Big Bang? - Now Scientists Must Evolve

[xiinfaniin]

^^

It is Friday, saaxiib. Let the Muslims pray with peace.

 

On a serious note, another creative writer, you are; a lot better than Atlas’s unintelligible piece, to be sure, but still a second grade thinking of sort. If you are in the business of proofing the existence of god false, with all means go right ahead, and I will be all ears. If however you want good Xiin to accept your sleepwalk on matters beyond your meager knowledge, that is, good JB, not going to happen.

 

Having faith in Allah is a blessing saaxiib. I will pray for you to see the light. May Allah guide you to the correct path.

[ATLAS]

P.S: I liked The Point’s articulacy. Good job, saaxiib.

 

a lot better than Atlas’s unintelligible piece, to be sure, but still a second grade thinking of sort.

 

[Cara.]

Xiinfaniin,

 

My friend, I don't want to keep re-iterating the same point, but it seems like you are not reading what I wrote.

 

Originally posted by xiinfaniin:

Calypso

,

 

Let’s not chase, good Calypso, our tale and confuse our selves. The Qur’an is not alterable by US. Have never been and never will. The

version

we have now has divined guarantees to stay that way.

Well, when you put it like that...

 

I referred to the gradual revelation of Qur’an to give you the benefit of the doubt lest you meant it that way.

Actually, the gradual revelation is not so much the issue, as the modification/deletion of certain verses. It's a whole 'science' among the learned, apparently. Look up abrogation. Then come back and tell me that is not modification of a divine message. You'll argue that "well, the modificition is carried out by Allah, and not humans". But that's irrelevant to the argument, not to mention begging the question. Even if the changes are ordered by God, they are still changes. A single abrogation or deletion makes the Qur'an you have a version, which is another word for edition. The Point's original caveat regarding the scientific method was that science--unlike the much superior Divine Revelation--is self-correcting and mutable. My point is that Divine revelation is not immutable (I notice you keep ignoring Exhibit A, the Bible), even if you assume it really is revealed by God.

 

That it is not mutable now is indeed the point! That is the distinction between science and the revealed knowledge!

If you agree that it is not mutable now it deems your comparison rather fallacious.

The problem, Xiin, is that putting a "now" after the Divine_Revelation_Is_Not_Mutable declaration kind of weakens the whole premise of your argument. If, over the space of a mere 20 years, the Qur'an had to be modified and corrected, how accurately can it guide us 1400+ years later?

 

The analogy of proofing little green man in your refrigerator to that of proofing the existence of God is sheer simplicity, saaxiib. It is a meaningless proposition that reduces the subject of metaphysics to a worthless matter.

 

Whoa! I didn't even know we were on metaphysics yet. And sheer simplicity is a good thing in my book. Simplicity is often the aim of those seeking the truth. I admire how you make loaded statements without giving your reasoning, by the way.

 

Saaxiib, my analogy was in response to your comment that,

 

what amazes me most is the notion that the burden of proof is on the believer in the existence of God, and not the denier who’s equally resolved in believing in God, not in His presence, but ironically in His absence. That is a patent absurdity indeed.

My analogy was there to demonstrate that the burden of proof is always with the person who makes the positive claim. Whether this claim is about gods or cold green imps is the same. The default position is always skepticism. Otherwise you must spend a great chunk of your time disproving the existence of every single god that was ever worshipped by a society. When is the last time you have conclusively disproven the existence of Vishnu?

 

Are you suggesting, good Calypso, that what’s not testable and provable is not to be reasonably believed?

Yes. Exactly. If it is not testable or provable, if it goes contrary to reason, then I don't believe it. It's that simple.

 

And how could you rationally effect a change in belief (in some thing that is not demonstrable) if you can’t definitively prove it false (its lack of existence)?

A very good question. The answer is by looking at the "evidence" presented in support of its existence. If this evidence is weak, then I return to the default position of skepticism--but only for extraordinary claims, mind you. If you said that you had a sister, and as proof showed me a picture of you and a girl, then I would tend to believe you. The evidence is pretty weak, but the claim is not so startling that I require stronger proof of your claim. On the other hand, my claim of domesticating little green men in the fridge you should rightfully reject, because it's such an unlikely thing. If as evidence I gave you a bit of cheese with tiny holes, and told you that those are their bite-marks, I trust you still would find it hard to believe me. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. That's all.

 

But what you consider evidence may not be the evidence I have.

Absolutely. If you have extraordinary evidence for your belief in God, then good for you. My position is that the evidence I have is pretty weak. It's practically non-existant, in fact. Mostly hearsay and speculation. Not exactly unambigous stuff. So it's back to the default position of skepticism. It's not as if I'm challenging your right to believe in whatever gods you wish to believe in. I just have a problem with The_Point's depiction of scientists as amoebas wallowing in gooey poo because they don't accept his unverifiable claims as the absolute truth.

 

But when a scientific thought that goes beyond what obtainable facts merit flies in the face of the revealed knowledge, in Xiin’s world the revealed truth takes precedent.

Xiin, that's fine by me. In my world, there is no proven 'revealed knowledge', so the scientific method, which we have in common, is the only tool for ascertaining knowledge. I also reject any claims--scientific or otherwise--without verifiable evidence.

 

As Ibnu Taymiyaa maintained, observable science does not contradict with sound Qur’an tradition. If that happen it would be due to lack of religious knowledge, and would not represent that of divined truth.

That leaves a lot of wiggle room for the believer.

 

How one would determine what the correct path is? I don’t really know. Strive and aim to find the truth, saaxiib, and with Allahs help you will(IA).

You really don't know how you determined that the Qur'an is the correct word of God and the others are false? Really?

[xiinfaniin]

Originally posted by Callypso:

You really don't know how you determined that

the Qur'an is the correct word of God and the others are false

? Really?

Yaa Rabbi! Only God can make imperfect instrument work. Comprehension, saaxiib, Comprehension is in order here.

 

You’re not getting the sequence right, saaxiib. You are inflicting your self the same exact wounds that JB has done on to himself. Before you determine which of Allah’s revealed books is correct, would it not be better for you to spend your intellectual energy to determine the existence of Allah first? If you dispute that Allah exists, is it not foolish to confuse your self as to which one of a non-existent (in your mind) entity’s product is good for you?

 

As to how one realizes that Allah exists, and determines that this elegant universe has indeed a Maker, though common sense for some (including me), that I don’t know. I maintained. You see, good Calypso, I could have reasoned with you and attempted to give you Muslim philosophers take as to the proof of Allah’s existence. I could suggest you read, for instance, Faith and Reason by Ibn Rushd (Averroes). But I still think faith plays major role in all the Muslim philosophers reasoning. Faith in intelligible things, but not necessarily testable and demonstrable, is the art of believing Allah. A blessing.

[Pi]

Callypso wrote: You can say that once science finds the truth, then science is never wrong about that truth again.

 

I think that statement could not have been more patently false. It is vague to be sure( what is truth? this will open up an unending discussion about epistemology), but false nonetheless. Science is never set in stone, so whatever happens to be the "truth" at one moment in time, can easily become false. And this has happened time and time again in the course of history. If anything, science is always self-correcting itself about what the truth is. Certainty is a foreign word in the scientific world.

[Johnny B]

Infinite, you´re quoting Callypso out of context,you´ve to look at the statement Xiin made regarding the changes and corrections made to the "Quran".

Originally posted by xiinfaniin:

 

If you are in the business of proofing the existence of god false, with all means go right ahead, and I will be all ears. If however you want good Xiin to accept your sleepwalk on matters beyond your meager knowledge, that is, good JB, not going to happen.

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

Albert Einstein

 

That wraps it up for me good Xiin, i´ve no intention whatissoever proofing your claims,

i´ve my claims proofed by way of conformity to fact and actuality.

 

* shakes his head * --> Oy Vey !

[xiinfaniin]

^^Thanks.

[Nur]

Suurah Anbityaa holds the secret:

 

It has the beginning, the end and all the messages in between of all prophets, can the unbelievers heed before its too late?

 

 

in Suurah Al Anbiyaa revealed 1426 years ago Allah says:

 

 

Quraan On Big Bang

 

 

Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens and the earth were joined together as one united piece, then We parted them? And We have made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe

 

 

Quraan On Expansion Of Universe

 

We have created the heavens with (ayd) and we are expanding them

 

 

So, some 1400 years later our lenses from planet of apes peek into the skies to look for an inteligent life, and after measurements they come up with another theory, the Big Crunch ( That the Universe will reach a point in which it will fold back again) to which the Quraan again says: Suurah anbiyaa again:

 

 

Quraan On Big Crunch

 

 

And (remember) the Day when We shall roll up the heavens like a scroll rolled up for books, as We began the first creation, We shall repeat it, (it is) a promise binding upon Us. Truly, We shall do it.

 

 

Now, as the universe shrinks back once again, time will reverse direction, going negative, gravity will change direction, earth will spew up its volcanoes ( Wa akhrajatil ardhu athqaalahaa) , and Nomads who used to argue on Somalioanline ask , "whats going on"? that day, the earth will tell its own story of what has been done on its surface, a revealing story, timelessly accurate by playing back the reel, you will be the show, are you ready? because in Qiyaamah when the universe finally shrinks back, everything will playback, so you will come out of the grave subdued, because as time goes negative, past events will come to full life, you will be exposed saaxib, no more fun and laughter, or nonsensical passtime arguing endlessly on things that dont add real value while neglecting your sphere of influence, a replay of your past takes place right infront of you, its called Qiyaamah, there goes your vain arguments, your denials of your maker, .......science strictly deals with the nature of things, Quraan expalins the purpose of things, unless you think on a higher level, ( islam) you will fail to get the whole picture.

 

 

Finally An Offer From Allah:

 

 

O Serene Soul, Come back To Your Lord, Satisfied ( With Rewards Received) (For) Satisfying ( its past Obligations), ( The Offer) so be part of those who adore Me, And Enter My Paradise!

 

 

Nur

 

2006 e- Nuri Extraterrestial Observatories

Aqalkeennii Dayaxa Lahaa

Kurtunwaarrey, Somalia