I am wise, I must remind myself of how small are the contents of my brain when compared to the vastness of the universe. I must accept that I will never know the "absolute truth" about anything.
This may sound like a cynical view, but I like to think of it in a positive way. To me, it means that the joy of learning new things will continue for my entire life. I try to appreciate it when someone proves me wrong about something that I believe -- it means that I have learned something new. Learning is a beautiful thing.
Thanks for reading.
Abz2000
Abz Iz Back!!!
- Messages
- 5,358
- Reaction score
- 589
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Islam
[MENTION=37755]DanEdge[/MENTION]
Burning the batteries was clearly a statement of intent and an action meriting judgement..
Although the diagrams i provided above don't add up - since each magnet only adds 1n to the equation and a flip from 11n south to 11n north adds the need for a 22n push which isn't in that model - and even if 11n was south only - the 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1 before it only totals 10n if all were thrusting a piece each at the same time ... the total amount of thrust does not equal the amount required to release the one at 11n ... therefore, different models are required.
Muammar yildez' machine has neither been debunked - nor followed up .... and there was a sky news piece on someone else's before that too which was later ignored .... worth looking into.
Edit:
The sky news piece belonged to John Christi...
Here's Muammar Yildez' piece:
another model could be comparable to a child pushing a shopping trolley and an overhead turning magnet lifting it up, then as it goes higher, with each cog - the gravitational pull increases, then the energy from the fall at the end (including impact and spring rebound) is conserved and added back into the equation (a bit like how a jackhammer operates.
Allah :swt: knows best.
Burning the batteries was clearly a statement of intent and an action meriting judgement..
Although the diagrams i provided above don't add up - since each magnet only adds 1n to the equation and a flip from 11n south to 11n north adds the need for a 22n push which isn't in that model - and even if 11n was south only - the 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1 before it only totals 10n if all were thrusting a piece each at the same time ... the total amount of thrust does not equal the amount required to release the one at 11n ... therefore, different models are required.
Muammar yildez' machine has neither been debunked - nor followed up .... and there was a sky news piece on someone else's before that too which was later ignored .... worth looking into.
Edit:
The sky news piece belonged to John Christi...
Here's Muammar Yildez' piece:
another model could be comparable to a child pushing a shopping trolley and an overhead turning magnet lifting it up, then as it goes higher, with each cog - the gravitational pull increases, then the energy from the fall at the end (including impact and spring rebound) is conserved and added back into the equation (a bit like how a jackhammer operates.
Allah :swt: knows best.
Last edited:
space
Esteemed Member
- Messages
- 232
- Reaction score
- 1
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Islam
it's funny, a weak disabled "educated" old man chained to a wheelchair for his entire miserable life who was unable to follow some basic personal hygienic habits kept refusing to believe in the unseen, kept rejecting the confirmation of facts and arguments about the existence of God.. just died in vain without acquiring proper knowledge about the meaning of life, eventually the end of his life was as foolish as his rational scientific stubbornness
Tell me you're not talking about Stephen Hawking...
space
Esteemed Member
- Messages
- 232
- Reaction score
- 1
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Islam
he may possibly had a significant amount of physics knowledge in certain fields of astronomy being a known scientist among the other famous scientists who declared that there is no God, it's kinda like a small helpless ant living inside the box that desperately trying to claim there's no one no worlds nothing outside his tiny empty space in a square shaped container
Just considering his contributions to science without regard to his personal beliefs, the man was a giant. I think it's actually more impressive that he was able to accomplish what he did with such a debilitating disease. It is very possible that the first detection of a black hole in 2016, and our first images of the accretion disk around the black hole at the center of the Milky Way galaxy from this year would not have happened without Hawking's contributions.
I think you need to separate the art from the artist. You can appreciate a man's work even if you do not respect the man himself. Many great men are flawed, perhaps even most of them.