How could the universe and life start without God, how did life evolve without God?

[chalks75]

Greetings and peace be with you chalks75;



You have already said you don't know how the universe came to be, and I accept that as an answer. I don't know either, other than I have a faith and trust that God created everything. However, that is not the purpose of this thread.



The first part of the thread is - How could the universe come into being without God? And can we have some science please. Do you want to add anything to this before we move onto evolution?



God is the creator of all that is seen and unseen, so how did the universe come to be without a creator God?

In spirit of searching for God,

Eric

Is faith a reliable path to truth ?

There is no scientific theory that describes the origin of the universe, if it had an origin.

To quote Sean Carroll
“We should not think of the Big Bang as the beginning of the universe, but the end of our understanding of the universe.

The must honest position I can take is to say
I don’t know, and it’s likely that I will never know.

To ask “how could the universe come into being without god “

Is to assume
1. The universe came into being
2. There is a god or gods.

The extent of our scientific understanding stretches back to about 1 second after the universe began to expend, and no further.

Let me ask you this , actually 2 things

1. Do you think god can do what’s not logical
2. Does god know, that he created everything ?

 

[keiv]

'I don't know how the universe came to be, but I know you're wrong' is basically the tl;dr version of every Atheist's explanation on the universe.

 

[Al-Ansariyah]

Is faith a reliable path to truth ?

There is no scientific theory that describes the origin of the universe, if it had an origin.

To quote Sean Carroll
“We should not think of the Big Bang as the beginning of the universe, but the end of our understanding of the universe.

The must honest position I can take is to say
I don’t know, and it’s likely that I will never know.

To ask “how could the universe come into being without god “

Is to assume
1. The universe came into being
2. There is a god or gods.

The extent of our scientific understanding stretches back to about 1 second after the universe began to expend, and no further.

Let me ask you this , actually 2 things

1. Do you think god can do what’s not logical
2. Does god know, that he created everything ?

Quran was revealed to prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and he memorized it,his companions did the same. Then it was passed on to next generations. Hence,today it is exactly as it was 1440 years ago.

•The creation of the universe

“Do the disbelievers not see that the heavens and the earth were joined together, then I split them apart?” [Qur’an, 21:30]

According to modern science, the separation process resulted in the formation of multiple worlds, a concept which appears dozens of times in the Qur’an. For example, look at the first chapter of the Qur’an, al-Faatihah “Praise be to God, the Lord of the Worlds.” Qur’an, 1:2 ). These Qur’anic references are in perfect agreement with modern ideas on the existence of primary nebula (galactic dust), followed by the separation of the elements which resulted in the formation of galaxies and then stars from which the planets were born. Reference is also made in the Qur’an to an intermediary creation between the heavens and the earth, as seen in chapter al-Furqaan:

“God is the one who created the heavens, the earth and what is between them…” [Qur’an, 25:59]




•The Sun and the moon

"Did you see how Allah created seven heavens, one above the other, and made in them the moon a light and the sun a lamp?” [Qur’an, 71: 15-16]

The moon is an inert body which reflects light, whereas the sun is a celestial body in a state of permanent combustion producing both light and heat.



•The stars and the planets

The word ‘star’ (najm) in the Qur’an ( 86:3 ) is accompanied by the adjective thaaqib which indicates that it burns and consumes itself as it pierces through the shadows of the night. It was much later discovered that stars are heavenly bodies producing their own light like the sun.

In the Qur’an, a different word, kawkab, is used to refer to the planets which are celestial bodies that reflect light and do not produce their own light like the sun.

“We have adorned the lowest heaven with ornaments, the planets.” [Qur’an, 37:6]


•Orbits

“(God is) the one who created the night, the day, the sun and the moon. Each one is traveling in an orbit with its own motion.” [Qur’an,21:33]

The Arabic word which expresses this movement is the verb yasbahoon which implies the idea of motion produced by a moving body, whether it is the movement of one’s legs running on the ground, or the action of swimming in water. In the case of a celestial body, one is forced to translate it, according to its original meaning, as ‘to travel with its own motion.’

 

[Al-Ansariyah]

Is faith a reliable path to truth ?

There is no scientific theory that describes the origin of the universe, if it had an origin.

To quote Sean Carroll
“We should not think of the Big Bang as the beginning of the universe, but the end of our understanding of the universe.

The must honest position I can take is to say
I don’t know, and it’s likely that I will never know.

To ask “how could the universe come into being without god “

Is to assume
1. The universe came into being
2. There is a god or gods.

The extent of our scientific understanding stretches back to about 1 second after the universe began to expend, and no further.

Let me ask you this , actually 2 things

1. Do you think god can do what’s not logical
2. Does god know, that he created everything ?

• The Solar Apex

The notion of a settled place for the sun is vividly described in chapter Yaa Seen of the Qur’an:

“The sun runs its coarse to a settled place That is the decree of the Almighty, the All Knowing.” Qur’an, 36:38

“Settled place” is the translation of the word mustaqarr which indicates an exact appointed place and time. Modern astronomy confirms that the solar system is indeed moving in space at a rate of 12 miles per second towards a point situated in the constellation of Hercules ( alpha lyrae ) whose exact location has been precisely calculated. Astronomers have even give it a name, the solar apex.


• Expansion of the universe

“I built the heaven with power and it is I, who am expanding it.” Qur’an,51:47

The expansion of the universe was first suggested by the general theory of relativity and is supported by the calculations of astrophysics. The regular movement of the galactic light towards the red section of the spectrum is explained by the distancing of one galaxy from another. Thus, the size of the universe appears to be progressively increasing.



I have other evidences too if u need....

 

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you chalks75;

The must honest position I can take is to say
I don’t know, and it’s likely that I will never know.

This is the third time you have confirmed honestly that you don't know how the universe came to be. We should not deviate from that honesty by saying, the universe came about by natural causes. Rather you should say, I BELIEVE that the universe came about by natural causes because you do not have the science to back your take on truth.

Likewise, I can only claim that I believe there is a creator God. But I started this thread by asking how much science there is to support the notion; that everything we see is the result of natural causes.

If we are to continue with this discussion then we should try and be truthful with the science we have now.

In the spirit of searching for God,
Eric

 

[Ümit]

Greetings and peace be with you chalks75;



This is the third time you have confirmed honestly that you don't know how the universe came to be. We should not deviate from that honesty by saying, the universe came about by natural causes. Rather you should say, I BELIEVE that the universe came about by natural causes because you do not have the science to back your take on truth.

Likewise, I can only claim that I believe there is a creator God. But I started this thread by asking how much science there is to support the notion; that everything we see is the result of natural causes.

If we are to continue with this discussion then we should try and be truthful with the science we have now.

In the spirit of searching for God,
Eric

The problem however is that science is just the part we understand from our surroundings. it is a tool to understand the universe. It is not the absolute truth, just an approximation of it. Therefore, science can be wrong. Even the scientific facts, no matter how hard they have been proven can be wrong on a later stadium.
a classic example to demonstrate this is this:
a train is travelling with Str = 100 km/h. Inside the train a person stands up and walks toward the front with Sp = 5 km/h. What is his total speed?.
Basic natural law says that we can just add speeds together if the direction is the same. so the total speed of that person St = Str + Sp = 105 km/h.
We have used this formula for ages. this formula is correct, it is a scientific fact, repeatable, the results are always the same.
We still use this formula...it is easy to use and easy to understand and it works.

Despite all this, Einstein has proven this formula is not entirely correct...a better formula would be: St = (Str+Sp)/(1+StrSp/C^2) but because the speeds are much more smaller than C, the formula can be reduced to St = Str + Sp.

but this formula in turn is also just a new approximation of the absolute truth. as the human kind keeps on developping, we keep replacing such scientific facts and formulas with new ones, better ones, and we come another step closer to the absolute truth....but every time...it just is a new approximation and never the absolute truth.

The one true religion however IS the absolute truth.

Therefore, evolution...even if it really were a fact like chalky would like to claim, could be false after all, or slightly different as we think about it now.

What Chalky did not realise...even if evolution really took place...or still going on right now, this is not an exclusion of God! He could have used evolution as a tool to create life...

Oh and one last important thing here:
No matter how hard you try...there is one thing science never can explain...which is the existence of life itself. no matter how small the incremental steps are...the step from dead material to hardly alive material is too big. zero plus zero can never be one.

 

[chalks75]

• The Solar Apex

The notion of a settled place for the sun is vividly described in chapter Yaa Seen of the Qur’an:

“The sun runs its coarse to a settled place That is the decree of the Almighty, the All Knowing.” Qur’an, 36:38

“Settled place” is the translation of the word mustaqarr which indicates an exact appointed place and time. Modern astronomy confirms that the solar system is indeed moving in space at a rate of 12 miles per second towards a point situated in the constellation of Hercules ( alpha lyrae ) whose exact location has been precisely calculated. Astronomers have even give it a name, the solar apex.


• Expansion of the universe

“I built the heaven with power and it is I, who am expanding it.” Qur’an,51:47

The expansion of the universe was first suggested by the general theory of relativity and is supported by the calculations of astrophysics. The regular movement of the galactic light towards the red section of the spectrum is explained by the distancing of one galaxy from another. Thus, the size of the universe appears to be progressively increasing.



I have other evidences too if u need....

Hi user123

The key thing you need to realise here is that
If the passage you quoted was meant and understood by Muslims, scholars and clerics etc, to indicate that the universe was an expanding universe,

Why did it take until science to discover that it was expanding for you to realise that ?

Was it a commonly held belief among Muslims, before 1920 that the universe was expanding.

What happens here, and not just with Muslims and the Koran, but with Jews and Christians and the bible, and Hindus and the Bhagavad Gita.

Let me explain

Science will make a discovery like the universe is expanding.

Then people look at their holy books after being enlightened by science, and find passages that they can interpret to fit this new information.
Then claim
“ ah look, my book must be true, because this must mean that”

At one time people believe that the earth was the Center of the universe / solar system.

Imagine we still believed that ,
Do you think I could find a passage in the Quran, that if read with that belief in mind would confirm that it’s true ?

If you really want to impress me,
Don’t want for science to enlighten you, then find a verse in the Koran that you can interpret in light of this new understanding.

Look in the Koran, and give me the verse that will indicate the next big discovery from science, before science discovers it.

 

[chalks75]

Greetings and peace be with you chalks75;



This is the third time you have confirmed honestly that you don't know how the universe came to be. We should not deviate from that honesty by saying, the universe came about by natural causes. Rather you should say, I BELIEVE that the universe came about by natural causes because you do not have the science to back your take on truth.

Likewise, I can only claim that I believe there is a creator God. But I started this thread by asking how much science there is to support the notion; that everything we see is the result of natural causes.

If we are to continue with this discussion then we should try and be truthful with the science we have now.

In the spirit of searching for God,
Eric

I agree Eric we should be as intellectually honest as we can, not just with others, but most importantly ourselves.

With that in mind

I don’t claim that the universe can only come about by natural causes.
Like I said , I don’t know , it’s not just that I don’t know , there isn’t enough information for me to form a belief about it.
So I can’t say it can’t have been a god or gods.

What I can say is this.

If you want to assert that there could be a supernatural influence on the origin of the universe.
Then it’s not enough to just assert it.

You would have to demonstrate that their is a supernatural, for me to consider it a possibility.
I don’t rule it out, but I can’t put it into the list of candidate explanations until someone can reliably demonstrate that the supernatural exists.

There is no science that points to anything other than the natural.
So I have no good reason to believe there is anything other than the natural.

 

[Ümit]

I agree Eric we should be as intellectually honest as we can, not just with others, but most importantly ourselves.

Then, be honest all the way.

With that in mind

I don’t claim that the universe can only come about by natural causes.
Like I said , I don’t know , it’s not just that I don’t know , there isn’t enough information for me to form a belief about it.
So I can’t say it can’t have been a god or gods.

What I can say is this.

If you want to assert that there could be a supernatural influence on the origin of the universe.
Then it’s not enough to just assert it.

It isn't just an assertion.
You have multiple clues for this supernatural influence. The least you can do is to explore.
Let me name some of these clues for you:
Clue nr 1:
The probability of the existence of the universe on its own is way too small...therefore, impossible. Now don't say that if you wait long enough, that it would happen.
but from chaos does not form order...glass is just molten sand...all the material needed to make glass lies everywhere...the conditions for it can also be met...did you ever find a marmelade jar out there made on its own? No...did you ever find a detailed statue of something, someone or some animal made by time and nature alone? stones and rocks everywhere? no you didn't...and why? because from chaos do not form order...the same way, you cannot expect that a complicated DNA molecule can from out of chaos...let alone multiple exact DNA molecules to form a cell.
So, there must be a supernatural influence...an intelligent designer.

Clue nr 2:
no matter how hard we try...science can never explain life itself. from dead material to hardly living enzymes is still a too big step. Dead material can never come alive without this supernatural influence.

Clue nr 3:
The supernatural influence does not wait for human kind to discover Him. He has been sending Prophets and holy books for us as a sign that He is there.
He allowed their prophets to perform miracles so that you may recognise them.
one of those miracles is still there to be seen. It is the Quraan which reached us through an impossible way. It is a fact that Mohammad sas was illiterate...yet he managed to pass Gods words on to us flawlessly. not one character in the enitire book with more than 600 pages is misplaced or can be proven wrong by science...that is too big of an achievement for an illiterate person.
This information is just given to you. it is a light where science is in darkness...you could at least check that out.

You would have to demonstrate that their is a supernatural, for me to consider it a possibility.
I don’t rule it out, but I can’t put it into the list of candidate explanations until someone can reliably demonstrate that the supernatural exists.

There is no science that points to anything other than the natural.
So I have no good reason to believe there is anything other than the natural.

Science is not everything...it has its limits...the very thing you want te prove is beyond the limit of science.

 

[Eric H]

I agree Eric we should be as intellectually honest as we can, not just with others, but most importantly ourselves.

That is all we can ask.

There is no science that points to anything other than the natural.

Any number less than twenty billion years must be like a blink of the eye. We are unable to go back any further than the big bang, so that shows how limited our knowledge is. If the big bang happened, then the temperature would have to have been around a billion degrees. Even Covid 19 might not survive that heat. In other words, everything coming out of the bang must have been totally sterile. We need a natural explanation as to how life could come from such a sterile environment, time alone is not an answer.

Life is only a bunch of chemicals that can reproduce. Things have to change, things have to happen in order for sterile chemicals to produce life. Chemicals always react to each other in the same way, so you would need natural events like wind, tides, temperature change, changes in light are all natural occurrences to move chemicals about and cause change.

So whilst you say science can only point to a natural or understandable explanation, that only shows how limited our science is. Science seems to have more unanswered questions than answers.

If you want to assert that there could be a supernatural influence on the origin of the universe.
Then it’s not enough to just assert it.

That was not the aim of the thread, rather it was to look for the science of beginnings.

In the spirit of searching for God,
Eric

 

[MuslimFriend]

Bis-millah,
If we were to consider the three stages in the womb...the development of the embryo that is, as mentioned in the Qur'an, then possibly we could affirm evolution. And if we were to agree that evolution is a science then perhaps the processes of creation ( in the matter of the embryo) can be scientifically explained through our limited knowledge. Be mindful, there is as thing called " controlled education" and their many doctrines are spread through various institutions all in order to lead astray. Be mindful Muslim Brothers for this is Shaytan! Seek refuge with Allah from his evil plots. Charles Darwin was a Free Mason. History has shown that the Free Masonic belief system is ultimately satanic in its origin and principles. And the best speech is the speech of Allah. And the most trustworthy of teachings are that of His Last and Final Messenger (peace be upon him)

 

[chalks75]

Then, be honest all the way.

It isn't just an assertion.
You have multiple clues for this supernatural influence. The least you can do is to explore.
Let me name some of these clues for you:
Clue nr 1:
The probability of the existence of the universe on its own is way too small...therefore, impossible. Now don't say that if you wait long enough, that it would happen.
but from chaos does not form order...glass is just molten sand...all the material needed to make glass lies everywhere...the conditions for it can also be met...did you ever find a marmelade jar out there made on its own? No...did you ever find a detailed statue of something, someone or some animal made by time and nature alone? stones and rocks everywhere? no you didn't...and why? because from chaos do not form order...the same way, you cannot expect that a complicated DNA molecule can from out of chaos...let alone multiple exact DNA molecules to form a cell.
So, there must be a supernatural influence...an intelligent designer.

Clue nr 2:
no matter how hard we try...science can never explain life itself. from dead material to hardly living enzymes is still a too big step. Dead material can never come alive without this supernatural influence.

Clue nr 3:
The supernatural influence does not wait for human kind to discover Him. He has been sending Prophets and holy books for us as a sign that He is there.
He allowed their prophets to perform miracles so that you may recognise them.
one of those miracles is still there to be seen. It is the Quraan which reached us through an impossible way. It is a fact that Mohammad sas was illiterate...yet he managed to pass Gods words on to us flawlessly. not one character in the enitire book with more than 600 pages is misplaced or can be proven wrong by science...that is too big of an achievement for an illiterate person.
This information is just given to you. it is a light where science is in darkness...you could at least check that out.


Science is not everything...it has its limits...the very thing you want te prove is beyond the limit of science.

Hi
Umit

I agree science has limits,
And scientists have biases,
But
The scientific method has a built in system to counteract these flaws as much as possible.
Science has an excellent track record of discovering truths about the universe.
I certainly would have more confidence in someone systematically examining evidence
Than I would in people claiming they are prophets of a god.
Do you think there are such things as false prophets ?

How did you work out the probability of the universe existing from a sample size of 1?
It seems the probability of the universe existing is 1 out of 1.
Moreover, a miracle, by definition is the least likely explanation, so any natural explanation is more likely.

I agree with you that marmalade jars, statues , paintings, buildings,
All need creators

Would you agree with me that all those creators, need patents older than the creators ?

Or would you rather just stop that analogy at the point it suits your argument best ?

 

[chalks75]

That is all we can ask.



Any number less than twenty billion years must be like a blink of the eye. We are unable to go back any further than the big bang, so that shows how limited our knowledge is. If the big bang happened, then the temperature would have to have been around a billion degrees. Even Covid 19 might not survive that heat. In other words, everything coming out of the bang must have been totally sterile. We need a natural explanation as to how life could come from such a sterile environment, time alone is not an answer.

Life is only a bunch of chemicals that can reproduce. Things have to change, things have to happen in order for sterile chemicals to produce life. Chemicals always react to each other in the same way, so you would need natural events like wind, tides, temperature change, changes in light are all natural occurrences to move chemicals about and cause change.

So whilst you say science can only point to a natural or understandable explanation, that only shows how limited our science is. Science seems to have more unanswered questions than answers.



That was not the aim of the thread, rather it was to look for the science of beginnings.

In the spirit of searching for God,
Eric

That is correct,
Our current understanding from observable data goes back to about 1 second after the universe began expanding,
Anything before that is conjecture.

So we can say “ we know the universe began expanding 13.8 billion years ago.
To quote Alan guth

“The Big Bang theory says nothing about what banged, why it banged, or what happened before it banged.”

The universe has cooled as it has expanded, not only that but stars and planets formed, and stars have created particles that did not exist at the Big Bang.

As for how life could arise
I don’t know that either, there is a field of science ( abiogenesis ) that study this, but they have yet to produce a theory, which is not to say the won’t, they have been able to create amino acids, the building blocks of life.

So
I don’t know how life began, but I do know, when faced with this very question, cultures from all around the globe imagined a creator , a god, a celestial father, in an attempt to answer that question.

 

[Ümit]

Hi
Umit

I agree science has limits,
And scientists have biases,
But
The scientific method has a built in system to counteract these flaws as much as possible.

I wasn't talking about biases of scientists as limits of science. I was talking about science always being an appoximation of the absolute truth...It will never be the absolute truth.
There will always come a scientist who can investigate a subject little better than his collegues and therefore can prove them wrong or change/adjust the existing formulas.

Science has an excellent track record of discovering truths about the universe.
I certainly would have more confidence in someone systematically examining evidence
Than I would in people claiming they are prophets of a god.

It is not a matter of eiter the one or the other...you can have both. I am not telling you to stop examining evidences and instead start believing in some false prophet.
I am saying that if you have no evidences to examine you could switch to religion and get your information from that source.

Do you think there are such things as false prophets ?

Of course there are false prophets. However, the fact that false prophets exist, does not mean Mohammad sas was a false prophet. I think you do not quite understand the work that has been done here:
an illiterate person managed to dictate a book with more than 600 pages in highly poetic Arabic with words chosen perfectly. not one word misplaced...and in such a way that science cannot prove one word of it wrong. and this book managed to survive 1400+ years...unchanged...how many false prophets do you know who can also do that?

How did you work out the probability of the universe existing from a sample size of 1?
It seems the probability of the universe existing is 1 out of 1.

I do not follow you here, please elaborate.

Moreover, a miracle, by definition is the least likely explanation, so any natural explanation is more likely.

I agree with you that marmalade jars, statues , paintings, buildings,
All need creators

Would you agree with me that all those creators, need patents older than the creators ?

So you need a patent to create something? or do you need a patent to prevent someone else to use your design?

Or would you rather just stop that analogy at the point it suits your argument best ?

No please continue...I do not know where you want to go with this...but please carry on...

(Of course you understand analogies are used to illustrate something, a situation or a problem...there is no need that the given analogy should be similar with all its aspects. therefore there is no point in comparing all other aspects of given analogies with the situation...but that aside.)

But if we may take a step back...I have given you some clues why there should be a supernatural influence...and you are just trying to ignore that all?
I would like to see your response on those clues please...if you don't mind.

 

[chalks75]

I wasn't talking about biases of scientists as limits of science. I was talking about science always being an appoximation of the absolute truth...It will never be the absolute truth.
There will always come a scientist who can investigate a subject little better than his collegues and therefore can prove them wrong or change/adjust the existing formulas.

It is not a matter of eiter the one or the other...you can have both. I am not telling you to stop examining evidences and instead start believing in some false prophet.
I am saying that if you have no evidences to examine you could switch to religion and get your information from that source.

Of course there are false prophets. However, the fact that false prophets exist, does not mean Mohammad sas was a false prophet. I think you do not quite understand the work that has been done here:
an illiterate person managed to dictate a book with more than 600 pages in highly poetic Arabic with words chosen perfectly. not one word misplaced...and in such a way that science cannot prove one word of it wrong. and this book managed to survive 1400+ years...unchanged...how many false prophets do you know who can also do that?


I do not follow you here, please elaborate.

So you need a patent to create something? or do you need a patent to prevent someone else to use your design?

No please continue...I do not know where you want to go with this...but please carry on...

(Of course you understand analogies are used to illustrate something, a situation or a problem...there is no need that the given analogy should be similar with all its aspects. therefore there is no point in comparing all other aspects of given analogies with the situation...but that aside.)

But if we may take a step back...I have given you some clues why there should be a supernatural influence...and you are just trying to ignore that all?
I would like to see your response on those clues please...if you don't mind.

Sorry umit
I meant parent, not patent.
In the examples you gave, jam jar, sculptor etc , I agree those things require creators.

Would you agree that those creators need parents which are older than them ?


What’s the difference between true,
and absolutely true ?
Something is either true or it’s not.
But your right,
Science does not make proclamations on “ absolute truth”
Theories are a tentative position, the best possible explanation with the given evidence, they are able to be modified when new evidence comes to light, and more importantly that can be disproved.


Would you agree that a specific claim requires

I’m not saying Muhammad was a false prophet.
What would you say the ratio is
False prophets, people who claim to be prophets of god
&
Real prophets, people who are actual prophets of god ?

How can you tell the difference between a real prophet and a false prophet ?


You have made some specific claims.

1. Muhammad was illiterate
2. Not one word of the Quran is misplaced

What evidence is there that Muhammad was illiterate ?
How would you know if a word was misplaced ?

And

Would you agree
If something was written was untrue 1800 years ago, and it has remain unchanged for 1800 years .... then it is still untrue ?

 

[chalks75]

Bis-millah,
If we were to consider the three stages in the womb...the development of the embryo that is, as mentioned in the Qur'an, then possibly we could affirm evolution. And if we were to agree that evolution is a science then perhaps the processes of creation ( in the matter of the embryo) can be scientifically explained through our limited knowledge. Be mindful, there is as thing called " controlled education" and their many doctrines are spread through various institutions all in order to lead astray. Be mindful Muslim Brothers for this is Shaytan! Seek refuge with Allah from his evil plots. Charles Darwin was a Free Mason. History has shown that the Free Masonic belief system is ultimately satanic in its origin and principles. And the best speech is the speech of Allah. And the most trustworthy of teachings are that of His Last and Final Messenger (peace be upon him)

Evolution is a fact .

Your attack on Charles Darwin is ad hominem.

 

[Eric H]

“The Big Bang theory says nothing about what banged, why it banged, or what happened before it banged.”

As for how life could arise
I don’t know that either, there is a field of science ( abiogenesis ) that study this, but they have yet to produce a theory,

Just to sum up the conversation so far, there is no pre - bang science. There is no science to explain abiogenesis.

That just leaves the ToE, how did the eye evolve without any help from God. I don't think this has been rationally explained as yet.

In the spirit of searching for God,
Eric

 

[Ümit]

Sorry umit
I meant parent, not patent.
In the examples you gave, jam jar, sculptor etc , I agree those things require creators.

no worries...I found it a very strange statement....But now I understand where you want to go to...but your missing the point here.
I was pointing out that the chance of those things existing on their own is very slim...but still much greater than a DNA molecule to form on its own.
Sand and rocks are just laying around...it just needs the right lightning strike and boom...molten sand...you even have the right conditions to make glas...or the right wind to erode the rock to make a statue...in this case, the material and condions for it are already there...but it wont happen.
yet, you believe that the DNA molecule can come into reality on its own...but the marmalade jar, or statue not...Does that make sense to you? If I must be totally honest with you...it wouldn't make sense to me.

Would you agree that those creators need parents which are older than them ?

About the creators needing parents is a different point. First we need to determine whether these clues are enough to lead us to a supernatural influence...we will look closer to this supernatural influence later on, if you are still willing to take this journey.

What’s the difference between true,
and absolutely true ?
Something is either true or it’s not.

I agree. However...like I demonstrated to you with the example of adding up speeds together if the direction is the same...we have now 2 formulas to calculate the total speed of that person inside a train. for ages we used the first formula, and that formula was "True"...it was accurate, predictable and reliable...since Einstein we have a new formula to calculate the total speed...because the old formula was not "true enough". it was not accurate enough for certain situations...so Einsteins formula is now our "new true"...untill the next scientist comes along and changes everything in turn....so with every new scientist, we will get closer to the "absolute truth"...but we will never reach it.
That is what I mean the difference between "truth" and "absolute truth".

But your right,
Science does not make proclamations on “ absolute truth”
Theories are a tentative position, the best possible explanation with the given evidence, they are able to be modified when new evidence comes to light, and more importantly that can be disproved.

exactly...there is nothing wrong with that...that is how science works...but you need to understand that science does not exclude religion...both should coexist...where science reaches its limits, religion should take over seeminglessly.

Would you agree that a specific claim requires

???

I’m not saying Muhammad was a false prophet.
What would you say the ratio is
False prophets, people who claim to be prophets of god
&
Real prophets, people who are actual prophets of god ?

How can you tell the difference between a real prophet and a false prophet ?

That is a difficult one...I would not know the answer to that.

You have made some specific claims.

1. Muhammad was illiterate
2. Not one word of the Quran is misplaced

What evidence is there that Muhammad was illiterate ?

almost all scientists unanimously agree that Mohammad sas was indeed illiterate...there is very little to no doubt about that. Just Google it and you will find out.

How would you know if a word was misplaced ?

The way it was dictated to several writers simulaniously...if one of them misplaced a word, it would stand out immediately...The way it was distributed, if a word or multiple words was misplaced, then there would exist multiple versions of the Quraan..which is clearly not the case...it got distributed and spread way too fast for a person to collect and destroy all copies like they did with the Thorah.

And

Would you agree
If something was written was untrue 1800 years ago, and it has remain unchanged for 1800 years .... then it is still untrue ?

Then it would still be untrue yes...however, there is nothing untrue in the Quraan...and if you like to think otherwise, then the challenge is up to you to find the untrue parts in it and present it here.

I will use the Tafsir ibn Kathir as a help to explain what is meant exactly with the certain verse you present here, so no own interpretation...you can also look into that beforehand if you like...
Tafsir ibn Kathir is a book that gives you that little extra information about the verses like background info when and where this specific verse was revealed, what was going on at that moment and what that verse refers to.

 

[chalks75]

Just to sum up the conversation so far, there is no pre - bang science. There is no science to explain abiogenesis.

That just leaves the ToE, how did the eye evolve without any help from God. I don't think this has been rationally explained as yet.

In the spirit of searching for god,
Eric

That is correct
There is no pre Big Bang theory
&
No theory of abiogenesis.

There is also no evidence that a god or gods played any part in it.

Moreover there is no agreed upon definition of what a god is or does or can do.

 

[chalks75]

no worries...I found it a very strange statement....But now I understand where you want to go to...but your missing the point here.
I was pointing out that the chance of those things existing on their own is very slim...but still much greater than a DNA molecule to form on its own.
Sand and rocks are just laying around...it just needs the right lightning strike and boom...molten sand...you even have the right conditions to make glas...or the right wind to erode the rock to make a statue...in this case, the material and condions for it are already there...but it wont happen.
yet, you believe that the DNA molecule can come into reality on its own...but the marmalade jar, or statue not...Does that make sense to you? If I must be totally honest with you...it wouldn't make sense to me.


About the creators needing parents is a different point. First we need to determine whether these clues are enough to lead us to a supernatural influence...we will look closer to this supernatural influence later on, if you are still willing to take this journey.


I agree. However...like I demonstrated to you with the example of adding up speeds together if the direction is the same...we have now 2 formulas to calculate the total speed of that person inside a train. for ages we used the first formula, and that formula was "True"...it was accurate, predictable and reliable...since Einstein we have a new formula to calculate the total speed...because the old formula was not "true enough". it was not accurate enough for certain situations...so Einsteins formula is now our "new true"...untill the next scientist comes along and changes everything in turn....so with every new scientist, we will get closer to the "absolute truth"...but we will never reach it.
That is what I mean the difference between "truth" and "absolute truth".

exactly...there is nothing wrong with that...that is how science works...but you need to understand that science does not exclude religion...both should coexist...where science reaches its limits, religion should take over seeminglessly.

???

That is a difficult one...I would not know the answer to that.

almost all scientists unanimously agree that Mohammad sas was indeed illiterate...there is very little to no doubt about that. Just Google it and you will find out.

The way it was dictated to several writers simulaniously...if one of them misplaced a word, it would stand out immediately...The way it was distributed, if a word or multiple words was misplaced, then there would exist multiple versions of the Quraan..which is clearly not the case...it got distributed and spread way too fast for a person to collect and destroy all copies like they did with the Thorah.

Then it would still be untrue yes...however, there is nothing untrue in the Quraan...and if you like to think otherwise, then the challenge is up to you to find the untrue parts in it and present it here.

I will use the Tafsir ibn Kathir as a help to explain what is meant exactly with the certain verse you present here, so no own interpretation...you can also look into that beforehand if you like...
Tafsir ibn Kathir is a book that gives you that little extra information about the verses like background info when and where this specific verse was revealed, what was going on at that moment and what that verse refers to.

yet, you believe that the DNA molecule can come into reality on its own...but the marmalade jar, or statue not...Does that make sense to you? If I must be totally honest with you...it wouldn't make sense to me.

This is not the case
I do not know how life began, there isn’t enough information for me to decide how life began.
Plus, I think the suggestion is that DNA evolved from RNA which formed naturally .


About the creators needing parents is a different point.

Actually it’s not a different point
If creations need creators, then creators need patents older than them.
But you will perhaps want to claim there is a creator that has no parents.

because the old formula was not "true enough".
I think you are confusing accuracy with truth
Is it true someone is travelling on a train ?
Yes, that’s a fact
How accurate we can be in determine the speed of the train is a variable.

.that is how science works...but you need to understand that science does not exclude religion...both should coexist...where science reaches its limits, religion should take over seeminglessly

Which religion should take over ?
Which version of which religion ?
Why should any particular version of religion take precedent over another ?

Would you say there are a lot more false prophets than real prophets,
So the chances that someone claiming to be prophecy , it’s more likely that they are a false prophet than a real one.


To say most scientists agree Muhammad was illiterate vis an argument ad populam
What evidence is there that Muhammad was illiterate ?
Am I correct in thinking that the Quran was revealed to Muhammad in a cave by an angel ?
If so what evidence is there Muhammad met an angel ?


If you had a belief about god that was illogical
Would you drop that belief or change it ?
Do you believe god can do what is illogical ?