Personal reasons

[thelionheart]

Hello dear friends.
In a previos thread I have explained why our current understanding of cosmology doesn't provide us with evidence for both sides on the matter of the existence of God. read the thread just for athiests;
As I remember, the thread's main topic was accepted even by the athiests before the topic expanded to other ideas.
But there are still some other problems, if we cannot deny the existence of god does that mean that god exists? why should he? If we don't know whether it was true or not is it fair to be asked for that if we were ever resurrected? And btw who is God?
In this thread I hope I could answer some of these fair questions that have haunted me several years before finally finding an answer.
But I will limit my topic here into only one argument. Cosmic expansion.
How did muhammad know this
(And We have built the heavens with Our own hands; and, verily, it is We who are steadily expanding it.) (51:47) "explanation copied form http://www.thekeytoislam.com/en/scie...universe.shtml" exact meaning "And the heavens we have built with might and we are expanding them"
If the quran contains such scientific information, isn't that a proof that it is the word of god? or atleast from a non human source... I will be waiting for ur answers

[iudas]

An isolated and dubious case.

[Arch-hereticK]

A similar piece of "revealed" knowledge can be found in the Lord of The Rings, as hobbits are mentioned hundreds of times, but that was long before any actual hobbits were discovered.

Don't blind yourself to the truth by wishing something were true.

[Morkonan]

Re-interpretation is never a valid means for a proof.

Here's the one thing you can be sure of:

Science can never address the existence of "God."

God is defined by religion. Science can not address something that it can not define, especially if it is not measurable or observable. There is no definition of God that is compatible between Science and Religion. Until such a time as a definition for God which allows observation or measurement by Science becomes known, no endeavor there will be fruitful.

Attempting to use Science to establish a religious proof is futile. Similarly, attempting to use Religion to establish a Scientific observation is equally futile.

Neither Science nor Religion share a common ground of understanding that allows a debatable dialogue. One can certainly discuss matters from both points of view and compare those views against each other. However, one can not validate a scientific principle using science and then hope that implied credibility will be shared within religious dogma. It simply can not be done in either direction.

At best, Science and Religion can talk to each other, communicate and enjoy the conversations as long as they both agree to stay out of each others backyards.

[thelionheart]

Re-interpretation is never a valid means for a proof.

Here's the one thing you can be sure of:

Science can never address the existence of "God."

God is defined by religion. Science can not address something that it can not define, especially if it is not measurable or observable. There is no definition of God that is compatible between Science and Religion. Until such a time as a definition for God which allows observation or measurement by Science becomes known, no endeavor there will be fruitful.

Attempting to use Science to establish a religious proof is futile. Similarly, attempting to use Religion to establish a Scientific observation is equally futile.

Neither Science nor Religion share a common ground of understanding that allows a debatable dialogue. One can certainly discuss matters from both points of view and compare those views against each other. However, one can not validate a scientific principle using science and then hope that implied credibility will be shared within religious dogma. It simply can not be done in either direction.

At best, Science and Religion can talk to each other, communicate and enjoy the conversations as long as they both agree to stay out of each others backyards.

I agree, but what if there were statements in a 1400 years old book that describe the state of the universe? remember the one who brought the book said that he has brought it from god.

[Morkonan]

I agree, but what if there were statements in a 1400 years old book that describe the state of the universe? remember the one who brought the book said that he has brought it from god.

As I said "Re-interpretation is never a valid means for a proof."

Now, if someone had read that book and then was able to say

"The Universe began with a series of quantum fluctuations around 14 billion years ago which caused a rapid exponential expansion of the space-time fabric, which also happened to produce a fairly evenly distributed cosmology, and then began to cool, allowing the formation of stable elemental particles which were able to combine, after further cooling, to produce the first stable matter along with the earliest stars, which incidently became the furnaces for the development of more intricate elements and then, after several hundred million years, our own planet was formed."

THEN, I may agree they were describing the state of the Universe 1400 years ago.

However, one word in one passage in a religious text does not equate to the revelation of a scientific theory. The Big Bang and "Expansion" can not be defined simply by the word "Expansion" can it?

By the way, what is the original translation of that one single word? Is "expansion" a literal translation or is there a translation that is much more accurate and appropriate considering the original context?

I prefer to keep my religious beliefs and my scientific ones separate. It makes for a much more tidy and uncluttered outlook on life.

[Bovril]

The Quran agrees with some parts of the current scientific concensus, and disagrees with other parts. Do you really waant to make your faith contingent on the scientific accuracy of the Quran? Wouldn't that be to miss the far more important function of the Quran as a religious text, and as a guide to the orientation of one's self towards the divine?

[thelionheart]

The Quran agrees with some parts of the current scientific concensus, and disagrees with other parts.

I have read the whole quran a few times, on what parts is there a disagreement?

Do you really want to make your faith contingent on the scientific accuracy of the Quran?

No I don't. I actually make fun of some so called scientific miracles of the quraan. But some aqre true like the last verse.

Wouldn't that be to miss the far more important function of the Quran as a religious text, and as a guide to the orientation of one's self towards the divine?

yes it does. But it happens to have such a verse.

[Bovril]

I have read the whole quran a few times, on what parts is there a disagreement?

The main bone of contention would be the Quran's creationism. Various historical issues could be raised as well, but these are largely unrelated to the physical sciences.

[thelionheart]

The main bone of contention would be the Quran's creationism. Various historical issues could be raised as well, but these are largely unrelated to the physical sciences.

what issues?

[Bovril]

what issues?

Many of the stories that the Quran shares with the Pentateuch/Torah are basically pretty unlikely to have occured or certain to have not occured. The story of Noah in particular is absurdly ahistorical, but that of Moses is also demonstrably false according to all reasonable historical standards. These are just two examples.

[Poach]

History has documented well that Eastern astrology was fairly advanced in ancient times. While they couldn't prove it was expanding they would probably have observed changes over time. As a result it isn't entirely outwith the realms of possibility that some believed it to be expanding.

Whilst this time the Holy Book of a religion got a scientific fact correct, this single correct statement pales in comparison to the vast number of incorrect ones. It certainly doesn't prove that God must exist.

[thelionheart]

History has documented well that Eastern astrology was fairly advanced in ancient times. While they couldn't prove it was expanding they would probably have observed changes over time. As a result it isn't entirely outwith the realms of possibility that some believed it to be expanding.

How is that possible!! I know that they weren't cave men but they weren't that smart. Humanity or atleast at that time didn't know much about astronomy. They only explained things im myths.
Herritage tells us that the arab world back then was full of myths to a huge extent. I dought that they would be able to figure this out on thier own.

Whilst this time the Holy Book of a religion got a scientific fact correct, this single correct statement pales in comparison to the vast number of incorrect ones. It certainly doesn't prove that God must exist.

what incorrect ones?

[Poach]

How is that possible!! I know that they weren't cave men but they weren't that smart. Humanity or atleast at that time didn't know much about astronomy. They only explained things im myths.
Herritage tells us that the arab world back then was full of myths to a huge extent. I dought that they would be able to figure this out on thier own.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_astronomy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_and_Persian_astrology

Reasonable quick reads on the subject. Astronomy was alive and well before Islam, though much of the texts and libraries were destroyed by Muslims once Islam had set in.

Islam arrived fairly late on the scene, lionheart, in the 600s. Middle Eastern society was well advanced by the time it set in. Even Europe had seen the Roman Empire rise and fall by then, though the Eastern Empire was still around at that point.

what incorrect ones?

Seriously? What about creation to start with?

[Helm]

"And the heavens we have built with might and we are expanding them"

It's one of the ambiguous phrases that can be interpreted to mean almost anything.

[Bovril]

It's one of the ambiguous phrases that can be interpreted to mean almost anything.

Indeed, and would far better be interpreted as refering to the constand (re-)creation of the universe by God thereby bringing it closer and closer towards its teleological purpose. Interpreting it in terms of 21st century astronomy seems spurious at best.

[Poach]

I've yet to meet a man who can part an entire sea.

[thelionheart]

I've yet to meet a man who can part an entire sea.

you mean a river, right?
btw god can do what god wills. Discussing miracles is irrelevant. If there were a god then he could let moses do whatever he wants. I mean is there really anything historically wrong?
example if the quran says that moses was in iraq and then science came and said moses was in lebanon then here would be a disproove.
btw still reading the wiki article about astronomy

[thelionheart]

By the way, what is the original translation of that one single word? Is "expansion" a literal translation or is there a translation that is much more accurate and appropriate considering the original context?
"inna nahno banayna alsamao biaydin wainna la mousioon"
It has two meaning infact "expanding" and "capable" but due to the annoying grammer of the arabic language it is fairly hard to accept the other meaning. since it is read mosioon and not moosaoon there is a difference it's really hard to accept the second meaning

[Ummon]

The original link is based on far-fetched analogies discounting the many inconsistencies and vague assertions in there.

Embryogenesis as reported in the Koran is incorrect.

Many of the passages quoted are incorrect as well.