Jump to content
Islamic Forum
Sign in to follow this  
omaryacine

Some Scientific Truths Of Koran

Recommended Posts

Many married couples have sexual intercourse throughout their marriage. How can they have different number of offspring and some of them have none at all even though they are normal persons and have sexual intercourse with their wives or husbands throughout their marriage? Therefore, it is wrong or misleading to say that you can produce offspring by having sexual intercourse with your wife. Even the modern medical methods have failed to help some normal family to have offspring. Based on my argument above, who gives a husband and wife offspring?

 

There's no mystery at all. Conception is affected by lots of factors. It's very well understood by medicine. This is a very poor argument for supernatural intervention.

 

Your car, home, furniture, clothes, meals, drinks etc require a creator so they don't exist spontaneously. Therefore, it is illogical to say that the universe and its content do not require Creator because everything does not exist spontaneously.

 

LOL, no it isn't. Just because some things are made by humans it does not follow that everything was created by a sentient being. Besides, we KNOW when matter first appeared - at the Big Bang. And we KNOW the way that the original matter has become the current state of the universe. It's pretty simple physics and chemistry. We don't need a supernatural being to explain it.

 

So you admit that the Big Bang was caused by a supernatural being and we call the supernatural being the Supreme Being or GOD.

 

######, do you not read other people's posts? Or do you just not undertand English? I did not say that. For the umpteenth time, it it possible but unlikely that a supernatural being caused the Big Bang. However, since the Big Bang there has been no sign of any supernatural activity in the universe, so even if the BB was caused by a supernatural being, there is no evidence at all that it exists in this universe.

 

So you admit that you don't know what happened before the BB, and perhaps can never know, we thus cannot know anything about the motives, beliefs, whatever of the being that caused it, in the unlikely event that a being did cause it.. How can you claim that God does not exist when you admit that you don't know and your knowledge is very limited?

 

Our knowledge about this universe is not very limited, it is very extensive. However by definition anything that happened before this universe existed (ie before the BB) is very difficult or impossible to have knowledge of, because it didn't happen in the universe. We do know that nothing that has happened since the BB needs a supernatural being to explain it.

 

Define gravity please.

 

Look it up.

Edited by packham

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds
There's no mystery at all. Conception is affected by lots of factors. It's very well understood by medicine. This is a very poor argument for supernatural intervention.

 

There are some normal couples that have failed to have offspring even though gynaecologists have confirmed that they are healthy and normal husbands and wives and scientific methods have been used to help them to have offsprings but they fail to have any offspring. So who gives offspring to married couples? Why do they have different numbers of offspring and some of them have none even though they have sexual intercourse or use scientific methods throughout their marriage?

 

LOL, no it isn't. Just because some things are made by humans it does not follow that everything was created by a sentient being.

 

So you think your car, furniture, meals, clothes, your wife, the universe etc exist spontaneously?

 

Besides, we KNOW when matter first appeared - at the Big Bang. And we KNOW the way that the original matter has become the current state of the universe. It's pretty simple physics and chemistry. We don't need a supernatural being to explain it.

 

Who makes matter? Do you think that it exist spontaneously?

 

######, do you not read other people's posts? Or do you just not undertand English? I did not say that. For the umpteenth time, it it possible but unlikely that a supernatural being caused the Big Bang. However, since the Big Bang there has been no sign of any supernatural activity in the universe, so even if the BB was caused by a supernatural being, there is no evidence at all that it exists in this universe.

 

I don't really understand why you keep twisting your own words. You admit that (I quote your words) "As I've said repeatedly, it's possible that the Big Bang was caused by a supernatural being" and then you refute your own words. Is that how you debate?

 

Our knowledge about this universe is not very limited, it is very extensive. However by definition anything that happened before this universe existed (ie before the BB) is very difficult or impossible to have knowledge of, because it didn't happen in the universe. We do know that nothing that has happened since the BB needs a supernatural being to explain it.

 

But you deny you own words above by saying (I quote your words) "As I've repeatedly said, we don't know and maybe can never know what caused the Big Bang, but since the Big Bang everything that has happened in the universe has happened according to fairly simple natural laws."

 

It seems to me you are twisting and contradicting your own words. Is that how you debate?

 

Look it up.

 

Your refusal to define 'gravity' indicates that you are not able to defend your allegations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are some normal couples that have failed to have offspring even though gynaecologists have confirmed that they are healthy and normal husbands and wives and scientific methods have been used to help them to have offsprings but they fail to have any offspring. So who gives offspring to married couples? Why do they have different numbers of offspring and some of them have none even though they have sexual intercourse or use scientific methods throughout their marriage?

 

Chance.

 

So you think your car, furniture, meals, clothes, your wife, the universe etc exist spontaneously?

 

Are you joking? Didn't you read what I wrote - several times?

 

I don't really understand why you keep twisting your own words. You admit that (I quote your words) "As I've said repeatedly, it's possible that the Big Bang was caused by a supernatural being" and then you refute your own words. Is that how you debate?

But you deny you own words above by saying (I quote your words) "As I've repeatedly said, we don't know and maybe can never know what caused the Big Bang, but since the Big Bang everything that has happened in the universe has happened according to fairly simple natural laws."

 

Then there is something wrong with yor comprehension. Do you understand the meaning of the simple English words "possible" and "unlikely"? The universe did not exist beofre the BB. We possibly cannot know what happened before the universe existed, so theoretically anything could have caused it. It's possible that a pink unicorn caused the BB, but it's unlikely. Since the BB nothing supernatural has happened in the universe. Why do you have a problem understanding that?

 

Here it is in a very simple form. If you don't get this, I give up.

 

1. Before the BB - no universe, that is no time and no space

2. BB - caused by something in the 'no universe' situation. Probably some sort of non-sentient process but it might possibly have been a giant sea-slug, or Krishna, or anything, We possibly can't know.

3. Since the BB - the universe exists. Nothing that has happened since the universe existed requires a supernatural explanation, and no proof of any supernatural activity has ever been shown

 

Your refusal to define 'gravity' indicates that you are not able to defend your allegations.

 

LOL, why? There are a zillion online physics sites, any of which will give you much more information that I can. My argument does not depend on defining gravity.

Edited by packham

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chance.

 

So you are equating science to a poker game by giving me your ludicrous answer.

 

According to science, through sexual intercourse a sperm or a number of sperms will fertilize the egg (ovum) inside the female body to become a fertilized egg (zygote) that develops into embryo inside the uterus. Why do some normal and healthy women fail to get pregnant even though their husbands are normal and healthy too? They have used advanced scientific medical treatments but they still fail to get pregnant. Why? So who to give or not to give offspring to marriage couples? Who determines the number of offspring for each family?

 

Are you joking? Didn't you read what I wrote - several times?

 

So you think your car, furniture, meals, clothes, your wife, the universe etc exist spontaneously?

 

Then there is something wrong with yor comprehension. Do you understand the meaning of the simple English words "possible" and "unlikely"? The universe did not exist beofre the BB. We possibly cannot know what happened before the universe existed, so theoretically anything could have caused it. It's possible that a pink unicorn caused the BB, but it's unlikely. Since the BB nothing supernatural has happened in the universe. Why do you have a problem understanding that?

 

Here it is in a very simple form. If you don't get this, I give up.

 

1. Before the BB - no universe, that is no time and no space

2. BB - caused by something in the 'no universe' situation. Probably some sort of non-sentient process but it might possibly have been a giant sea-slug, or Krishna, or anything, We possibly can't know.

3. Since the BB - the universe exists. Nothing that has happened since the universe existed requires a supernatural explanation, and no proof of any supernatural activity has ever been shown

 

In your posts above, you said "it it possible but unlikely that a supernatural being caused the Big Bang."

 

It seems to me that you are contradicting yourself by using the two contradictory words. Is this English or is this gibberish?

 

LOL, why? There are a zillion online physics sites, any of which will give you much more information that I can. My argument does not depend on defining gravity.

 

Your failure to define 'gravity' indicates your failure to defend your allegations because gravity is a part of our debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So you are equating science to a poker game by giving me your ludicrous answer.

 

Chance is a scientific concept. It's up to chance when the next asteroid will hit the earth, and so on. That's why the chances of it are expressed as odds by scientists. Of course the more information we get the more accurate our predictions will be, and if we can get all the information we will be able to predict it completely accurately. ditto with preganacy. If we had all the information we could predict which particular sperm would reach with particular ovum and whether conception would occue.

 

So you think your car, furniture, meals, clothes, your wife, the universe etc exist spontaneously?

 

###### there is no point in talking to you, as you don't understand what I say. I really can't put this any more simply:

 

Obviously things that are made by humans are made by humans. But nothing that has happened in the universe since the BB (and the universe didn't exist before the BB) requires a 'creator', and there is no sign that a 'creator' or any other supernatural force has existed in the universe.

 

In your posts above, you said "it it possible but unlikely that a supernatural being caused the Big Bang."

It seems to me that you are contradicting yourself by using the two contradictory words. Is this English or is this gibberish?

 

It's possible but unlikely that my lottery ticket it will win. That's a perfectly normal English sentence expressing a perfectly normal concept. If you don't understand it, the problem is yours, not mine.

 

Your failure to define 'gravity' indicates your failure to defend your allegations because gravity is a part of our debate.

 

LOL! Tell me how the definition of gravty (readily available on a zillion websites) has anything to do with the debate. If it DOES have anything to do with the debate you probably should post a definition and stop dicking around.

Edited by packham

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

packham,

 

I have read your posts and I find that you always say that everything happens or come into existence by chance or spontaneously. By saying that living things and non-living things in the Universe exist by chance, you are equating science to a poker game.

 

Let say that you are resting at your home when you suddenly decide to go to a shop to buy some bread and then you are killed by a stranger by chance on the way to the shop. Who make you to go out of your home and get killed? Who have decided that you are the one to be killed by the man? The question is why does it still happen even though the chance of being killed by a stranger is very remote ? What is the explanation behind the murder? So who determine whether murder to happen and you would be the victim?

 

I strongly believe that your answers are not scientific at all. In other word, your answers deny the Causality that denotes a necessary relationship between one event (called cause) and another event (called effect) which is the direct consequence (result) of the first.

 

Lets make make some examples to show the existence of Allah (God):

 

If a carpenter is a necessary cause of furniture, then the presence of furniture necessarily implies the presence of a carpenter.

 

If human beings are a necessary cause of man-made creations such as man-made fibers, a man-made lake etc, then the presence of man-made creations necessarily implies the presence of human beings.

 

It is beyond human capability to create the Universe and the simple natural laws so it must be a Supreme Being Who we call Allah (God) the Creator who grows or makes or invents things such as gravity, electron, proton, neutron, the largest galaxy, living things and non-living things. Therefore, the presence of living things and non-living things and the natural laws necessarily implies the presence of Allah (God).

 

By saying that the universe and its content exist spontaneously, you are making a mockery of yourself because you believe in the Classical notions of abiogenesis, now more precisely known as spontaneous generation, held that complex, living organisms are generated by decaying organic substances, e.g. that mice spontaneously appear in stored grain, maggots spontaneously appear in meat, or moderlieschens and eels are produced by mud in ephemeral ponds.

 

The spontaneous generation is already rejected by scientists because it is an illogical notion. Yet even today evolutionists who deny God have to believe in the unscientific idea that some time in the past, life must have spontaneously arisen from non-life etc.

 

If you think that living things and non-living things in the universe exist spontaneously, you are a joker and I could not stop laughing at you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
packham,

 

I have read your posts and I find that you always say that everything happens or come into existence by chance or spontaneously. By saying that living things and non-living things in the Universe exist by chance, you are equating science to a poker game.

 

If you'll recall earlier in this or another thread, I said that you might want to argue that once the BB was underway it was inevitable that everything that followed it could only happen in the way it did. However, think (but don't know - you'd need to check maths/physics websites or journals) that the fact that there are genuine random events at the sub-atomic level and the the argument (which I think is currently accepted as the best) that it is not possible to know the state of everything at once (I have a dim recollection that to do so would require more energy or matter than there is in the universe), and it is not even theoretically possible to make predictions about very complex events, espeically not about the way the universe evolved.

 

Let say that you are resting at your home when you suddenly decide to go to a shop to buy some bread and then you are killed by a stranger by chance on the way to the shop. Who make you to go out of your home and get killed? Who have decided that you are the one to be killed by the man? The question is why does it still happen even though the chance of being killed by a stranger is very remote ? What is the explanation behind the murder? So who determine whether murder to happen and you would be the victim?

 

Why does anyone have to decide these things?

 

I

strongly believe that your answers are not scientific at all. In other word, your answers deny the Causality that denotes a necessary relationship between one event (called cause) and another event (called effect) which is the direct consequence (result) of the first.

 

well, causality breaks down at the sub-atomic level. But I am using causality when I say that everything that has happened at the macro level since the BB has happened due to fairly simple process of cause and effect.

 

It is beyond human capability to create the Universe and the simple natural laws so it must be a Supreme Being Who we call Allah (God) the Creator who grows or makes or invents things such as gravity, electron, proton, neutron, the largest galaxy, living things and non-living things. Therefore, the presence of living things and non-living things and the natural laws necessarily implies the presence of Allah (God).

 

LOL! No one is arguing that humans made the universe!

 

By saying that the universe and its content exist spontaneously, you are making a mockery of yourself because you believe in the Classical notions of abiogenesis, now more precisely known as spontaneous generation, held that complex, living organisms are generated by decaying organic substances, e.g. that mice spontaneously appear in stored grain, maggots spontaneously appear in meat, or moderlieschens and eels are produced by mud in ephemeral ponds.

 

I didn't say that the universe came into existence spontaneously, I said that we don't and possibly can't know what caused it to come into being. No-one claims that complex living organisms appeared 'spontaneously'. Current thinking is that very simple living organisms did, although 'spontaneous' is a funny word to describe it.

 

The spontaneous generation is already rejected by scientists because it is an illogical notion. Yet even today evolutionists who deny God have to believe in the unscientific idea that some time in the past, life must have spontaneously arisen from non-life etc.

 

You're confused. 'Spontaneous genration' of complex life forms is not considered fact; the "spontaneous" appearance of very simple life forms is the current theory abeing worked on by all scientists in the field.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am busy now so I will refute your allegation above later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A god might have been behind its creation but few true scientists accept that anything supernatural has happened since the creation of the universe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now this is where we see a collapse in thinking amongst these scientist. Why?? Let me ask you a question what would you say about a Muslim or any religios person that belives in God if they say that there is no such thing as science and God made it all science is nothing at all. Wouldn't call that person small minded and also extreem in his views of the study of the earth and call him just plainly ignorant?? Now what do we call a scientist who believes strongly in science and neglects God alltogether he is extreem as well.

 

What we need is balance God is that balance, yes we muslims believe in science however we also believe that God created this earth for us to study and to get all of these sciences. Science and religion of God go hand and hand its a great partnership no seperation, the problem comes when people start to stick heavily to one side and defending it neglecting the other side all together.

 

Why would anybody listen to an extreemist is beyond me, doesn't matter how much degrees you have if you neglect the fact that their is a God then you have just cut off a part of your own intellectual brain to advance your thinking and the same is said for the strictly religious person. The renassaince was possible because of balanced thinking and thats what brought us out of the dark ages, unbalanced thinking lead us to the dark ages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Erm, no. If there's any evidence that a god exists, of course a scientist will accept it. There is simply no scientifically proveable evidence. That's what this thread is about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And many scientist have excepted that there is a God you speaking on the scientist that have not excepted that there is a God ,Those are your extreemist scientist, this unbalanced thinking is what lead to the dark ages, plenty of evidience just by using your own rational mind you can deduce that. but many wish to follow the extreemly atheiastic scientist and who ever does this is still stuck in the dark ages even with our new discoveries your mind is trapped and cannot advance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What new discoveries show that a god exists - or even that anything at all supernatural has ever happened in the universe?

 

I think you'd benefit from reading the other recent thread in this section 'There are no scientific truths in the Koran', by a Muslim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just by the fact that we cant explain what caused the big bang is supernatural in itself. I've read the other ones and like i said i cannot listen to someone who is one sided and extreem in their view. Like i said this is what lead us to the dark ages the religion of God is what lead us out. What force is holding up these planets these planets are governed by a specefic law what laid down the law??? This question alone should enhance our thinking. Here we are making things from the earth naming things from the earth yet we did not make the earth. If we can go into the earth and pull out all sorts of science and get all sorts of knowledge then what or who put these things in the earth that conforms to laws. All of the natural sciences astronmy,physics,chemistry,geology,and biology, all are very excelent But we need to include the study of God, for God is the creator of all these, ologies.

 

With out God then there is no science. We say before the big bang it was God all that we know or all that we can comprehend is whithin the sphere of what happened after the big bang. And in that sphere we have science now outside of that sphere what do we have???? We say it is God and if God is out side the sphere and He made the sphere then He is inside the sphere as well. Now as a scientist if you reject the possibility of God then your not a true scientist you are an extreemist scientist and if you believe in God and reject science then you are a religious extreemist. But if you can put whats in the sphere of science with God then your truly balanced

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bro twoswordali, All of what you have mentioned in the last post is true, and it is evidence. But it is not scientific evidence. Scientific evidence is a different kind of evidence. It is the kind of evidence which is obtained by observation and can be used to prove or disprove a scientific theory. Since God is not a scientific theory, no amount of scientific evidence can prove or disprove God.

 

In short, science cannot prove nor disprove God, but science operates in the physical empirical realm. Since God created the physical empirical realm, and since God is the Creator and the physical empirical realm is the Creation, then science cannot touch God. Science is a result of human minds. Human minds and the world around us are Creation. So science is part of Creation. So how can science prove or disprove the Creator? It can't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe it can prove God, like you said God is the creator this is what we start with first!! Now he is the creator of the physical ,(spiritual) empirical realm, the creator of science. So the study of science(the study of the earth) leads one to the belief that this was created by an intelligent being.

 

This is what Prophet Abraham did he looked at the earth and studied it till he came to the conclusion that the sun is not to be worshiped but the one who made the sun should be worshiped. So by using science he came to a conclusion that their is a God and his scientific evidence was able to supersede the kings science (you know the story). Yes science and human minds are all part of the creation, but what does Allah say in the Quran?

 

He says that he is closer to you than your jugular vein and that He is everywere,so science , or the creation is part of Allah and not vice versa. True science leads to the fact that we did not create this world but there is somthing that did and that something is God. Thats true scientific evidence. Science can't disprove God but it can prove God, science is the theory that proves God. But those who disbelieve say otherwise or rather those who are not balanced stick to the extreemly onesided argument .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So the study of science(the study of the earth)

 

No, science is the study of everything. It certainly isn't limited to the earth (what do you think astro-physicists study?). As Cefarix points out, science is just a way of finding information and drawing conclusions from that information.

 

I argue that science has never found any evidence of the supernatural (and there's a million dollar prize on offer it you can do it, not to mention a Nobel prize), which leads me to believe that the supernatural either does not exist or if it does it does not interact with the physical world (which includes our brains) - which means that it might as well not exist. Cefarix argues that science has never found any evidence for the supernatural because science is limited to the physical universe and the supernatural exists outside the physical universe (yet somehow manages to interact with it, which I think is by definition impossible).

Edited by packham

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bro twoswordali, Empirical means physical, not spiritual. Also science is just a systematic and logical method of finding out things about the physical world, and is not limited to the Earth. Prophet Ibrahim AS did not use science to figure out the Sun should not be worshipped, he used logic. The king also did not have any science at his disposal. The evidence that we get from science does make us reach the conclusion of a Creator, but this does not happen through a scientific process. Remember, science studies the physical world only. God is not part of the physical world.

 

When God says that he is closer to us than our jugular vein and he is everywhere, this does not mean that the Creation is part of the Creator. The Creator and Creation are completely distinct. The Creator is superior in every way, and the Creation inferior in every way. The Creator is completely independent, and the Creation is completely dependent. There is only One Creator, and there are many Creations and Creatures. Creator and Creation are separate. What God means by that is that He is with us in His Power and Knowledge. He is able to affect us more than we can affect ourselves, He knows more about us than we know about ourselves. And He is All-Aware of everything.

 

packham,

I think the physical world also has a metaphysical component. That although it is empirical, and that although all evidence suggests that we can describe the laws of nature completely in empirical terms, there is still a metaphysical component. What it all boils down to is realizing that we describe the physical using logic. And that the metaphysical need not be bound by the same logic which is so innate to us as humans. You can get a glimpse of the limit of logic when you look to your own existence. You simply exist. You simply are aware and you experience things. You cannot prove or disprove this because you cannot share your experience with anyone else. If you were able to share your experience with someone else, that someone else would no longer be someone else, but it would again just be you. We can only communicate to others about our experiences, but not the experience itself. No amount of logic is enough to find a basis for our existence and experience. Instead, logic finds its base in our existence. I exist, a priori. That is the basis for all the logic I will ever comprehend, whether I formalize it or use it instinctively. Therefore, the fact that I can't explain my own existence, the very thing upon which I base everything else, leads me to believe that putting a limit which says "do not go beyond the physical and the logical" is absurd, because it places my very existence outside this limit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bro twoswordali, Empirical means physical, not spiritual.

 

You missread or maybe i wasn't clear i put spiritual in brackets to show that God is the creator of the physical and spiritual but we were not talking about the spiritual but i just had to add that in as well sorry for the missunderstanding.

 

Also science is just a systematic and logical method of finding out things about the physical world, and is not limited to the Earth. Prophet Ibrahim AS did not use science to figure out the Sun should not be worshipped, he used logic. The king also did not have any science at his disposal. The evidence that we get from science does make us reach the conclusion of a Creator, but this does not happen through a scientific process. Remember, science studies the physical world only. God is not part of the physical world.

 

Not limited to earth thats right it is the study of everything, logic is also a science brother, And if you study the movements of the sun and you arrive at a conclusion that it came from somewhere and that it had to be made by something thats science and to go further in your study to arrive at worshiping the thing that made the sun is logic based on rational thinking and this is a science in its self. The king did have some form of science now all that is lost knowledge but from the story we can clearly see that they had some form of science.

 

Science does not study the physical world only you are wrong on that bro, we study other galaxies that is way out of our reach for all we know we could be looking at a reflection of our own galaxy. The physical world was created by God and if we can arrive just by studing the physical world that there is a God then God is most definitly part of the physical world. We dont know the unseen.

 

When God says that he is closer to us than our jugular vein and he is everywhere, this does not mean that the Creation is part of the Creator. The Creator and Creation are completely distinct. The Creator is superior in every way, and the Creation inferior in every way. The Creator is completely independent, and the Creation is completely dependent. There is only One Creator, and there are many Creations and Creatures. Creator and Creation are separate. What God means by that is that He is with us in His Power and Knowledge. He is able to affect us more than we can affect ourselves, He knows more about us than we know about ourselves. And He is All-Aware of everything.

 

We as humans are creators in our own little way, we create babies, cars planes , ect.ect... is our creations part of us?? Yes it is why do you think when ever somebody discovers or makes something they name it after that person. Even our children our little creations is part of us and from us. But Allah is the best of creators and this example i gave is nothing like Allah its just a little example that i used for some understanding but God is bigger than this.

 

Yes the creator is everything that you said I agree, and the creation is completly dependent on the Creator. So where does the creation come from?? Now remember the creation is includes everything science, and all that where does it come from??? It comes from the Creator so if it comes from the Creator then within the creation there is plenty of evidence to point back to the creator.And science is how we arrive at that evidence, there is even science of the spiritual but you get that through the methodology of having a pure heart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, science is the study of everything. It certainly isn't limited to the earth (what do you think astro-physicists study?). As Cefarix points out, science is just a way of finding information and drawing conclusions from that information.

 

Thank you a wise statement. Now what do you say to some one who denies God wouldn't you just say hey man you just haven't studied enough. If science is the study of everythin then surly thais includes God, what extreemist says no??

 

I argue that science has never found any evidence of the supernatural (and there's a million dollar prize on offer it you can do it, not to mention a Nobel prize), which leads me to believe that the supernatural either does not exist or if it does it does not interact with the physical world (which includes our brains) - which means that it might as well not exist. Cefarix argues that science has never found any evidence for the supernatural because science is limited to the physical universe and the supernatural exists outside the physical universe (yet somehow manages to interact with it, which I think is by definition impossible).

 

 

Hey you just said that science is the study of every thing now your saying its limited?? I disagree the study of the spiritual side begains with the science of having a pure heart or purifing ones self. Then with the science of this world using that as a spring board to go into your own soul searching for the one who made all of this, but if you reject the fact that there is no God then that particular science of the spiritual real or the search for God is gone and your left with being One sided in your thinking and you would have put a limit on science and your own scientific advancement in the study of God. In other words the only world that exist to you is the physical, and the spiritual is nothing to you at all. You would become a unbalanced scientist because you would lean heavly to one side neglecting to study the other side, and the same for religious people who do the opposite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you a wise statement. Now what do you say to some one who denies God wouldn't you just say hey man you just haven't studied enough. If science is the study of everythin then surly thais includes God, what extreemist says no??

 

Science doesn't decide not to study god - it studies everything it can, and there's nothing about god that science can study. If there is scientific evidence for god, then science will study it - but there isn't. If you think there is a way of proving the existence of god that complies with the scientific method, do so - as I said, you will win a Nobel prize.

 

Hey you just said that science is the study of every thing now your saying its limited??

 

It's limited to phenomenon that can be observed, measured, tested and all the other things that science does. Science can't decide if a poem is great or not.

 

In other words the only world that exist to you is the physical, and the spiritual is nothing to you at all. You would become a unbalanced scientist because you would lean heavly to one side neglecting to study the other side, and the same for religious people who do the opposite

 

If a scientist took the hypothesis that a god exists, the scientist would have to use the Scienfic Method to test the hypothesis. S/he would find that the hypothesis is disproven, as science cannot say anything about something that it cannot study, measure, observe, etc. If s/he was an honest scientist that's the conclusion s/he would draw even if s/he believed that a god existed. Belief and scientific fact are two different things.

 

However the same scientist is quite able to go and listen to a symphony and genuinely enjoy it for its spiritual side. Some scientists manage to believe in gods despite there being no scientific evidence for them. Humans are funny like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Science doesn't decide not to study god - it studies everything it can, and there's nothing about god that science can study. If there is scientific evidence for god, then science will study it - but there isn't. If you think there is a way of proving the existence of god that complies with the scientific method, do so - as I said, you will win a Nobel prize.

 

 

The scientific evidence is in the science of belief, Muhammad and all the other prophets never recieved a Nobel prize yet their names are the most nobel amongst mankind. And all those who disbelieved or was believed there is no God fell and are in history as the losers!!

 

It's limited to phenomenon that can be observed, measured, tested and all the other things that science does. Science can't decide if a poem is great or not.

If a scientist took the hypothesis that a god exists, the scientist would have to use the Scienfic Method to test the hypothesis. S/he would find that the hypothesis is disproven, as science cannot say anything about something that it cannot study, measure, observe, etc. If s/he was an honest scientist that's the conclusion s/he would draw even if s/he believed that a god existed. Belief and scientific fact are two different things.

 

 

Extreemly one sided!! There is a science to belief as well but you do not wish to study or look into that belief.You form the opinion that their is no God and thats that, well i never knew that being a scientist means that we have all the keys and answers. And if we admitthat we dont have all the answers then why do certain scientist form a concrete opinion that God doesen't exist?

 

 

However the same scientist is quite able to go and listen to a symphony and genuinely enjoy it for its spiritual side. Some scientists manage to believe in gods despite there being no scientific evidence for them. Humans are funny like that.

 

Whats funny is that certain people decide that there is no God based on evidence that points to a Creator that is what boggles the mind. How can we study something from the earth knowing that we did not create it but we found it here just that alone sparks the question of where did it come from. And when we are through with our study of studing a thing using tools that is in the earth that we did not create we turn around and dissmiss the fact that something of high intelligence Created this for us to study. What is funny though is that most of the scientist who dont believe in God easily will believe that their are aliens out there and ufo's yet they've never even seen an alien but will strongly believe that their are some out there!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

twoswordali, Logic is not science. You can look up the detailed definition of Science on Wikipedia. Science is based on logic, and logic is greater than science. The physical world means everything that can be measured, observed, and tested. That means the planets, the galaxies, even my reflection in the mirror. The physical is not limited to Earth, or the Solar System, or the Milky Way Galaxy. It includes the entire universe (or universes, according to some theories).

 

As for the question of God being part of His creation (astaghfurallah!) you can take this up on one of the other forums. Please start a thread over there and we can continue this discussion with other Muslim brothers and sisters. You can also ask a scholar question.

 

Most of the points packham is making are valid points bro twoswordali. Maybe the issue is that you do not speak the English language well. In this case, can you please tell us which languages you speak better? Jazak Allah Khair.

 

Wa Alaikum Salam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The scientific evidence is in the science of belief, Muhammad and all the other prophets never recieved a Nobel prize yet their names are the most nobel amongst mankind. And all those who disbelieved or was believed there is no God fell and are in history as the losers!!

 

just a small pont, not intended to be nasty - the Nobel Prize (pronounced no-bell) was established by Alfred Nobel, the inventor of dynamite (or was it TNT?). He felt guilty at becoming so rich from an invention that was so often misued as a weapon. The word 'noble' is not related.

 

Extreemly one sided!! There is a science to belief as well but you do not wish to study or look into that belief.You form the opinion that their is no God and thats that, well i never knew that being a scientist means that we have all the keys and answers. And if we admitthat we dont have all the answers then why do certain scientist form a concrete opinion that God doesen't exist?

 

No-one (except certain followers of certain religions) claim to have all the answers - scientists certainly don't. They investigate theories using the Scientific Method. As I keep saying, if the Scientific Method could prove that a god (or anything supernatural at all) exists, it would do so. But it can't. Further (and this is where Cefarix and I part company) if there is no observable effect of gods or other supernatual agents, then living your life as though they existed is pointless even if they did exist.

 

Whats funny is that certain people decide that there is no God based on evidence that points to a Creator that is what boggles the mind. How can we study something from the earth knowing that we did not create it but we found it here just that alone sparks the question of where did it come from.

 

Yep, and the answer that science has come up with, considering all the evidence currently available, is that the earth, like all bodies in the universe, condensed or acculumulated out of the the atoms that appeared at the Big Bang.

 

What is funny though is that most of the scientist who dont believe in God easily will believe that their are aliens out there and ufo's yet they've never even seen an alien but will strongly believe that their are some out there!

 

Acually I don't know of any scientists who believe in UFOs or aliens (in the sense of extra-terrestrial beings who visit the earth), and there's certainly no scientific evidence for them. There does seem to be a good chance that other earth-like planets exist in the universe, and scientists are currently looking for them. And if there are earth-like planets there might also be life. But no scientist claims this as a fact or anything like a fact.

 

edit - typos

Edited by packham

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×