PDA

View Full Version : The Big Bang and the Qura'an


Alex Shepherd
19-05-11, 10:00
Religion?, or Science? Is there any possible way for them to coexist? Now some people say it's irrational to believe in any deity while we have science evidence. But, is it rational to believe in theories when we have a paradigm shift every decade? Some people have the tendencies to believe that they will never be judged for their actions, but are you able to walk in the rain without getting wet? We all heard of the big bang theory, and simply described as matter from the universe co listed in a hyper dense core that exploded outwards. And sure, the big bang explains why the planet's are the way they are, and how the universe is expanding, yet it doesn't explain where that matter came from? Or even the energy that it took to hold it in place. Simply a fire cracker exploded who lit it on fire?

Ikas90
19-05-11, 10:10
There are religions other than Islam, you know. Your title seemingly proclaims that the Qura'an is the only source of God.

tonyme
19-05-11, 10:11
Source?

;)

Peanut
19-05-11, 10:12
I agree with Ikas90.

jajay119
19-05-11, 10:13
Science and Religion do co-exist. They are mutually exclusive but they co-exist.

tampi
19-05-11, 10:16
For days I think that nobody pays attention to the ideas.
I mean to creativity itself. Having an idea.
It is the most pointless, gigantic and impossible concept of the universe.
It is intangible, untouchable, powerful, stunning, casual, and all the grandiloquent adjectives you can imagine.

What happens to the ideas? Where they reside? How can the immaterial becomes material?
We often see how some ideas become real, materialize and seems that we don't give importance to this fact.
Thinking about all this I wonder if all that is is an idea.

Ikas90
19-05-11, 10:27
It's certainly a brain-basher of a topic.

The way I see it, life is too complex to have had no divine influence behind it. One can argue that we are simply here by random accident, but I think arguing that our intelligence and perception of right and wrong are also here by random is kind of pushing it.

That said, I think God is impartial when it comes to religion. God and religion are two different things.

Cochrane
19-05-11, 10:33
Alex, you seem to assume, as so many people do, that science is problematic because its current position hanges so often. But that is not a bug, it's a feature! Our knowledge about the world increases every day, often in ways that are incompatible with what we believed before. What we need is a system that can deal with that, that allows and encourages new information and changing old beliefs in light of that. Science is just that system, and that is what makes it superior to religion when it comes to explaining the world. After all, if religious explanations made more sense given available evidence, science would adopt these religious things as the current explanation.

Of course, science does not have all the answers. But it has the best answers we can find given what we currently know. Pretending we know things we don't have any data on is not better than admitting our limits.

Not sure what you mean about rain, wetness and being judged. Of course our actions have consequences, but they are natural and scientific (e.g. Rain -> wet is a well understood natural mechanism). There is no evidence that there is any outside force evaluating our actions.

I do not mind people being religious. I don't understand it either, but if it works for you, I have no problem with it. But when it comes to using religion as a rival or replacement to/for science, that is something I will not accept. Religion is plain worse than science for all the things science covers, which is ensured by the very construction of modern scientific procedures.

IceColdLaraCroft
19-05-11, 10:40
There are religions other than Islam, you know. Your title seemingly proclaims that the Qura'an is the only source of God.

or a crappier spin off of "the big bang theory" from CBS.


Ancient Greece moved away from religion to reason,...but judging how stupid people are becoming...i think religion will get worse before it gets better

Avalon SARL
19-05-11, 10:56
Alex, you seem to assume, as so many people do, that science is problematic because its current position hanges so often. But that is not a bug, it's a feature! Our knowledge about the world increases every day, often in ways that are incompatible with what we believed before. What we need is a system that can deal with that, that allows and encourages new information and changing old beliefs in light of that. Science is just that system, and that is what makes it superior to religion when it comes to explaining the world. After all, if religious explanations made more sense given available evidence, science would adopt these religious things as the current explanation.

Of course, science does not have all the answers. But it has the best answers we can find given what we currently know. Pretending we know things we don't have any data on is not better than admitting our limits.

Not sure what you mean about rain, wetness and being judged. Of course our actions have consequences, but they are natural and scientific (e.g. Rain -> wet is a well understood natural mechanism). There is no evidence that there is any outside force evaluating our actions.

I do not mind people being religious. I don't understand it either, but if it works for you, I have no problem with it. But when it comes to using religion as a rival or replacement to/for science, that is something I will not accept. Religion is plain worse than science for all the things science covers, which is ensured by the very construction of modern scientific procedures.

Maybe try see it in a different way.
You just gave the answer (marked in red), that what about something scientifically discovered and has been proven valid in a religious book :)

BESIDES, There is no way Science will ever be superior to Religion.
As Quran definitely which is a book of knowledge and NOT a book of science; [/B]and Knowledge is far much more than science,because science is part of knowledge.
Result is that Religion is superior to Science and not the other way

Drone
19-05-11, 11:01
Science and religion are two different things. Quantum mechanics said that universe created itself out of nothing. Obviously religion won't like this. Because in this case god is no longer omnipotent.

Alex Shepherd
19-05-11, 11:01
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63Hr1_LB3Io

Avalon SARL
19-05-11, 11:05
Science and religion are two different things. Quantum mechanics said that universe created itself out of nothing. Obviously religion won't like this. Because in this case god is no longer omnipotent.

Religion doesn't care. It is just a word. It's people who are concerned; I find it odd and confusing that someone isn't interested in his own destiny:confused:

Minty Mouth
19-05-11, 11:14
Maybe try see it in a different way.
You just gave the answer (marked in red), that what about something scientifically discovered and has been proven valid in a religious book :)

BESIDES, There is no way Science will ever be superior to Religion.
As Quran definitely which is a book of knowledge and NOT a book of science; [/B]and Knowledge is far much more than science,because science is part of knowledge.
Result is that Religion is superior to Science and not the other way

I don't think we can call something knowledge if we can't verify it.

Currently, people hold religious views that are illogical and do not follow the principles of science (something should be proven), so unless proof of a god is found, religion and science are, at their roots, incompatible.

Faith is believing something despite a lack of evidence, or in the face of contradictory evidence. I think to believe something in these cases is silly and to call faith knowledge is just playing with words.

Cochrane
19-05-11, 11:16
Maybe try see it in a different way.
You just gave the answer (marked in red), that what about something scientifically discovered and has been proven valid in a religious book :)

BESIDES, There is no way Science will ever be superior to Religion.
As Quran definitely which is a book of knowledge and NOT a book of science; [/B]and Knowledge is far much more than science,because science is part of knowledge.
Result is that Religion is superior to Science and not the other way

Why do you think the Quran is, as you put it, a book of knowledge? Do you have any proof of that? I assume you think so because it is in the Quran or a prophet said so or similar, i.e. because you already believe in it. Nothing wrong with that in general. But I, an unbeliever, will treat the Quran like any other book: It is just a book that makes some claims about what the world is like, and I have see for myself if it is right or wrong. Actually, since I can't usually prove that, I have to see whether it is a better explanation for the world than the other explanations out there, but the basic mechanism is the same: If I evaluate it without implicitly trusting it, I can find a lot of claims in there that are not proven.

Science, on the other hand, is specifically written to solve this. If you evaluate a science book, you'll do the same thing: See whether the data supports what the book tells you. If we have access to the same data, and thanks to the internet we do, we'll both come to the same conclusion if we evaluate the same work of science, completely regardless of our beliefs. And that,s what makes science better.

I'd write more, but I have to leave now, so I'll do that later.

Dennis's Mom
19-05-11, 12:12
There is knowledge that is not purely scientific. (Although, perhaps, "wisdom" would be a better term.) I mean, "share your toys" is hardly empirical. "Feed the hungry". In fact, there's a large body of empirical evidence that states "feeding the hungry" is not the natural order of things. You don't see lion prides taking carcasses over to down-on-their-luck prides, or telling the cheetah, "hey, we ate yesterday, you take this."

Human beings, however, exhibit behaviors and teach there is value in behaviors that clearly go against the behaviors of virtually every other species on the planet.

It's important to remember this "creationism" movement is very new, and that historically, religion has not viewed itself as competition for science.

"I'm not a believer, but I'm friendly to religion, partly because it goes with being human—it's an odd kind of humanism which is hostile to something which is so quintessentially human as religion." That said, "I'm very opposed to investing science with the needs and requirements of religion. I'm equally opposed to the tendency within religion, which exists in things like creationism and intelligent design, to turn religion into a kind of pseudo-science. If you go back to St. Augustine or before, to the Jewish scholars who talk about these issues, they never regard the Genesis story as a theory. Augustine says explicitly that it should not be interpreted explicitly, that it's a way of accessing truths which can't really be formulated by the human mind in any rational way. It's a way of accessing mysterious features which will remain mysterious. So it was always seen right up to the rise of modern science—as a myth, not a theory. What these creationists are doing is retreating, they're accepting the view of religion promoted by scientific enemies of religion, and saying, no, we have got science and it's better than your science. Complete error." John Gray

I completely agree. The purpose of my faith is not to tell me when or how the world was created. That is hardly help when family falls sick, when times get hard, or when things are simply too serendipitous to be sheer coincidence. Science does not help me see who is my neighbor, does not help me find the humanity in those I do not care for, or buy a bunch of toothbrushes for people whose lives will never meet mine. Science is wonderful stuff, but the miracle of humanity is how it operates on another level entirely. That is where my faith comes in. It tells me I matter, that this other person matters, and that somehow everything I see matters in a way that can't be quantified.

TRfan23
19-05-11, 12:17
Generally the way I see it:

Religion = To find peace and hope :)

Science = How the world works ;)

IceColdLaraCroft
19-05-11, 12:19
Nothing is true.

Everything is permitted.

patriots88888
19-05-11, 12:23
There is knowledge that is not purely scientific. (Although, perhaps, "wisdom" would be a better term.) I mean, "share your toys" is hardly empirical. "Feed the hungry". In fact, there's a large body of empirical evidence that states "feeding the hungry" is not the natural order of things. You don't see lion prides taking carcasses over to down-on-their-luck prides, or telling the cheetah, "hey, we ate yesterday, you take this."

Human beings, however, exhibit behaviors and teach there is value in behaviors that clearly go against the behaviors of virtually every other species on the planet.

It's important to remember this "creationism" movement is very new, and that historically, religion has not viewed itself as competition for science.

"I'm not a believer, but I'm friendly to religion, partly because it goes with being human—it's an odd kind of humanism which is hostile to something which is so quintessentially human as religion." That said, "I'm very opposed to investing science with the needs and requirements of religion. I'm equally opposed to the tendency within religion, which exists in things like creationism and intelligent design, to turn religion into a kind of pseudo-science. If you go back to St. Augustine or before, to the Jewish scholars who talk about these issues, they never regard the Genesis story as a theory. Augustine says explicitly that it should not be interpreted explicitly, that it's a way of accessing truths which can't really be formulated by the human mind in any rational way. It's a way of accessing mysterious features which will remain mysterious. So it was always seen right up to the rise of modern science—as a myth, not a theory. What these creationists are doing is retreating, they're accepting the view of religion promoted by scientific enemies of religion, and saying, no, we have got science and it's better than your science. Complete error." John Gray

I completely agree. The purpose of my faith is not to tell me when or how the world was created. That is hardly help when family falls sick, when times get hard, or when things are simply too serendipitous to be sheer coincidence. Science does not help me see who is my neighbor, does not help me find the humanity in those I do not care for, or buy a bunch of toothbrushes for people whose lives will never meet mine. Science is wonderful stuff, but the miracle of humanity is how it operates on another level entirely. That is where my faith comes in. It tells me I matter, that this other person matters, and that somehow everything I see matters in a way that can't be quantified.

Love the post... and I'm quoting it all in its entirety because it is all gold! :tmb: Thank you! :)

Minty Mouth
19-05-11, 13:11
There is knowledge that is not purely scientific. (Although, perhaps, "wisdom" would be a better term.) I mean, "share your toys" is hardly empirical. "Feed the hungry". In fact, there's a large body of empirical evidence that states "feeding the hungry" is not the natural order of things. You don't see lion prides taking carcasses over to down-on-their-luck prides, or telling the cheetah, "hey, we ate yesterday, you take this."

These aren't knowledge; they are values. Morals. Depending on which moral theory you identify with you may or may not believe objective moral truths exist, but only one of them relies on anything mystical (Divine Command theory).

If you were a Utilitarian, for example, you would take a naturalistic approach: happiness is the only intrinsic good and suffering is the only instrinsic evil--two natural world phenomena. Therefore, the greatest happiness for the greatest number is the obective moral truth.

There's no need to go into detail about all the competing moral realist theories, suffice to say rationalism and intuitionism all come into play with their own arguments. All of the half decent moral theories are scientific to the extent any philosophical idea can be.

Human beings, however, exhibit behaviors and teach there is value in behaviors that clearly go against the behaviors of virtually every other species on the planet.
That's because of our rationality. Our rationality is obviously superior to that of all other animals on the planet, so emergent behaviour manifests, such as morality and, depending on your outlook, perhaps free will.


It's important to remember this "creationism" movement is very new, and that historically, religion has not viewed itself as competition for science.

"I'm not a believer, but I'm friendly to religion, partly because it goes with being human—it's an odd kind of humanism which is hostile to something which is so quintessentially human as religion." That said, "I'm very opposed to investing science with the needs and requirements of religion. I'm equally opposed to the tendency within religion, which exists in things like creationism and intelligent design, to turn religion into a kind of pseudo-science. If you go back to St. Augustine or before, to the Jewish scholars who talk about these issues, they never regard the Genesis story as a theory. Augustine says explicitly that it should not be interpreted explicitly, that it's a way of accessing truths which can't really be formulated by the human mind in any rational way. It's a way of accessing mysterious features which will remain mysterious. So it was always seen right up to the rise of modern science—as a myth, not a theory. What these creationists are doing is retreating, they're accepting the view of religion promoted by scientific enemies of religion, and saying, no, we have got science and it's better than your science. Complete error." John Gray
Everything up to the bolded part is unsubstantiated babble, and the bolded part is an unsubstantiated assertion that there are mysterious parts of the world that cannot ever be explained by science. It seems much more rational to say that we just don't understand the universe well enough to explain how it all works. To have faith because there are things you think science can't explain is a form of the argument from ignorance fallacy: just because we don't know, doesn't mean you shove in the supernatural/mystical.


I completely agree. The purpose of my faith is not to tell me when or how the world was created. That is hardly help when family falls sick, when times get hard, or when things are simply too serendipitous to be sheer coincidence. Science does not help me see who is my neighbor, does not help me find the humanity in those I do not care for, or buy a bunch of toothbrushes for people whose lives will never meet mine. Science is wonderful stuff, but the miracle of humanity is how it operates on another level entirely. That is where my faith comes in. It tells me I matter, that this other person matters, and that somehow everything I see matters in a way that can't be quantified.

What you're talking about is your emotions, all of which can be explained in some rudimentary form by science as chemicals whizzing around in your brain. Empathy and being able to form the concepts of friendship and morality do not have to come from somewhere mystical. You can even find basic theories of morality in Darwinian Evolution: a kind of set of instincts that help keep our species alive (don't kill, don't steal, work for your things, etc.)

ryan91
19-05-11, 13:13
i believe in god. but religion makes everything harder. cuz it tells ppl to kill other ppl. i'm actually kind of scared to say that cuz i believe in a religion too :D. and my religions says that if i question it, god's gonna be really mad :D. but religion splits ppl doesn't it? if one can understand that all the ppl are the same regardless of their religions, it would have been more peacefull i think. there have been wars cuz of religion in the past. religion must unite ppl, not split them, if it really wants peace.

and i also don't understand why god created hell and stuff. i hope he is more peaceful than religion says he is :D. i don't understand why such an unfathomable powerful being wants to torcher his poor creations. violent is not the answer. even humans realized that :D.

i hope i won't end up in hell because of the stuff i wrote :D </3.

Dark Lugia 2
19-05-11, 13:20
There are religions other than Islam, you know. Your title seemingly proclaims that the Qura'an is the only source of God.

I dont think thats really fair considering no one minds when people only use Christianity and the Bible when referring to religion...


Where did god come from then? I dont think the universe had to have a creator. Creation is a man-made concept.

TRNation
19-05-11, 13:22
Angels & Demons is one of my favorite books because of this. :)

Minty Mouth
19-05-11, 13:32
63Hr1_LB3Io

Holy Logical fallacies, Batman!

That Muslim speaker makes excessive use of the argument from ignorance and sets up a straw-man argument for the Big Bang theory, all in his first 'point'. Not to mention the assertion that we have a supramaterial 'mind' that is completely unsubstantiated.

The opposing speaker does not identify himself as atheist, which means he is already unsuitable to debate a religious person since he is not coming in from the most logical point of view. I haven't watched any of his rebuttals, but I assume they won't be very good, since him identifying as an agnostic seems to suggest he doesn't have a very good understanding of the term 'atheist'. Not a good start.

Catapharact
19-05-11, 13:50
There's no need to go into detail about all the competing moral realist theories, suffice to say rationalism and intuitionism all come into play with their own arguments. All of the half decent moral theories are scientific to the extent any philosophical idea can be.

Science places emphasis on probability and the chance of a given event occurring to define its likelihood of happening in a given time frame. That is all empirical truth; Derived from observation taken from our senses and our "perception" of reality. Most scientific theories that try so hard to debase the idea of a constant that exists outside the empirical realm of understanding but have only turned around and proved that a constant exists (ironically, even the latest findings from CERN have proved the same.) What you choose to call that constant is up to you. I choose to call it God.


What you're talking about is your emotions, all of which can be explained in some rudimentary form by science as chemicals whizzing around in your brain. Empathy and being able to form the concepts of friendship and morality do not have to come from somewhere mystical. You can even find basic theories of morality in Darwinian Evolution: a kind of set of instincts that help keep our species alive (don't kill, don't steal, work for your things, etc.)

Then from your own perspective, you do see the logic in morality and spiritualism. Then taking the basis on your own argument, I have to say you are contradicting yourself by saying that science and spirituality are mutually exclusive entities. There are reasons why moral framework exists in society; May it be secular or otherwise. Religious teachings and rules (for the most part) do not impose restrictions based on irrational thoughts.

Why is drinking prohibited in Islam? Over indulgence in alcohol leads to complications; Both social and physical.

Why is eating pork prohibited in Islam? Its possibly one of the most unhealthy cuts of meat out there.

Etc. etc.

Dennis's Mom
19-05-11, 13:52
That's because of our rationality. Our rationality is obviously superior to that of all other animals on the planet, so emergent behaviour manifests, such as morality and, depending on your outlook, perhaps free will.

What is "rational" about me sending toothbrushes off to Lutheran World Relief for Haiti? I don't know any Haitians. I have no investment in the success of Haiti. The United States has no vital interest in the successof Haiti. I don't even like MLB if it comes to that. Haiti, for the rest of my life probably, is a complete and utter non-factor. If every Haitian were to suddenly die of cholera or dysentery, it wouldn't make any difference in my life. I fail to see my superior "rationality" enters into this action.

Everything up to the bolded part is unsubstantiated babble, and the bolded part is an unsubstantiated assertion that there are mysterious parts of the world that cannot ever be explained by science. It seems much more rational to say that we just don't understand the universe well enough to explain how it all works. To have faith because there are things you think science can't explain is a form of the argument from ignorance fallacy: just because we don't know, doesn't mean you shove in the supernatural/mystical.

So you would just rather have faith that science will eventually explain it. Fair enough.

Just don't call me ignorant for having room for both in my brain. Absolutes work for you, but not for everybody.http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y97/LisaB1138/smilies/57-1.gif

LNSNHGTDS
19-05-11, 13:58
Why there should've been someone who made the Big Bang? It's not like video games, or movies, or books. It can happen without someone starting it.

I see gods and religions as a "shield" for people. People need someone to guide them, they need someone to rely on when they want to achieve something. They sometimes achieve great stuff and because they can't see that it was their own will which made them suceed they just say "My god helped me." .

I can also explain it from another point of view. Since the ancient gods(Egyptian, Olympian, Roman gods etc. ) weren't real why should the newer gods(Jesus, Allah, God etc. ) be the real one(s) ?

Cochrane
19-05-11, 14:03
Catapharact: Are morality and spirituality really the same thing? I am always wary of the word spirituality because it seems to mean mainly whatever the user wants it to. There is logic in morality; whether there is logic in spirituality depends on what spirituality is.

Dennis's Mom: I think morality is not only explained by our rationality, but also by some of our irrational behaviors - which can, nevertheless, be explained rationally. We are social animals, hence we have a strong urge to help whatever group we are a part of. That was necessary for survival. Today, the definition of group has changed, but the basic instinct "help others to help the group" remains - even if, in the case of Haiti, it doesn't make sense from a purely utilitarian point of view.

Or maybe the explanation is completely different. Maybe someone who knows more about psychology can help here. My point is that I don't think morality is something that necessarily requires supernatural influences.

Minty Mouth
19-05-11, 14:11
Science places emphasis on probability and the chance of a given event occurring to define its likelihood of happening in a given time frame. That is all empirical truth; Derived from observation taken from our senses and our "perception" of reality. Most scientific theories that try so hard to debase the idea of a constant that exists outside the empirical realm of understanding but have only turned around and proved that a constant exists (ironically, even the latest findings from CERN have proved the same.) What you choose to call that constant is up to you. I choose to call it God.

The problem here comes from debating whether God exists without having an agreed definition for what God is. We can't have a discussion about it if we are going to throw the label on different concepts. I don't know what you mean by 'a constant that exists outside the empirical realm of understanding' but I am sure it doesn't prove the existence of the supernatural: do you have positive proof of the supernatural?


Then from your own perspective, you do see the logic in morality and spiritualism. Then taking the basis on your own argument, I have to say you are contradicting yourself by saying that science and spirituality are mutually exclusive entities.

What do you mean by spirituality? If you mean anything supernatural then no, I don't see how I have contradicted myself.

There are reasons why moral framework exists in society; May it be secular or otherwise. Religious teachings and rules (for the most part) do not impose restrictions based on irrational thoughts.

Why is drinking prohibited in Islam? Over indulgence in alcohol leads to complications; Both social and physical.

Why is eating pork prohibited in Islam? Its possibly one of the most unhealthy cuts of meat out there.

Etc. etc.
Then you mean the morals don't come from God, they are reccommended by him based on naturalistic conclusions? How does this prove we need God for our morality; surely it proves the very opposite?


What is "rational" about me sending toothbrushes off to Lutheran World Relief for Haiti? I don't know any Haitians. I have no investment in the success of Haiti. The United States has no vital interest in the successof Haiti. I don't even like MLB if it comes to that. Haiti, for the rest of my life probably, is a complete and utter non-factor. If every Haitian were to suddenly die of cholera or dysentery, it wouldn't make any difference in my life. I fail to see my superior "rationality" enters into this action.

You do those things because you are a good person. You understand that giving toothbrushes to Hatians will make them happy and that the greatest happiness for the greatest number is 'good'. You probably get a sense of personal gratification, too, which you enjoy. Your rationality explains to you that we should have empathy and consideration for other human beings because their pain is just as bad as your pain and you can rationlise that this means you should do what you can to reduce that pain.

So you would just rather have faith that science will eventually explain it. Fair enough.
Nothing infuriates me more that that. It isn't faith that science will give us the answers. Science has demonstrated time and time again that is does come up with answers to the things we don't understand. Many great mysteries of the Earth that, centuries ago, people would have said proved God existed, have been solved by science. You don't think that, before we understood the solar system, people thought the sun rising and falling was some kind of divine intervention? Science has given us the answers before so it is highly reasonable to believe that it will keep on doing it.


Just don't call me ignorant for having room for both in my brain. Absolutes work for you, but not for everybody.http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y97/LisaB1138/smilies/57-1.gif
We have different opinions, and I am trying to prove to you why mine is right and yours is wrong: this entails that I think you are ignorant of some of the facts. That's not an insult. We are all ingorant of some things.

Alpharaider47
19-05-11, 14:25
I'mma just throw my thoughts out there... why couldn't God have created the Big Bang? :whi:

Catapharact
19-05-11, 14:26
The problem here comes from debating whether God exists without having an agreed definition for what God is. We can't have a discussion about it if we are going to throw the label on different concepts. I don't know what you mean by 'a constant that exists outside the empirical realm of understanding' but I am sure it doesn't prove the existence of the supernatural: do you have positive proof of the supernatural?

Lets go with the Islamic definition of God:

- God has no physical form.
- God has no gender.
- God is omnipotent.
- God just existed.

The postulates of God can very well be imposed on the concept of what energy is and what the laws of thermodynamics state what energy is. Do I believe that this energy or force had a hand in creating the universe? Absolutely. It is more empirically sound to believe that a constant such as this energy existed then to believe that universe came to be because a number of improbable events happened.

What do you mean by spirituality? If you mean anything supernatural then no, I don't see how I have contradicted myself.

Then I have to say, you either don't know very much about spirituality or have a very close minded view of it (ironic.) Spirituality in a nutshell is belief in truth far beyond empirical observations. Spirituality doesn't forces any given ideas or pre-defined notions of what is and isn't but rather helps you open your mind to things that are unobservable by your senses.

Then you mean the morals don't come from God, they are reccommended by him based on naturalistic conclusions? How does this prove we need God for our morality; surely it proves the very opposite?

This is where religion becomes a personal issue. I do not look upon God as someone I need in terms of providing me with provisions or someone who will let me go through the big pearly gates if I am a "good boy." I look upon God as a source of personal inspiration; A constant upon which I can focus my meditations on to clear my head.

You should try it sometimes ;).

Minty Mouth
19-05-11, 14:46
There is no reason to say anything you would describe as spiritual needs to be supernatural. The benefits of meditation can be explained by the way our heads work and morality can be reached rationally or naturalistically.

Let's not lose sight of the original point: We don't need God for morality. Things that appear to be mystical are increasingly often explained by science.

To shove mysticism in any gaps of knowledge is not the best explanation. It's the 'God of the gaps'. Or the 'Spirituality of the gaps'. Spirituality might be a nice comfy way of catching all of that in one net but it doesn't give it any truth value. Its speculation and superstition and we don't need any of it. The supernatural is always the first and the worst explanation because it very conveniently does not need any further explanation and anyone can impose it for any reason under any circumstances. It's primative.

Catapharact
19-05-11, 14:57
There is no reason to say anything you would describe as spiritual needs to be supernatural. The benefits of meditation can be explained by the way our heads work and morality can be reached rationally or naturalistically.

Let's not lose sight of the original point: We don't need God for morality. Things that appear to be mystical are increasingly often explained by science.

To shove mysticism in any gaps of knowledge is not the best explanation. It's the 'God of the gaps'. Or the 'Spirituality of the gaps'. Spirituality might be a nice comfy way of catching all of that in one net but it doesn't give it any truth value. Its speculation and superstition and we don't need any of it. The supernatural is always the first and the worst explanation because it very conveniently does not need any further explanation and anyone can impose it for any reason under any circumstances. It's primative.

In short, what you just described are empirical observations derived from science ;); Theories... Guesstimations... Probabilities... Nothing concrete and nothing plausibly truthful ;). Yes, lets NOT lose sight of the original post which pointed out that spirituality and Science are mutually exclusive. Science relies upon the idea of empirical observation based on perpetual reality. If that is so, then I can just easily collapse the whole logical structure of science by saying that "what makes you think that what we observe is real?"

Down goes the entire house of cards ;).

Minty Mouth
19-05-11, 15:01
I said religion is not compatible with science because religion entails believeing something is true, even with no evidence. To accept something as true and infallible without evidence is distinctly unscientific, and that's why, at the roots, I don't think the two can be reconciled.

Unless God is proven, but then I wouldn't call it religion, but another part of science. There would be no faith involved which takes the meaning out of the term.

Catapharact
19-05-11, 15:11
I said religion is not compatible with science because religion entails believeing something is true, even with no evidence.

That depends upon what religion is to a person. To me, its a set of guidelines based on moral and spiritual guidance and the search for truth (not unlike Science itself.) Yes there are creeds related to religious fervor-ism and the belief that their given path is the true path to God, but I don't believe that is so.

I follow the guidelines of my own religion, but I certainly won't impose my religious ideas on anyone else.

Cochrane
19-05-11, 16:42
Lets go with the Islamic definition of God:

- God has no physical form.
- God has no gender.
- God is omnipotent.
- God just existed.

The postulates of God can very well be imposed on the concept of what energy is and what the laws of thermodynamics state what energy is. Do I believe that this energy or force had a hand in creating the universe? Absolutely. It is more empirically sound to believe that a constant such as this energy existed then to believe that universe came to be because a number of improbable events happened.

That definition is very vague, though. You could arguably say that energy, laws of nature or even maths fits this definition from a certain point of view.

I guess the important question here is: Does this God have a free will or self-consciousness in any shape? It does not need to in order to satisfy these four criteria, but a God without any divine plan or consciousness is very far removed from what most people think about when they think of God.

Pietras
19-05-11, 16:50
Most people cannot imagine God to be anything else than a white-beared old man. For them it's hard to grasp he/she/it could be a conscious cloud of energy or something.

Cochrane
19-05-11, 16:52
Most people cannot imagine God to be anything else than a white-beared old man. For them it's hard to grasp he/she/it could be a conscious cloud of energy or something.

That's why I think watching Star Trek should be mandatory. Enough TNG, and you'll have no problem at all with omnipotent energy beings. My problem is really with the issue: If the cloud of energy is no longer conscious, then is this still a God? It sounds more like a normal natural phenomenon to me, just one that we don't fully understand yet.

Pietras
19-05-11, 17:02
That's why I think watching Star Trek should be mandatory. Enough TNG, and you'll have no problem at all with omnipotent energy beings. My problem is really with the issue: If the cloud of energy is no longer conscious, then is this still a God? It sounds more like a normal natural phenomenon to me, just one that we don't fully understand yet.
I'm not religious at all, but I believe in higher force/God. You could call me a deist. I just think whatever the higher form is, we will never understand it. We live in world of 4 dimensions and can't even imagine another world that could be different. We can't imagine aliens being twice as intelligent as us, we believe we're at the peak of consciousness. I believe God (or however he likes to call himself) is on a completely different level of consciousness. Nothing like "not much going on in the world today, so boring..." human way of thinking. Can't see why God would be 'dead'/unconscious now either.

jackles
19-05-11, 17:30
I would not say that I am not religious....rather that I do not follow any formal religion. I find such divisions/similarities intriguing but not my path.

I don't get how my electricity works but I know it is there! It doesn't bother me too much though how things occur, too busy in the here and now.

Avalon SARL
19-05-11, 17:42
I said religion is not compatible with science because religion entails believeing something is true, even with no evidence. To accept something as true and infallible without evidence is distinctly unscientific, and that's why, at the roots, I don't think the two can be reconciled.


For clarification, religion does not tell you so.
Actually it entices you to discover the truth by finding evidence.

Prophet Abraham, even asked GOD for a crystal clear evidence for His existence and he was given that evidence.
This story, present in the Quran, teaches us that human beings have the right to question God's existence because Islam is about is using logic to find answers

There are massive verses in Quran that speak of the high rank of educated people and how much GOD loves his people to discover things; that is why He made them the highest and above all of his other creations on earth :)

Forwen
19-05-11, 18:01
The postulates of God can very well be imposed on the concept of what energy is and what the laws of thermodynamics state what energy is. Do I believe that this energy or force had a hand in creating the universe? Absolutely. It is more empirically sound to believe that a constant such as this energy existed then to believe that universe came to be because a number of improbable events happened.

Am I understanding you correctly, you are identifying energy as physical quantity with God? Not entirely sure because at one point you talk about "energy or force" which are not the same thing. And it certainly raises some questions about God's alleged omnipotence and entropy's place in all this. It also sounds pantheistic, which I thought wasn't part of Islam.

Also, can you point me to those scientific theories that try to "debase the idea of a constant that exists outside the empirical realm of understanding" and where this "non-empirical" constant appears in CERN data? (and for the record, not everything that's considered "science" has to be empirically verifiable [or theoretical physics would be in deep trouble ;)]; one example are the theories on the structure of the universe outside of our Hubble volume, which are not dismissed out of hand because they're still mathematically and logically sound)

patriots88888
19-05-11, 18:17
Going back to the OP's original question/statement and as DM has hinted at in her reply...

Just don't call me ignorant for having room for both in my brain. Absolutes work for you, but not for everybody.

...I don't believe science and religion/spirituality/faith (or however you choose to label these relevant beliefs) are mutually exclusive. They can and do co-exist in harmony with one another (something which might be surprising to some of you). It is my understanding that the goal of science is not to disprove the existence/presence of God. While that may be the goal of atheism (as I am not sure of what its actual purpose is), science itself is not mutual to any one set of belief/faith. There are those of spiritual faith as well as non-believers in the field of science. Neither of which has any more importance/prominence in this field than the other.

This notion of 'I'm right, you're wrong' and 'My way is better/more logical than yours' is nothing more than prideful posturing and appeasing to emotions on both sides. All it does is add to the false perception that there is some tangible rift between the two that many seem convinced is there, while in actuality it is not.

Avalon SARL
19-05-11, 18:22
Going back to the OP's original question/statement and as DM has hinted at in her reply...



...I don't believe science and religion/spirituality/faith (or however you choose to label these relevant beliefs) are mutually exclusive. They can and do co-exist in harmony with one another (something which might be surprising to some of you). It is my understanding that the goal of science is not to disprove the existence/presence of God. While that may be the goal of atheism (as I am not sure of what its actual purpose is), science itself is not mutual to any one set of belief/faith. There are those of spiritual faith as well as non-believers in the field of science. Neither of which has any more importance/prominence in this field than the other.

This notion of 'I'm right, you're wrong' and 'My way is better/more logical than yours' is nothing more than prideful posturing and appeasing to emotions on both sides. All it does is add to the false perception that there is some tangible rift between the two that many seem convinced is there, while in actuality it is not.

I like this :)

interstellardave
19-05-11, 18:26
I can only respect people who know that they don't know everything. If you are open to always learning more--from sources both religious and scientific, open to changing your opinions, willing to listen to other points of view, etc., then I will most definitely be your friend.

Patriots says it quite well in his last post too ^^^

Minty Mouth
19-05-11, 18:53
Going back to the OP's original question/statement and as DM has hinted at in her reply...



...I don't believe science and religion/spirituality/faith (or however you choose to label these relevant beliefs) are mutually exclusive. They can and do co-exist in harmony with one another (something which might be surprising to some of you). It is my understanding that the goal of science is not to disprove the existence/presence of God. While that may be the goal of atheism (as I am not sure of what its actual purpose is), science itself is not mutual to any one set of belief/faith. There are those of spiritual faith as well as non-believers in the field of science. Neither of which has any more importance/prominence in this field than the other.

This notion of 'I'm right, you're wrong' and 'My way is better/more logical than yours' is nothing more than prideful posturing and appeasing to emotions on both sides. All it does is add to the false perception that there is some tangible rift between the two that many seem convinced is there, while in actuality it is not.

Atheism doesn't have a goal. The word atheist translates literally to 'without god', and that's all it is. One point of view on one issue.

The bottom line is, science doesn't advocate superstition, and that's all anything supernatural is. There's nothing wrong with being open to the possibility of gods or mind-reading or telekinesis or anything at all, but, at this moment in time, to hold that it is true that these things exist and are real is unscientific. The good thing about science is that it changes its mind.

Avalon SARL
19-05-11, 19:05
God can be proven using Logic

One is thinking how unfair most things in life are;

Murderers and evil doers are equalized to kind hearted people
think how many people have been betrayed
think how many have been killed without any reason

To say that GOD will judge people is wise and logical as having Him judge us is a reason for people not to act wicked

Another reason, is really how everything seems connected.

The things that happen to me, you or others around us, all our activities seem connected.

they happen by themselves,but again they happen in a strange way that we can't explain and that is because it can not be just a coincidence that certain things happen altogether at the same time to lead for something else to happen

amore-guy
19-05-11, 19:27
^ Well said mate:tmb::D

lara c. fan
19-05-11, 19:33
God can be proven using Logic

One is thinking how unfair most things in life are;

Murderers and evil doers are equalized to kind hearted people
think how many people have been betrayed
think how many have been killed without any reason

To say that GOD will judge people is wise and logical as having Him judge us is a reason for people not to act wicked

Another reason, is really how everything seems connected.

The things that happen to me, you or others around us, all our activities seem connected.

they happen by themselves,but again they happen in a strange way that we can't explain and that is because it can not be just a coincidence that certain things happen altogether at the same time to lead for something else to happen

That doesn't prove God's existence in the slightest.

And I've never felt any connection to the activities of others, particularly those who I randomly see on the street.

Dark Lugia 2
19-05-11, 19:47
That doesn't prove God's existence in the slightest.

And I've never felt any connection to the activities of others, particularly those who I randomly see on the street.

I was gonna say exactly this. I dont know what Avalon means by activities being 'connected'. You cant prove the existance of god at all.

Cochrane
19-05-11, 21:55
God can be proven using Logic

One is thinking how unfair most things in life are;

Murderers and evil doers are equalized to kind hearted people
think how many people have been betrayed
think how many have been killed without any reason

To say that GOD will judge people is wise and logical as having Him judge us is a reason for people not to act wicked
Not sure what you mean. People do act wicked. That we will be judged is a comforting idea, but not logical proof that it will actually happen.

Another reason, is really how everything seems connected.

The things that happen to me, you or others around us, all our activities seem connected.

they happen by themselves,but again they happen in a strange way that we can't explain and that is because it can not be just a coincidence that certain things happen altogether at the same time to lead for something else to happen
So God is a giant switchboard operator? Sometimes a coincidence is just that. What interest does a God have in making sure all these connections are there?

CerebralAssassin
19-05-11, 22:27
the Big Bang and the ultimate fate of the cosmos interest me greatly:)

Observations suggest that the expansion of the universe will continue forever. If so, the universe will cool as it expands, eventually becoming too cold to sustain life. For this reason, this future scenario is popularly called the Big Freeze.

The future of an expanding universe is bleak.If a cosmological constant accelerates the expansion of the universe, the space between clusters of galaxies will grow at an increasing rate. Redshift will have stretched ancient, incoming photons (even gamma rays) to undetectably long wavelengths and low energies.Stars are expected to form normally for 1×1012 to 1×1014 years, but eventually the supply of gas needed for star formation will be exhausted. Once the last star has exhausted its fuel, stars will cease to shine.According to theories that predict proton decay, the stellar remnants left behind would disappear, leaving behind only black holes which themselves eventually disappear as they emit Hawking radiation.Ultimately, if the universe reaches a state in which the temperature approaches a uniform value, no further work will be possible, resulting in a final heat death of the universe.

Forwen
19-05-11, 22:30
^ It's impolite not to quote your sources, you know ;)

CerebralAssassin
19-05-11, 22:34
^ It's impolite not to quote your sources, you know ;)

how did you know?you read this stuff already?:p

I didn't cause no one would bother reading it......but now that I'm caught....

Forwen
19-05-11, 22:39
how did you know?you read this stuff already?:p



More by style than content :p I think I came across that article once, but I wouldn't remember it word for word for so long.

Alex Shepherd
19-05-11, 23:20
THE BIG BANG
One of the most persistently asked questions has been: How was the universe created? Many once believed that the universe had no beginning or end and was truly infinite. Through the inception of the Big Bang theory, however,no longer could the universe be considered infinite. The universe was forced to take on the properties of a finite phenomenon, possessing a history and a beginning.

About 15 billion years ago a tremendous explosion started the expansion of the universe. This explosion is known as the Big Bang. At the point of this event all of the matter and energy of space was contained at one point. What exisisted prior to this event is completely unknown and is a matter of pure speculation. This occurance was not a conventional explosion but rather an event filling all of space with all of the particles of the embryonic universe rushing away from each other. The Big Bang actually consisted of an explosion of space within itself unlike an explosion of a bomb were fragments are thrown outward. The galaxies were not all clumped together, but rather the Big Bang lay the foundations for the universe.

The origin of the Big Bang theory can be credited to Edwin Hubble. Hubble made the observation that the universe is continuously expanding. He discovered that a galaxys velocity is proportional to its distance. Galaxies that are twice as far from us move twice as fast. Another consequence is that the universe is expanding in every direction. This observation means that it has taken every galaxy the same amount of time to move from a common starting position to its current position. Just as the Big Bang provided for the foundation of the universe, Hubbles observations provided for the foundation of the Big Bang theory.

Since the Big Bang, the universe has been continuously expanding and, thus, there has been more and more distance between clusters of galaxies. This phenomenon of galaxies moving farther away from each other is known as the red shift. As light from distant galaxies approach earth there is an increase of space between earth and the galaxy, which leads to wavelengths being stretched.

In addition to the understanding of the velocity of galaxies emanating from a single point, there is further evidence for the Big Bang. In 1964, two astronomers, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, in an attempt to detect microwaves from outer space, inadvertently discovered a noise of extraterrestrial origin. The noise did not seem to emanate from one location but instead, it came from all directions at once. It became obvious that what they heard was radiation from the farthest reaches of the universe which had been left over from the Big Bang. This discovery of the radioactive aftermath of the initial explosion lent much
. credence to the Big Bang theory
NASSA

http://i066.radikal.ru/1008/fe/64ad0184e068.gif

blind those who disbelieve not see, that the heavens and the earth were joined at the start made ​​them in our powers our class each from the other, and made ​​from water, which is no life in which every living thing?! Is this offer, after all, do not believe that there is no god else?

Science recently discovered this thing and the Koran said it 1400 years ago.

Alex Shepherd
19-05-11, 23:24
i believe in god. but religion makes everything harder. cuz it tells ppl to kill other ppl. i'm actually kind of scared to say that cuz i believe in a religion too :D. and my religions says that if i question it, god's gonna be really mad :D. but religion splits ppl doesn't it? if one can understand that all the ppl are the same regardless of their religions, it would have been more peacefull i think. there have been wars cuz of religion in the past. religion must unite ppl, not split them, if it really wants peace.

and i also don't understand why god created hell and stuff. i hope he is more peaceful than religion says he is :D. i don't understand why such an unfathomable powerful being wants to torcher his poor creations. violent is not the answer. even humans realized that :D.

i hope i won't end up in hell because of the stuff i wrote :D </3.

If you excuse me Miss or Mister Ryan... But can you please just name for me which are the countries who's causing war to other countries?!! Can you please just check back in your world and name me all the countries who's causing war?!

Dark Lugia 2
19-05-11, 23:27
http://i066.radikal.ru/1008/fe/64ad0184e068.gif

blind those who disbelieve not see, that the heavens and the earth were joined at the start made ​​them in our powers our class each from the other, and made ​​from water, which is no life in which every living thing?! Is this offer, after all, do not believe that there is no god else?

Science recently discovered this thing and the Koran said it 1400 years ago.

That Quran verse has no relation to the big bang whatsoever

larafan25
19-05-11, 23:51
Wasn't the theory of evolution or the big bang (something or other) accepted by the Catholic church? Or proposed by someone who was Catholic or had some relation to the Pope or something?

Alex Shepherd
19-05-11, 23:55
That Quran verse has no relation to the big bang whatsoever

reread it properly... :)

Dark Lugia 2
20-05-11, 00:02
reread it properly... :)

I read it properly, its so vague that you could connect it to anything. Theres nothing about "a tremendous explosion started the expansion of the universe" in that quote

Avalon SARL
20-05-11, 16:19
That's because the translation used is also not very accurate

Where didyougetthat from Alex :confused:

Here is a moreaccurate translation:
[ ص: 316 ] ( أولم ير الذين كفروا أن السماوات والأرض كانتا رتقا ففتقناهما وجعلنا من الماء كل شيء حي أفلا يؤمنون ( 30 ) وجعلنا في الأرض رواسي أن تميد بهم وجعلنا فيها فجاجا سبلا لعلهم يهتدون ( 31 ) )

Translation:

30. Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of Creation), before We clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?
31. And We have set on the earth mountains standing firm, lest it should shake with them and We have made therein broad highways (between mountains) for them to pass through: that they may receive guidance.
32. And We have made the heavens as a canopy well-guarded: Yet do they turn away from the Signs which these things (point to)!
33. It is He Who created the Night and the Day, and the sun and the moon: all (the celestial bodies) swim along each in its rounded course.
34. We granted not to any man before thee permanent life (here): if then thou shouldst die would they live permanently?
35. Every soul shall have a taste of death: and We test you by evil and by good by way of trial: to Us must ye return.
36. When the Unbelievers see thee, they treat thee not except with ridicule. "Is this" (they say) "The one who talks of your gods?" And they blaspheme at the mention of (Allah) Most Gracious!
37. Man is a creature of haste: soon (enough) will I show you My Signs: then ye will not ask Me to hasten them!
38. They say: "When will this promise come to pass, if ye are telling the truth?"
39. If only the Unbelievers knew (the time) when they will not be able to ward off the Fire from their faces, nor yet from their backs, and (when) no help can reach them!


(وَالسَّمَاءَ بَنَيْنَاهَا بِأَيْدٍ وَإِنَّا لَمُوسِعُونَ)

http://www.barkati.net/quran/Translation/051_06.gif

[Zariyat 51:47] And We have built the heaven with Hands (the Divine Power), and it is We Who give the expanse.

lara c. fan
20-05-11, 16:31
I only thing I can see even vaguely connecting to the Big Bang in that is "clove them asunder", and that's a seriously vague connection at best.

TRfan23
20-05-11, 16:34
Wasn't the theory of evolution or the big bang (something or other) accepted by the Catholic church? Or proposed by someone who was Catholic or had some relation to the Pope or something?

Not sure about that.

But I know the current Pope believes in evolution :)

Dark Lugia 2
20-05-11, 17:23
That's because the translation used is also not very accurate

Where didyougetthat from Alex :confused:

Here is a moreaccurate translation:




That still has no relation to the big bang. Expanse means "An area of something, typically land or sea, presenting a wide continuous surface."

Avalon SARL
20-05-11, 17:53
I only thing I can see even vaguely connecting to the Big Bang in that is "clove them asunder", and that's a seriously vague connection at best.

In the arabic term, it is speaking about how BIG BANG happened.

Becausethe word ففتقناهما means that they have been exploded or something of this kind... a scientists may know theexact meaning better than me
For the translation, I myself don't know what Clove them asunder means,but since it is the translation it has to do something with some sort of explosion.

Do not disregard the statement as a whole
Read the whole sentences and makeup the conclusion.

It is a failure to just take out one word and analyze it,removing it from its original context ;)


That still has no relation to the big bang. Expanse means "An area of something, typically
land or sea, presenting a wide continuous surface."

But this verse:

[Zariyat 51:47] And We have built the heaven with Hands (the Divine Power), and it is We Who give the expanse.

Is not about Big Bang....
it is about the expansion of the universe which is happening and will always keep happening ;)

I am not sure 100% of translations or how much they serve the true arabian meaning, that is why in analyzing quran, you always have to refer to the original language

lara c. fan
20-05-11, 18:28
In the arabic term, it is speaking about how BIG BANG happened.

Becausethe word ففتقناهما means that they have been exploded or something of this kind... a scientists may know theexact meaning better than me
For the translation, I myself don't know what Clove them asunder means,but since it is the translation it has to do something with some sort of explosion.

Do not disregard the statement as a whole
Read the whole sentences and makeup the conclusion.

It is a failure to just take out one word and analyze it,removing it from its original context ;)




But this verse:



Is not about Big Bang....
it is about the expansion of the universe which is happening and will always keep happening ;)

I am not sure 100% of translations or how much they serve the true arabian meaning, that is why in analyzing quran, you always have to refer to the original language

I'm never heard the word "expanse" being used instead of "expansion", I have to say.

And yeah, I don't know Arabic, so I'm working with the translations given here.

And I didn't disregard the statement as a whole. I simply picked out what I thought had the best connection to the Big Bang, and said that it was vague at best, because, judging by the translation, that's all it is.

Avalon SARL
20-05-11, 18:37
^ You are right, because i also know the word to use is Expansion and not Expanse.

If you want, theway I see it GOd is saying: The Sky/heaven which I have built by my own power, and I Am Expanding it

And the disregarding the sentence was not for you actually :p

But like I said, not even me or anyone have the ability to analyze Quranic verses.

It took scientists many years to understand it and they couldn't till some certain discovery was made and that is what makes Quran valid, is that things within it are mysterious, but certain aspects,it is science that sheds light on it

You can find lots about the scientific miracles of Quran

Uzi master
20-05-11, 18:53
^ You are right, because i also know the word to use is Expansion and not Expanse.

If you want, theway I see it GOd is saying: The Sky/heaven which I have built by my own power, and I Am Expanding it

And the disregarding the sentence was not for you actually :p

But like I said, not even me or anyone have the ability to analyze Quranic verses.

It took scientists many years to understand it and they couldn't till some certain discovery was made and that is what makes Quran valid, is that things within it are mysterious, but certain aspects,it is science that sheds light on it

You can find lots about the scientific miracles of Quran

unless something explicitly mentions something along the line of a huge explosion expanding the universe it isn't clear enough to be considered valid.

That could refer to many things, like almost anything in these so called holy books, I think its vague on purpose as a way to get people to believe by thinking up anything that happened that coincidentally fits the vague description.

It could mean anything from the first atomic bomb test being more powerful than the expected, thus tearing the land asunder to A cat tearing a ball of yarn asunder. OR a scientist cloning an animal that is released to the wild and torn asunder by another animal. not credible as a truly scientific explanation and more an attempt to give people a reason to believe instead of accepting there is no magical being that has the answer to everything or that you go to a magical wonderful place when you die...

my opinion on it anyway.

lara c. fan
20-05-11, 18:57
^ You are right, because i also know the word to use is Expansion and not Expanse.

If you want, theway I see it GOd is saying: The Sky/heaven which I have built by my own power, and I Am Expanding it

And the disregarding the sentence was not for you actually :p

But like I said, not even me or anyone have the ability to analyze Quranic verses.

It took scientists many years to understand it and they couldn't till some certain discovery was made and that is what makes Quran valid, is that things within it are mysterious, but certain aspects,it is science that sheds light on it

You can find lots about the scientific miracles of Quran

If science discovers something that bears an even slight resemblance to something written in a holy book of any kind, then people are going to start thinking that said holy book had it right all along. Now, if people figured out these things directly from the holy books, and science found out afterwards, then it is valid, at least to a large degree.

Alex Shepherd
24-05-11, 00:16
That still has no relation to the big bang. Expanse means "An area of something, typically land or sea, presenting a wide continuous surface."

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_nol9klYAqQ0/TP_QsnGN5zI/AAAAAAAAAAM/_KyvYgaAIRo/s1600/face+palm.jpg

Avalon SARL
24-05-11, 06:40
If science discovers something that bears an even slight resemblance to something written in a holy book of any kind, then people are going to start thinking that said holy book had it right all along. Now, if people figured out these things directly from the holy books, and science found out afterwards, then it is valid, at least to a large degree.

Long ago, people who were more understanding of the Quran did, because the Arabic language was just one.

There was a time when the best scientists came from the Muslim World and they knew all these things;
Currently, few are those who even know how to speak their original non-slang arabic which is way different from the slang/arabic spoken differently in each country.

Arabic is now intermixed with french and english and in some arabian countries, like gulf, their arabic is terrible

Also, the description in Quran is very solid and difficult to understand, unless someone is truly well knowing of the topic/subject he is readingabout.

For example, verses about outerspace, planets and the stars...

A simple normal person like me, I would read, feel confused and not understand a single word what is it GOD is speaking about, but someone who is well educated about it can explain it and, well, it is shocking that Science and Quran do not contradict each other at many points.

In this example, notice the word I marked:


God Said:


http://c0022506.cdn1.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com/78_6.png

http://c0022506.cdn1.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com/78_7.png


قال تعالى : ﴿ أَلَمْ نَجْعَلِ الْأَرْضَ مِهَادًا*وَالْجِبَالَ أَوْتَادًا﴾ (النبأ:6-7) .

Translation:

Have We not made the earth a resting place?

And the mountains as stakes?

It is really amazing to notice how much knowledge and sience is only included with this little verse ;)

Dark Lugia 2
24-05-11, 14:03
And what exactly is the knowledge and science included in that verse? You cant expect anyone to understand you if you'll be so vague.

Avalon SARL
24-05-11, 16:05
Well, I am not the perfect choice to explain this,but it has to do with the way mountains hold the ground and make it stable or something like that...

stake, which means a support of something.

And the word used in arabic also refers to the way a mountain is shaped/formed and why it goes sharp/flat at the top and how it penetrates deep down underground and for what reasons...

This means that GOD has made mountains be the reason the ground is stable (please don't take everything literally because I am not a scientist and I also do not know the exact words which perfectly describe the situation,but I am sure it relates to it in someway).

I'll try find time to translate the article I have about it; so much in-depth details about this subject and the facts that result from this are truly mesmerizing


EDIT:

قال تعالى : ﴿ أَلَمْ نَجْعَلِ الْأَرْضَ مِهَادًا*وَالْجِبَالَ أَوْتَادًا﴾ (النبأ:6-7) .

تشير الآية إلى أن الجبال أوتاد للأرض ، والوتد يكون منه جزء ظاهر على سطح الأرض ، ومعظمه غائر فيها ، ووظيفته التثبيت لغيره . بينما نرى علماء الجغرافيا والجيولوجيا يعرفون الجبل بأنه: كتلة من الأرض تبرز فوق ما يحيط بها، وهو أعلى من التل, ويقول د. زغلول النجار: إن جميع التعريفات الحالية للجبال تنحصر في الشكل الخارجي لهذه التضاريس، دون أدنى إشارة لامتداداتها تحت السطح، والتي ثبت أخيراً أنها تزيد على الارتفاع الظاهر بعدة مرات, ثم يقول: ولم تكتشف هذه الحقيقة إلا في النصف الأخير من القرن التاسع عشر عندما تقدم السيرجورج ايري بنظرية مفادها أن القشرة الأرضية لا تمثل أساساً مناسباً للجبال التي تعلوها، وافترض أن القشرة الأرضية وما عليها من جبال لا تمثل إلا جزءاً طافياً على بحر من الصخور الكثيفة المرنة ، وبالتالي فلا بد أن يكون للجبال جذور ممتدة داخل تلك المنطقة العالية الكثافة لضمان ثباتها واستقرارها .
وقد أصبحت نظرية ايري حقيقة ملموسة مع تقدم المعرفة بتركيب الأرض الداخلي عن طريق القياسات الزلزالية، فقد أصبح معلوماً على وجه القطع أن للجبال جذوراً مغروسة في الأعماق

ويمكن أن تصل إلى ما يعادل 15مرة من ارتفاعاتها فوق سطح الأرض، وأن للجبال دوراً كبيراً في إيقاف الحركة الأفقية الفجائية لصفائح طبقة الأرض الصخرية. هذا وقد بدأ فهم هذا الدور في إطار تكتونية الصفائح منذ أواخر الستينيات. ويعرف الدكتور زغلول الجبال في ضوء المعلومات الحديثة فيقول إن الجبال ما هي إلا قمم لكتل عظيمة من الصخور تطفو في طبقة أكثر كثافة كما تطفو جبال الجليد في الماء ولقد وصف القرآن الجبال شكلاً ووظيفة، فقال تعالى: ﴿ وَالْجِبَالَ أَوْتَادًا ﴾

The verse shows that mountains are pegs (wedges) of the earth, and part of this peg/wedge is visible on the surface of the Earth, and the most of it is thrust deeply down, and its main function (wedge they mean) is to ensure stability and fixation of other structures. From geographical and geological descriptions, the mountain is known as: a block of land that stands above its surroundings, which is higher than the hill,"
Dr. Zaghloul El-Naggar: All current definitions of the mountains is limited to the external shape of the terrain, without the slightest reference to the extensions under the surface, and it has been proven lately that mountains do have extensions beneath the surface.
He adds: This was only discovered in the latter half of the nineteenth century and it became a fact after Sir Georg Erie’s theory that the earth's crust does not represent an appropriate basis for the mountains above it, and supposed that the earth's crust and from the mountains represent only a fraction floating on a sea of flexible dense rocks, and therefore it must be the mountain’s roots extended into this area of high density to ensure stability.
Erie has become a theory of reality with the progress of knowledge of the composition of internal Earth by seismic measurements, it has become known that mountains have roots planted in the depths.

And these mountain wedges can be equivalent up to 15 times their heights above the ground, and thus a mountain’s big role in stopping any horizontal movement of the ground’s layer.

Dr. Zaghloul says mountains in the light of modern information and says that the mountains are only the tops of the great blocks of rock floating in a layer more dense as the mountains of ice floating in the water and the Quran has described mountains in form and function, by saying that mountains arelikewedges that hold the surface of earth and insure its stability.

The Quran also spoke more by saying:

http://c0022506.cdn1.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com/31_10.png

He created the heavens without pillars that you see and has cast into the earth firmly set mountains, lest it should shift with you, and dispersed therein from every creature. And We sent down rain from the sky and made grow therein [plants] of every noble kind.

This proves more that mountains are stakes/wedges for the earth's surface; just the way a peg/wedge disappears in the ground to be installed, as well as most of the mountain disappears into the ground to install and fix the earth's crust and keep it stable.

There are even much more descriptions of the way a mountain is formed and how volcanoes blast and other interesting stuff.

Hope my translation is not too hard

Forwen
24-05-11, 16:39
Well, I am not the perfect choice to explain this,but it has to do with the way mountains hold the ground and make it stable or something like that...

stake, which means a support of something.

And the word used in arabic also refers to the way a mountain is shaped/formed and why it goes sharp/flat at the top and how it penetrates deep down underground and for what reasons...

This means that GOD has made mountains be the reason the ground is stable (please don't take everything literally because I am not a scientist and I also do not know the exact words which perfectly describe the situation,but I am sure it relates to it in someway).

I'll try find time to translate the article I have about it; so much in-depth details about this subject and the facts that result from this are truly mesmerizing

This is, simply put, completely wrong. Mountains are usually (or always?) deformities created by the movement of the tectonic plates that form them. They are also continually evolving.

Avalon SARL
24-05-11, 16:50
Just like that?
where's your proof.

Ofcourse earth's stability is not alone decided by mountains, but just the way the Quran described it, it is really interesting as why on Earth would such a precise and exact word be chosen, nothing else...
Coincidence, I think NOT


And if you cared to read properly, because mountains were thought as anything higher than a hill...

In this case, there is somehow another definition of mountains...

Suppose you and I are in a playground, an earthquake happens and a deep groove occurs shifting the land turning it upside down and thus a valley occurs.. and the place on which you and I are on becomes a top
yet this doesn't make the land at the top some mountain...

We are speaking of a mountain wedge;)

whichis not neccessarily a place or mountain that was formed later by some earthquake ;)

Cochrane
24-05-11, 17:18
I have a hard time understanding what the article wants to tell me, so I'm not sure I can comment on that. But basically, the earth is split in so-called "continental plates", which swim on a lower layer of molten rock. Where these plates collide, the usual result will be that one slides under the other. This pushes the other higher and also compresses it a little, so that it gets deformities. That's how mountain ranges are formed. Alternatively, if both plates dive down, trenches can form, which are usually found in the sea. As a side effect, those plates moving is also what causes earth quakes and most volcanoes.

Notice that mountain ranges do not have to confirm to today's continental plates either. Just as an example, most of the mountains in central and southern europe, as well as the appalachian mountains in the US, are part of the variscan mountains which were formed by continental drift eons ago, when all those parts of the world were still together and at the edge of a continental plate. Those things tend to break up and meld together all the time, just very, very slowly.

There are some other ways how mountains are formed. Hawaii, for example, is formed over a hot spot where lava comes out of the ocean. That lava solidifies and forms higher and higher mountains, until they reach above the water. The continental plate moves over the hot spot, so every few million years or so, a new island is added to Hawaii since the spot is now at a different place relative to the old islands. Such things are very rare, though. Most mountains derive from plate tectonics, or at least mostly from it (other effects can help and are quite important for mining).

All this was discovered in the early 1910s by Alfred Wegener. At first they laughed at him, but measuring of the oceans found that the deep sea trenches that this theory predicts truly exist. Today, with GPS, we can actually measure how much the plates move against each other and how mountain ranges change and grow as a result. It's all very slow, of course, but it's definitely there.

And under none of these things are the mountains pegs, wedges, or in any way responsible for keeping the earth together. They are just the results of plate tectonics.

Avalon SARL
24-05-11, 17:36
What you are saying does not contradict anything and if you like, there are much common between quran and Alfred wegner as well :)

Maybe this defines it more:


Mountains do not reveal the form of pegs or anchors. They just appear as prominent masses elevated upon the earth’s surface, as they are defined by geographers and geologists. Nobody can know their peg-like shape or anchor shape unless he knows their portions that submerge into the plastic matter of the mantle. It had been impossible for anybody to imagine any such things before the appearance of Sir George Airy’s theory in 1855 AD.

http://www.jameataleman.org/book/eeagaze/chp2/mountains4.htm

To deny the fact that a mountain holds and helps in stabilizing the Earth's surface from moving horizontally, well, this is denying much of geological facts.

It is not about how Mountains are formed or where the peg is installed... ;)

Sir George Airy, who was Astronomer Royal for 46 years, is best known among Earth scientists for his contributions to the theory of isostasy (or ‘crustal balance’ as it was then termed) and for the experiments he carried out to measure the density of the Earth.

Airy began his career as a mathematician, and he was elected to the Lucasian Chair of Mathematics at Cambridge in 1826. He held that post for only two years before being elected Plumian Professor of Astronomy and Director of the Cambridge Observatory in 1828. His textbook on physical astronomy had been published in 1826. Airy was appointed Astronomer Royal in 1835, and displayed great energy in that role. Among other things he re-equipped the Greenwich observatory with new instruments (which he designed himself), he created a magnetic and meteorological department, and he made important contributions to celestial mechanics. In 1894 he supervised a series of pendulum experiments with the object of measuring the increase in gravity with depth below the surface of the Earth. He was a prolific author, who published works on gravitation and on the downward extension of mountain roots, on the figure of the Earth, and on tides and waves as well as on astronomical subjects. Airy was characterized by thoroughness in his investigations and by his efficiency and strict discipline as an administrator.

D. L. Dineley

http://science.jrank.org/pages/47297/Airy-Sir-George-Biddell.html


EDIT:

Got an e-mailfrom mfriend about thisand she provided link :)

I know, I will not know how to explain it.

It is too complicated for me to provide exact answers because it needs some scientist who knows about this.

Maybe this article canclarify what isreally apeg and itsrelation with continentaldrift/whatever there is :p

THE FUNCTION OF MOUNTAINS
The Qur'an draws attention to a very important geological function of mountains.
We placed firmly embedded mountains on the earth, so it would not move under them… (The Qur'an, 21:31)
As we have noticed, it is stated in the verse that mountains have the function of preventing shocks in the Earth.
This fact was not known by anyone at the time the Qur'an was revealed. It was in fact brought to light only recently as a result of the findings of modern geology.
According to these findings, mountains emerge as a result of the movements and collisions of massive plates forming the Earth's crust. When two plates collide, the stronger one slides under the other, the one on the top bends and forms heights and mountains. The layer beneath proceeds under the ground and makes a deep extension downward. That means that mountains have a portion stretching downwards, as large as their visible parts on the Earth.
In a scientific text, the structure of mountains is described as follows:
Where continents are thicker, as in mountain ranges, the crust sinks deeper into the mantle.4
In a verse, this role of the mountains is pointed out by a comparison with "pegs":
Have We not made the earth as a bed and the mountains its pegs? (The Qur'an, 78:6-7)
Mountains, in other words, clench the plates in the Earth's crust together by extending above and beneath the Earth's surface at the conjunction points of these plates. In this way, they fix the Earth's crust, and prevent it from drifting over the magma stratum or among its plates. Briefly, we may liken mountains to nails that keep pieces of wood together.
This fixing function of the mountains is described in scientific literature by the term "isostasy". Isostasy means the following:
Isostasy: general equilibrium in the Earth's crust maintained by a yielding flow of rock material beneath the surface under gravitational stress.5
This vital role of mountains, that was discovered by modern geology and seismic research, was revealed in the Qur'an centuries ago as an example of the supreme wisdom in God's creation.
We placed firmly embedded mountains on the earth, so it would not move under them... (The Qur'an, 21:31)

THE MOVEMENT OF MOUNTAINS
In one verse, we are informed that mountains are not motionless as they seem, but are in constant motion.
You will see the mountains you reckoned to be solid going past like clouds. (The Qur'an, 27:88)

This motion of the mountains is caused by the movement of the Earth's crust that they are located on. The Earth's crust 'floats' over the mantle layer, which is denser. It was at the beginning of the 20th century when, for the first time in history, a German scientist by the name of Alfred Wegener proposed that the continents of the earth had been attached together when it first formed, but then drifted in different directions, and thus separated as they moved away from each other.
Geologists understood that that Wegener was right only in the 1980s, 50 years after his death. As Wegener pointed out in an article published in 1915, the land masses on the earth were joined together about 500 million years ago. As Wegener pointed out in a 1915 article, the land masses of the earth were joined together some 500 million years ago, and this large mass, called Pangaea, was located in the South Pole.
Approximately 180 million years ago, Pangaea divided into two parts, which drifted in different directions. One of these giant continents was Gondwana, which included Africa, Australia, Antarctica and India. The second one was Laurasia, which included Europe, North America and Asia, except for India. Over the next 150 million years following this separation, Gondwana and Laurasia divided into smaller parts.
These continents that emerged after the split of Pangaea have been constantly moving on the Earth's surface at several centimetres per year, in the meantime changing the sea and land ratios of the Earth.
Discovered as a result of the geological research carried out at the beginning of the 20th century, this movement of the Earth's crust is explained by scientists as follows:

The crust and the uppermost part of the mantle, with a thickness of about 100 kms., are divided into segments called plates. There are six major plates, and several small ones. According to the theory called plate tectonics, these plates move about on Earth, carrying continents and ocean floor with them. Continental motion has been measured at from 1-5 cm per year. As the plates continue to move about, this will produce a slow change in Earth's geography. Each year, for instance, the Atlantic Ocean becomes slightly wider.6

There is a very important point to be stated here: God has referred to the motion of mountains as a drifting action in the verse. Today, modern scientists also use the term "Continental Drift" for this motion. 7
Unquestionably, it is one of the miracles of the Qur'an that this scientific fact, which has recently been discovered by science, was announced in the Qur'an.
http://www.streetdirectory.com/travel_guide/153782/science/miracles_of_the_holy_quran.html

Cochrane
24-05-11, 18:02
What you are saying does not contradict anything and if you like, there are much common between quran and Alfred wegner as well :)

Maybe this defines it more:



http://www.jameataleman.org/book/eeagaze/chp2/mountains4.htm

To deny the fact that a mountain holds and helps in stabilizing the Earth's surface from moving horizontally, well, this is denying much of geological facts.

It is not about how Mountains are formed or where the peg is installed... ;)

It is very, very unhelpful of you to just quote sites that want to prove the Qura'an right. None of these can be considered impartial, and quite a few of them deliberately twist or ignore facts to make the correct result come out at the other end.

If you look at the actual thing that Airy invented, the Airy-Heiskanen model of Isostasy, you'll realize that this is only one of three models used to describe the phenomenon of Isostasy. Since it is incomplete, today more complicated ones are used instead. The important part is that the effects of this on plate tectonics vary. It does not stabilize the earth's crust.

Edit: Just read the email you attached, and it proved some of my theories about the Quran wrong (which I have consequently deleted). So that article goes into some more detail, but it retains the basic problem: At no point does it explain how isostasi prevents the earth or earth crust from moving - which, in fact, it doesn't, since the earth's crust does move. In fact, later it mentions that the earth is moving, and is mighty proud of that fact.

The basic problem remains: Someone took some quote from the holy book and then desperately searched for some part in science that looked vaguely like it. That doesn't prove the book is true, it just proves that people have a lot of imagination when it comes to putting these things together. I'd have to know the context of the quotes, but I wouldn't be surprised if they weren't actually meant like that to begin with.

Avalon SARL
24-05-11, 18:11
I am not disregarding neither trying to find evidence as I also do not seek to prove anything right or wrong for anyone :)

I said I am not the one to decide for sure, but such things, which are definitely can be considered facts, have been described in a holy book and it baffles and gives an awe;

So by having different views on some topic, and strangely enough oneof the discoveries is in agreement with the quran (if not all, because the discoveries do not actually contradict each other)... that is why it makes Quran more and more credible.

Like I said, Quran is a book of knowledge.
It gives hints, sheds light on different subjects and by doing this it entices us human beings to go find answers :D

This, whatever theory is being discovered, does not contradict Quran ;)


I'd have to know the context of the quotes, but I wouldn't be surprised if they weren't actually meant like that to begin with.

That would be lovely, but even with translations, it is much better to read/ learn about them in their original language

That doesn't prove the book is true, it just proves that people have a lot of imagination when it comes to putting these things together

You seem to know much, and when you replied me up thereI was :eek:, you sure know much (if that was you who wrote that,not like what I did, taking explanations from articles :p)... so, to say that someone with a very deep imagination said this...

At least,saying some very ancient scientist did would suffice and be a better reply, don't you think :)

Cochrane
24-05-11, 18:33
So I just looked up the
You will see the mountains you reckoned to be solid going past like clouds. (The Qur'an, 27:88) part, because it seems more interesting, and looked at its context. The verse directly before is

87. And on that Day the trumpet [of judgment] will be sounded, and all [creatures] that are in the heavens and all that are on earth will be stricken with terror, except such as God wills [to exempt]: and in utter lowliness all will come unto Him.

and directly afterwards
89. Whoever shall come [before Him] with a good deed will gain [further] good therefrom; and they will be secure from the terror of that Day
(taken from the Muhammad Asad translation from the site http://www.al-quran.info/?x=y#&&sura=27&aya=88&trans=en-muhammad_aqib_farid_qadri,en-muhammad_asad,en-mahmoud_ghali,en-muhammad_sarwar,de-amir_zaidan&show=both,quran-uthmani&ver=2.00 )

Obviously, other translations differ, but the general thrust seems to be the same. It all apparently describes an apocalypse scenario. The unjust and unbelievers will be punished, the believers and the ones who do good will be saved, and notably the mountains will start moving. If I understood the book incorrectly, I apologize, please ell me what it really means!

But if this is really what it means, then anyone who thinks this is meant to describe scientific fact is wrong. This line is not meant to say "Oh, by the way, did you know? The mountains are actually moving!", it's meant to say "God is so powerful, he can even make the mountains move on the day of judgement". That is a very, very different statement, and it does not relate to mountains moving every day, which is what science found out today.

Now, again, I know that the Quran is not supposed to be read in translation, and I'm certainly not going to tell you how to read your holy book properly. But I think it is fair to say that this is not a clear case of "the book made a prediction; it came true".

Avalon SARL
24-05-11, 18:51
No, actually at many points where something related to a scientific fact is preceded and followed by such threats because, according to Quran, with science God is giving you evidence and he reminds you of heaven and hell and judgment day consecutively :) because in Islam's POV, knowing GOD exists, we must obey His rules and the verses always contain promises of heaven and
threats for mischief doers

I am sure as well, that a more knowing scientist oftheverses andtheir relations will do better...
I am not the one to do this :o
wish I could

Because as well, there are many other verses in other chapters that should be studied in accordance so that a certain verse is understood

EDIT:

I have also read the whole chapter, and it is illustrating series of different events or descriptions of things, like even in previous verses God is speaking of day and night, arrogance, even as well more about hell and heaven and along He mentioned in between this thing about mountains and it ends with this:

27:93: And say, "[All] praise is [due] to Allah . He will show you His signs, and you will recognize them. And your Lord is not unaware of what you do."