Islam and the Big Bang

[sharma-arke451]

Blackflash;861061 wrote:

What did you expect? Hate is his trademark.

 

@sharma-arke451

 

I recommend the following regimen:

 

1.Stick your thumb up your rectum

2.Run in circles

3.While still following step 2, scream Death! And Murtad! A total of 15 times each.

 

Repeat this prescribed course for two weeks and if you haven't been rid of your bloodlust, seek professional help.

One recommends to others what he experienced. And your name without the L, speaks volumes about who you are. It reads, BACK FLASH. IT COMPLIES WITH THE RECOMMENDATION

[Tallaabo]

*Blessed;860991 wrote:

^The above post is intended to expand on my previous comments for someone who has objected to my last post in private. I'm not interested in debating

my faith

with people who don't believe because you're not interested in my Islamic perspective and I'm not interested in yours, so there is no point in going around in circles and disrespecting each other, is there?

Suuraddii caanka ahayd ee "Qul yaa ayuhal kaafiruun" u akhri.

[Blessed]

^Indeed. Waan u 'secularise' gareeyay.

[Tallaabo]

Apophis;861277 wrote:

I could quote Dawkin's 'The God Delusion'.

Your comment shows us that you read only Richard Dawkin's ridiculous book and not opened a page of the Holy Quran. And yet you come into these threads with the audacity to discuss Islam!! Discussing about God and religion with you is indeed a waste of time.

[Garnaqsi]

*Blessed;860839 wrote:

Here is a learned Islamic scholar however, who eloquently explains the futility of some of these science proofs/ negates the existence of Allah debates. “There is nothing in the logic of the created world that can irrefutably point to beyond its own nature…”

 

 

 

 

He goes into more detail in this long lecture, it's definitely worth listening to if you have the time.

 

 

Now this guy knows what he's talking about and gives an interesting perspective. The Coherence of Theism is the title and subject of an entire (excellent) book by Richard Swinburne. But I don't understand his reasoning for a theory of everything being impossible.

[puntnomads]

Garnaqsi. You seem to think that Ibn Kathir interpertation is the holy word. He is just a scholar who lived in a time when the real meaning of those verses escaped him. it is like expecting a child to understand calculus. It doesn't make the calculus invalid because the child comprehension is limited. translation/commentary are limited by that person intellect and that is why we have a difference of opinion among scholars. The Fact is that those verses match scientific facts and the amazing thing is that they were recorded before those discoveries. Now the real question is how an illiterate Arab make all those statements that were beyond his knowledge and all knowledge at that time but are discovered recently? you seem to think that they being discovered recently is a weakness but it is a proof for those living now and a proof that scholars interpretations can be wrong at times.

[ElPunto]

Garnaqsi;859110 wrote:

ElPunto

-- You say no new interpretation or meaning has been given. My point was that this happened, and I've explained how neither the expanding universe interpretation of that particular verse nor the ostrich egg interpretation of the other one was there until recently. I've even explained how Ibn Kathir gives these verses altogether different meaning than the one given by those who now champion the idea of scientific miracles. I'm happy to be proven wrong, but you did nothing to counter that; rather, you merely stated its negation.

 

 

Missed this...

 

I wasn't refering to this particular clip or individual - I have my doubts about him. I was refering to Quranic verses that describe real world phenemonen that have been later been proven by science. The prime example being the stages of the embryo in the womb. You can choose not to believe whatever you like - but the similarity in this example to the actual can't be dismissed out of hand as after the fact re-interpretation.

[ElPunto]

^So muhamed had detailed conversations with those folks and thought it would be good spice to put it in his book?

 

There is no proof for the existence of God - only signs that point to his existence for people of knowledge. Tjpse are enough for us. If you don't buy it - don't buy it. And for Muslims - there is no point claiming proofs for his existence - since that isn't the terminology used in the Quran. End of story.

[ElPunto]

^Well - you won't lack for forums for anti islamic stuff so your whining isn't something I can sympathize with.

[N.O.R.F]

Its one thing to have already rejected what Ibn Kathir is summarising but its quite another to use it to make a point (a futile one at that)

[Garnaqsi]

ElPunto - You didn't really address the disparity of interpretation that I've pointed out (I wasn't talking about that/I've my doubts about him sounds more like a cop-out, since these ARE the sort of verses that are now widely considered to be scientific miracles by many Muslims). Besides, as has been said, the embryology description in the Koran wasn't something that science came to know later on -- in fact, the Greeks had very good understanding of it -- so it falls short of the example you were meaning to provide.

 

N.O.R.F;861992 wrote:

Its one thing to have already rejected what Ibn Kathir is summarising but its quite another to use it to make a point (a futile one at that)

What a useless tautological sentence. Honestly, are you trying to be witty here or something? And why do you think my point is futile? It seems you always come to threads with half-arsed intellectually empty remarks which you end up being unable to defend.

[N.O.R.F]

I already stated why your argument is futile.

 

The notion that interpretations of the Quran and Tafsirs were changed post scientific discovery is wide of the mark (do you have any evidence?). The complexities of the language mean that any translation can only be an approximate interpretation.

 

In the case of 51:47 you have:

 

Sahih International: And the heaven We constructed with strength, and indeed, We are [its] expander (1997).

 

Pickthall: We have built the heaven with might, and We it is Who make the vast extent (thereof) (1930).

 

Yusuf Ali: With power and skill did We construct the Firmament: for it is We Who create the vastness of pace (1951).

 

Arberry: And heaven -- We built it with might, and We extend it wide (1955).

 

Mohammed Asad: AND IT IS We who have built the universe with [Our creative] power; and, verily, it is We who are steadily expanding it (1980).

 

Which is the right translation for the verse and does ‘muusicuunaa’ mean 'we expand it/expanding it'? Oh, you don’t know

[ElPunto]

^Interesting stuff.

 

Garnaqsi;862083 wrote:

ElPunto

- You didn't really address the disparity of interpretation that I've pointed out (I wasn't talking about that/I've my doubts about him sounds more like a cop-out, since these ARE the sort of verses that are now widely considered to be scientific miracles by many Muslims). Besides, as has been said, the embryology description in the Koran wasn't something that science came to know later on -- in fact, the Greeks had very good understanding of it -- so it falls short of the example you were meaning to provide.

 

I didn't watch the clip nor plan to. I simply addressed your remark that verses in the Quran are re-interpreted to suit modern science. When the Quran says at the first stage the embryo is this, and then this, and then this. There isn't much interpretation there - it is either the case or it isn't. If it is the case - then you can say it's a coincidence or borrowed from the Greeks or any myriad explanation that soothes your character. And you should know better than to bring up Greek postulations as scientific proof - that isn't sufficient and you know that. I don't care what floats your boat - just don't say - oh you guys just re-interpreted it as you wish. There is no case there.

 

I don't understand this whole debate re scientific miracles in the Quran alleged or otherwise. If it isn't something you believe in - what difference does it make - if in fact it did talk about the Big Bang and even describe it in detail. You would find a way to explain it away. What is the point of this debate?

[Garnaqsi]

N.O.R.F -- LOL @ the age of your translations. Did you even read what I wrote?

 

It's even more hilarious that your only fitting translation is from 1980! :D

[N.O.R.F]

Did you read what I wrote?

 

You're relying on translations to make your point. Translations! Considering there are so many over so long which ones are right? Furthermore, what translations do you have available prior to the above list?