Jump to content
Islamic Forum
Sign in to follow this  
omaryacine

Some Scientific Truths Of Koran

Recommended Posts

I am a Muslim as much as you are twoswordali. My argument has always been that the Quran is not a book of science, not to disprove the Quran. If I were trying to disprove the Quran I wouldn't be Muslim then, would I? And please stop confusing the argument with the person! This is a logical fallacy and you are doing this again and again. I am agreeing with packham when he says the Quran is not a book of science. This does not mean I am defending him or his atheism.

 

Why are you attempting to put me in the same category as packham - I am clearly not. Me and you, bro twoswordali, should be in the same category, because we are both Muslim, and packham is not.

 

If other people have really read the discussion then why don't they post here on the thread? After all, it is open to all.

 

The Quran is perfect the Quran is scientific and if the atheist and a muslim don't agree then they are of the same mind set they are the same.

 

Again, why the personal insults by calling me an atheist? Calling a Muslim a non-Muslim is a very big sin and I am sure you are aware of this.

 

I am only frustrated that all of your responses to my argument so far have been rash and emotional. It is hard, if not impossible, to argue with somebody who does not even listen to what you are saying. I am not trying to prove the Quran wrong in any way.

 

How can a muslim call himself being civilized or think that hes having a civilized discussion while at the same time trying to disprove the Quran???

...

And if you guys feel sad cry.gif cry.gif and feel like crying because you cannot prove the Quran wrong i say TOO BAD go hug each other and tell each other that we were right hug.gif !!!!

 

Why have you gotten the idea the I am trying to prove the Quran wrong? If you are going to accuse me of such a grievous sin, then you must bring forth your evidence too, otherwise this is slander.

 

You cannot have a civilize debate because the nonesense that you and packham are talking about the Quran is very ignorant, uneducated, and not civilized at all.

 

I have cited all of my sources, I have put forth my evidence. You have not been able to disprove my arguments at all, because you ramble on about something else, and never attack my argument at all. I am not uneducated - again, please stop attacking my character and attack my argument. My arguments are perfectly civilized. I use clear and proper English sentences, I do not attack people's characters, and I try my best to understand the counter-arguments by you.

 

my intent was and still is to wake you up out of the silly way of thinking, the Quran is the book with no doubt It is scientific it is knowledge(by the way knowledge and science fall under the same arabic word ilm) I want you to see that.

 

Then you should begin by disproving my arguments by having counter-arguments. Go back in the posts and see what my argumentative points were. They hinged around the definition of the word 'scientific'. You should begin by proving why the definition of the word 'scientific' found in dictionaries and encyclopedias is wrong.

 

W'Salam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds
I am a Muslim as much as you are twoswordali. My argument has always been that the Quran is not a book of science, not to disprove the Quran. If I were trying to disprove the Quran I wouldn't be Muslim then, would I?

 

Im not questioning your Islam at all however for a muslim to say that the Quran is not a book of science nor is it scientific is very strange. If Muslim scholars approached the Quran in that way with that thinking 1300 years ago where would the world of science be today?? For the Quran to advance science and bring us out of the dark ages surely must show you that the Quran has science in it. Look at what Albert Einnstein said 'the limiting of scientific knowledge to a small group of men weakens the philosophical spirit of a nation and leads to its spiritual impoverishment" Wow look at that!!

 

A scientist speaking of the spiritual and the spirit, is the spirit something that science can study physically?? In the eyes of Allah we are all small groups the bigger knowledge comes from God, If we give full credit to Allah and to the Quran for science how can we weaken the philosophical spirit or lead a nation to spiritual impoverishment? And this is from Einstine, Now Look at what Muhammad and the Muslims did after Muhammad passed when by using the Quran to approach science on a whole the philosophical spirit was lifted the spirit of a naton was lifted. So why are you limiting scientific knowledge to a small group of men, your going to quote a dictionary meaning to me (which i dont think disagrees with the Quran) which was written by men as THE SOURCE that proves that the Quran is not scientific.

 

 

And please stop confusing the argument with the person! This is a logical fallacy and you are doing this again and again. I am agreeing with packham when he says the Quran is not a book of science. This does not mean I am defending him or his atheism.

 

The argument is comming from the person, there is two sides to this thinking(i hate to call it an argument i dont feel that im arguing) and you have sided with packham, you are defending his side or defending the "argument" that you both agree on, i did not call you an atheist but in this discussion you are of the same mind set of the atheist. Which is strange because who would be more pleased if the Quran was to be proven to not be scientific or to have fault?? The Muslim or the atheist?

 

Why are you attempting to put me in the same category as packham - I am clearly not. Me and you, bro twoswordali, should be in the same category, because we are both Muslim, and packham is not.

 

If other people have really read the discussion then why don't they post here on the thread? After all, it is open to all.

Again, why the personal insults by calling me an atheist? Calling a Muslim a non-Muslim is a very big sin and I am sure you are aware of this.

 

I never called you an atheist nor did i call you a non muslim however you and the atheist are agreeing that the Quran is not science nor is it scientific, me and an atheist can agree on nothing when it comes to trying to prove the Quran wrong, what do you, the muslim say, of the video that i showed you do you agree with packham as well

 

I have cited all of my sources, I have put forth my evidence. You have not been able to disprove my arguments at all, because you ramble on about something else, and never attack my argument at all. I am not uneducated

 

 

when it comes to the arabic language yes you are uneducated your still learning and thats cool but you dont have knowledge of how to read arabic you cannot read the Quran in its language if you could then you would see the same thing that Muslim scientist see and saw 1300 years ago.

 

-

. Go back in the posts and see what my argumentative points were. They hinged around the definition of the word 'scientific'. You should begin by proving why the definition of the word 'scientific' found in dictionaries and encyclopedias is wrong.

 

brother it is you that is not reading the posts ive told you that i donot disagree with the meaning in the dictionary or the encyclopedia look at what ive posted again and you would see that i have answered you, you just failed to see what i am saying. Look at what im saying with an open heart and look at the Quran as a book without doubt and im sure 100% positive that you will agree with me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you do not disagree with the meaning in the dictionary or the encyclopedia, then how do you show that the Quran fits that definition? My argument shows that the Quran does not fit the official definition of 'scientific'. Please present your counter-argument which shows that the Quran does fit the official definition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok brother here it is again

 

1.Science is the systematic study and knowledge of the natural OR physical phenomena,

 

2. phenomena is anything appearing or observed or a remarkable person or thing

 

3.l the Quran gives us a systematic way to study the natural and physical phenomena.

 

4. What is the phenomena?By definition it is a remarkable person This is Muhammad and the other prophets individually representing a plural body as well as a single entity.

 

5.And the other description of phenomena is a remarkable thing and God is a remarkable thing

 

6.what is a thing its some entity, object, or creature that is not or cannot be specifically designated or precisely described:

 

7.Scientific is of the principles of science, by using the principles of Islam and the sunnah and studying the Quran makes approaching the WORLD scientific.

 

8.The Quran is science the QURAN is scientific

 

9. the west sought and learned science from the east, they learned from muslims!

 

10. now if the study of God and the study of the Quran advanced the thinking and technology and science on a whole for the Muslims why when scholars from the west came and learned from the Muslims they learned only the science and rejected the religion.

 

11. How far would the students be if they had adopted the full method of studying science from their Muslim teachers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Correct.

 

2. We should use the scientific definition of phenomena here, not the colloquial definition. Scientifically speaking, a phenomenon is any natural or physical process that can be observed and/or measured.

 

3. Please show me the verses where the Quran gives us a scientifically systematic method to study natural and physical phenomena. That is, where does the Quran describe the scientific method.

 

4. This definition of phenomenon is the colloquial definition, not the scientific one.

 

5. Same problem as with point number 4.

 

6. No, a "thing" is any entity, object, or creature. A thing can be specifically designated or precisely described, or it may not be. For example, gravity is specifically designated and it is precisely described as well by scientific theory, but it is also a thing.

 

7. I agree that scientific means to use the principles of science. It does not involve the principles of Islam or Quran (Islam and Quran are not mentioned in the definition of 'scientific' in the dictionary).

 

8. I have disproven this by showing that your definitions of 'scientific' in point number 7, of 'thing' in point number 6, and of 'phenomenon' in points number 2, 4, and 5 are not valid.

 

9. Yes, but this has nothing to do with our debate.

 

10. This also has nothing to do with our debate. This a historical and/or sociological question.

 

11. They would be farther and more ethical, certainly, but again, this has nothing to do with our debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2. We should use the scientific definition of phenomena here, not the colloquial definition. Scientifically speaking, a phenomenon is any natural or physical process that can be observed and/or measured.

 

Do we not observe people and things as well when relating to science?? We cannot drop the definition of phenomena, the whole meaning is included in the definition of science. If it had no relation to science then it would not be part of the meaning at all. Another word would be used.

 

 

3. Please show me the verses where the Quran gives us a scientifically systematic method to study natural and physical phenomena. That is, where does the Quran describe the scientific method.

 

Allah tells us to go into the earth and get the best of it. The Quran is a giude for our spirt and for our physical, It gives us a science on how to approach our lives to better our lives and how to really get the best out of this world. Tell me something how did we arrive at E=mc^2?? or any other formular? The earth did not have in it direct answers for us to look at and copy. No, it set the stage, it had in it electricity, ect.ect. but we had to approach the earth and study it to develope that which we have now. Where was the scientific systematic study when we discovered certain things?? most was found out by mistake we was doing one thing and something else happened and then we made a new discovery. Now if thats how the earth treats us, that it (the earth) allows for us to find and make discoveries without giving us the answers right up front, how does Allah treat us, He made the earth?? He gives us the tools to advance our lives and how we should approach the earth. By the definition of science or scientific alone, Allah is giving us a method on how to become better people in our approach to His creation. How intelligent would we be if we had all the formulars laid out for us how easy would it be for us to worship God, what would be the point of us being tested. Allah gives us the tools to approach our lives and how to approach the earth, and that method is scientifc

 

 

4. This definition of phenomenon is the colloquial definition, not the scientific one.

 

Again i have to disagree, if the definition is the colloquail one then thats even more reason why its tied into the definition of science. Again if it wasn't then the word phenomenon would have NO ties with the word science.

 

6. No, a "thing" is any entity, object, or creature. A thing can be specifically designated or precisely described, or it may not be. For example, gravity is specifically designated and it is precisely described as well by scientific theory, but it is also a thing.

 

Ok then describe what Allah looks like. And is this your definition or your source the dictionary?

 

now i also see that you have "or may not be" so why disagree and say no. If a thing can be specifically designated or "precisely" described then it would not be a thing now would it.

 

7. I agree that scientific means to use the principles of science. It does not involve the principles of Islam or Quran (Islam and Quran are not mentioned in the definition of 'scientific' in the dictionary).

 

so the dictionary is what you hold over the Quran? The dictionary is not mentioned in the Quran either does that mean that the Quran has no influence on the dictionary?? It does, it has influenced some of the words

 

 

9. Yes, but this has nothing to do with our debate.

 

10. This also has nothing to do with our debate. This a historical and/or sociological question.

 

these are sciences as well brother, when we speak of science or the sciences we cannot limit it to one particular feild in the sciences and then say that this is science and this is what science means. The Quran on the other hand has in it how to approach the sciences, physical and spiritual. so it covers the whole meaning of science and then some.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do we not observe people and things as well when relating to science?? We cannot drop the definition of phenomena, the whole meaning is included in the definition of science. If it had no relation to science then it would not be part of the meaning at all. Another word would be used.

 

The dictionary and the encyclopedia disagree with your definition of 'phenomenon'.

This is the scientific definition of phenomenon from (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetmerriam-webster(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/dictionary/phenomenon"]Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary[/url]:

2plural phenomena a: an object or aspect known through the senses rather than by thought or intuition b: a temporal or spatiotemporal object of sensory experience as distinguished from a noumenon c: a fact or event of scientific interest susceptible to scientific description and explanation

These are the scientific definition of phenomenon from (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_dictionary.reference(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/browse/phenomenon"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_dictionary.reference(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/browse/phenomenon[/url]:

1. a fact, occurrence, or circumstance observed or observable: to study the phenomena of nature.

An occurrence, circumstance, or fact that is perceptible by the senses.

1. any state or process known through the senses rather than by intuition or reasoning

This is the scientific definition of phenomenon from (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_en.wikipedia(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/wiki/Phenomenon#Use_in_science"]Wikipedia[/url]:

In science phenomena are the subject of observation. It is any fact or event of scientific interest that is susceptible of being scientifically described and/or explained. E.g.: hypnagogic states are frequently associated with other phenomena.

 

In physics, a phenomenon may be a feature of matter, energy, or spacetime. For example, Isaac Newton made observations of the phenomenon of the moon's orbit. Additionally, Galileo Galilei made observations of pendulum related phenomena.[2]

 

Many words have colloquial definitions and scientific definitions, and most of the time the two definitions are different. For example the word 'weight' in colloquial language is used for the mass of an object, but in science, the word 'weight' is not the mass, but rather a force due to gravity on the object. The word 'force' in colloquial language can mean 'to make something happen', but in science, a 'force' is defined by 'F=ma'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Allah tells us to go into the earth and get the best of it. The Quran is a giude for our spirt and for our physical, It gives us a science on how to approach our lives to better our lives and how to really get the best out of this world. Tell me something how did we arrive at E=mc^2?? or any other formular? The earth did not have in it direct answers for us to look at and copy. No, it set the stage, it had in it electricity, ect.ect. but we had to approach the earth and study it to develope that which we have now. Where was the scientific systematic study when we discovered certain things?? most was found out by mistake we was doing one thing and something else happened and then we made a new discovery. Now if thats how the earth treats us, that it (the earth) allows for us to find and make discoveries without giving us the answers right up front, how does Allah treat us, He made the earth?? He gives us the tools to advance our lives and how we should approach the earth. By the definition of science or scientific alone, Allah is giving us a method on how to become better people in our approach to His creation. How intelligent would we be if we had all the formulars laid out for us how easy would it be for us to worship God, what would be the point of us being tested. Allah gives us the tools to approach our lives and how to approach the earth, and that method is scientifc

 

However, my argument was based on the fact that the Quran does not describe the scientific method. If you disagree, please quote the verses which you think describe the scientific method.

 

Again i have to disagree, if the definition is the colloquail one then thats even more reason why its tied into the definition of science. Again if it wasn't then the word phenomenon would have NO ties with the word science.

 

Since we are talking about hard science here, we should use the scientific definition.

 

Ok then describe what Allah looks like. And is this your definition or your source the dictionary?

 

now i also see that you have "or may not be" so why disagree and say no. If a thing can be specifically designated or "precisely" described then it would not be a thing now would it.

 

I can describe an apple. Are you saying an apple is not also a thing? Here's a definition from (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_dictionary.reference(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/browse/thing"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_dictionary.reference(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/browse/thing[/url]:

1. a material object without life or consciousness; an inanimate object.

 

so the dictionary is what you hold over the Quran? The dictionary is not mentioned in the Quran either does that mean that the Quran has no influence on the dictionary?? It does, it has influenced some of the words

 

This has nothing to do with a dictionary being better than the Quran or the Quran being better than the dictionary. When I want to know the meaning of a word in Urdu, I will look it up in an Urdu dictionary. When I want to know the meaning of a word in Farsi, I will look it up in a Farsi dictionary. When I want to know the meaning of a word in Arabic, I will look it up in an Arabic dictionary. When I want to know the meaning of a word in German, I will look it up in a German dictionary. When I want to know the meaning of a word in English, I will look it up in an English dictionary. As you can see, this has nothing to do with the Quran.

 

these are sciences as well brother, when we speak of science or the sciences we cannot limit it to one particular feild in the sciences and then say that this is science and this is what science means. The Quran on the other hand has in it how to approach the sciences, physical and spiritual. so it covers the whole meaning of science and then some.

 

You did not attack any of my arguments, nor did you put forth a reason for your argument, in your points 9, 10, 11. This is why it said it had nothing to do with our debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Quran on the other hand has in it how to approach the sciences, physical and spiritual.

 

There are no "spritual sciences" unless you are using a non-standard definition of scinece.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
However, my argument was based on the fact that the Quran does not describe the scientific method. If you disagree, please quote the verses which you think describe the scientific method.

 

If your looking for fomulars in the Quran then thats very stupid however if your looking to advance in knowledge physically as well as spiritually then thats smart. And you are not reading what i posted if you were you would see that the Quran is scientific instead of being a stubborn donkey trying to stick to one meaning of science. This is very important to the discussion THAT IF THE QURAN WAS IN NO WAY SCIENTIFIC THEN THERE IS NO WAY IN HECK(I REALLY WANT TO SAY HELL) THAT IT COULD HAVE ADVANCED SCIENCE!!!! NO WAY!!

 

 

Since we are talking about hard science here, we should use the scientific definition.

 

ahh I see your problem you just want to argue, who was talking about hard science or where was this term ever mentioned in our discussion until now??? We are talknig about science not one particular science, you say that the Quran is not scientific that means that there is no science in the Quran at all. I say you are wrong and show you where your words are wrong however it seems as if its an ego problem with you that your trying to prove your "argument " correct. How can you say the Quran is not scientific by judging it by one slice of the science pie. In its totality the Quran is scientific and all muslim scientist agree and a good bit of non muslim scientist agree. Stop looking at this as an argument take me out of the picture and look at Allahs words look at the earth and where everything originated from. Clear your mind and just think on where everything originated from now Look at Allah and His book, now imagine your standing in front of Allah with the Quran in your hand and Allah ask you WHERE DOES SCIENCE COME FROM???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are no "spritual sciences" unless you are using a non-standard definition of scinece.

 

 

 

Your finished biting your nails in anger huh??? Welcome back i knew you couldn't stay away i believe your really learning something here ok lets get to your statement. What is psychology is that not looking into a persons mind a persons spirit or what about philosophy these are not considered spiritual sciences as well ??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Philosophy is not a science. Psychology uses the scientific method to the certain that it can, but it is concerned with the mind, not the spirit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Philosophy is not a science. Psychology uses the scientific method to the extent that it can, but it is concerned with the mind, not the spirit.

Edited by packham

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Philosophy is not a science. Psychology uses the scientific method to the extent that it can, but it is concerned with the mind, not the spirit.

 

 

WHAT!!!!????? PHILOSOPHY IS NOT A SCIENCE?????!!?? Ok bro look please look up your sources and check this out, come on man stop speaking out of ignorance go look this up! And what you said about psychology please tell me how do we study the mind?? The brain is made up of cells and blood and stuff (dont feel like getting tech.) Thats the brain though tell me what is the mind. When a psychologist is treating a patient tell me what is he trying to heal?? Its his mind right ok tell me what is the mind describe the mind how do we heal the mind of a person and how is this any different than healing ones spirit?? You do know that these started with religious people right(ok thats another topic just discusseverything before my last statement).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Philospophy is not a science. It isn't even a 'soft' science like psychology.

 

Philosophers are not scientists (both philosophers and scientists would be horrified to hear them described as such). Here's a clue - almost all universities have Arts faculties and Science faculties. The philosophy department is always in the Arts faculty.

 

You are using the word 'science' in a non standard way. To avoid confusion in the real world you need to choose a different word.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

stop trying to argue and try to understand and discuss. You keep trying to "win and argument" im in no competetion with you Im trying to understand where you guys are comming from and you keep making really ignorant statements your not even reading what i said. Look at your last post and mine tell me where did i say that philosophers are scientist. Your still angry calm down and discuss and read i hope your not getting offended as you read this, just come off of your high horse and lets try and understand each other.

 

 

1. Philosophy is the study of understanding.

 

2. Understanding is the bestowing of meaning upon observations.

 

3. Meaning is the realisation obtained by applying beliefs to the observations of an understanding —the use of reason

 

 

That being said there is the philosophy of science and a science of philosophy both are interchangeable. Do you know what the philosophy of science is or the science of philosophy???? Ok but you say its not a science i wont argue thats just your level of understanding. No problem now what about what i said about the psychologist, you havent answered that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stop trying to argue and try to understand and discuss. You keep trying to "win and argument" im in no competetion with you Im trying to understand where you guys are comming from and you keep making really ignorant statements your not even reading what i said. Look at your last post and mine tell me where did i say that philosophers are scientist. Your still angry calm down and discuss and read i hope your not getting offended as you read this, just come off of your high horse and lets try and understand each other.

 

You did say that philosophy was a science (and rudely called me ignorant when I told you it wasn't). Philosophy is not[/] a science and no amount of looking in dictionaries willl change that. I think this points to the problem you are having in this thread - your definition of science is much broader than that generally used. If the Scientific Method is not used, what is happening is not science. That isn't just my opinion, that's a fact. You need to use a different word to describe wha t you are talking about. Wiki has a good article on the Scientific Method.

 

Yes, I know about the philosophy of science (philosophies, rather, historically speaking) because as I've said already in this thread, I studied History & Philosophy of Science at university (not a major, just one year). I also studied philosophy. Philosophy is not mathematics but it uses mathematics; philosophy is not linguistics but it uses linguistics. It doesn't use much science but even if it did it would still not be a science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, I know about the philosophy of science (philosophies, rather, historically speaking) because as I've said already in this thread, I studied History & Philosophy of Science at university (not a major, just one year).

 

Maybe you should have furthered your studies in it then maybe you might look at it different.

 

 

ANYWAY your still dacncing around the question, answer it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If your looking for fomulars in the Quran then thats very stupid however if your looking to advance in knowledge physically as well as spiritually then thats smart. And you are not reading what i posted if you were you would see that the Quran is scientific instead of being a stubborn donkey trying to stick to one meaning of science. This is very important to the discussion THAT IF THE QURAN WAS IN NO WAY SCIENTIFIC THEN THERE IS NO WAY IN HECK(I REALLY WANT TO SAY HELL) THAT IT COULD HAVE ADVANCED SCIENCE!!!! NO WAY!!

 

I am just asking you to present the evidence for your argument. An argument with no evidence is no argument at all.

 

Now you are also claiming that if something advances science, then it is scientific. You also need to provide evidence to back up this claim.

 

ahh I see your problem you just want to argue, who was talking about hard science or where was this term ever mentioned in our discussion until now??? We are talknig about science not one particular science, you say that the Quran is not scientific that means that there is no science in the Quran at all. I say you are wrong and show you where your words are wrong however it seems as if its an ego problem with you that your trying to prove your "argument " correct. How can you say the Quran is not scientific by judging it by one slice of the science pie. In its totality the Quran is scientific and all muslim scientist agree and a good bit of non muslim scientist agree. Stop looking at this as an argument take me out of the picture and look at Allahs words look at the earth and where everything originated from. Clear your mind and just think on where everything originated from now Look at Allah and His book, now imagine your standing in front of Allah with the Quran in your hand and Allah ask you WHERE DOES SCIENCE COME FROM???

 

You really need to calm down and stop attacking me personally. No amount of attacking my character or yelling and screaming is going to make your arguments any stronger. Attack my arguments with logical and rational counter-arguments, and present some clear evidence for your arguments.

 

I said hard science, because when people talk about science in the Quran, they mean physics, biology, chemistry, astronomy. These are hard sciences.

 

I look at the Quran as a guide for mankind from God. It is a guide on every aspect of our lives: the physical, the intellectual, and the spiritual. The Quran is not a science book. It is a guide for mankind. I have quoted verse 2:2 for this as proof before, and I can quote many more verses and ahadith. Now you cannot deny the verse of the Quran or the ahadith. Saying the Quran is scientific would be limit the Quran to science. But clearly, as God Himself has said, the Quran is much more than a scientific book, it is a guide for mankind in all aspects of life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Now you are also claiming that if something advances science, then it is scientific. You also need to provide evidence to back up this claim

 

 

Your being very blind brother, what more evidence do you as a muslim need other than the fact that it advanced science this is a historical fact!

 

.

I look at the Quran as a guide for mankind from God. It is a guide on every aspect of our lives: the physical, the intellectual, and the spiritual. The Quran is not a science book. It is a guide for mankind. I have quoted verse 2:2 for this as proof before, and I can quote many more verses and ahadith. Now you cannot deny the verse of the Quran or the ahadith. Saying the Quran is scientific would be limit the Quran to science. But clearly, as God Himself has said, the Quran is much more than a scientific book, it is a guide for mankind in all aspects of life.

 

How is saying that the Quran is scientific taking away from the fact that it is a guide to mankind, Listen if this is a guide for mankind and its the best guide tell me what is the science called for helping people in their life or helping to better peoples lives or stuyding people to better their lives. whats that science called

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The word 'scientific' has a very specific meaning. It does not mean 'anything that advances science'. For example government research grants 'advance science' but they are not scientific.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your being very blind brother, what more evidence do you as a muslim need other than the fact that it advanced science this is a historical fact!

 

I need you to prove with some reasonable evidence that anything that advances science is also scientific.

 

How is saying that the Quran is scientific taking away from the fact that it is a guide to mankind, Listen if this is a guide for mankind and its the best guide tell me what is the science called for helping people in their life or helping to better peoples lives or stuyding people to better their lives. whats that science called

 

I said that because earlier you said that saying the Quran is not scientific is taking away from the Quran. But I'm saying that saying the Quran is not scientific doesn't take away from the majesty of the Quran at all. It still remains a guide for mankind.

 

Science does not help people. Science is just a collection of theories dealing with various natural phenomena. People can then use that knowledge to benefit people or to harm people. That's called wisdom or ethics, something which science is incapable of teaching.

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  

×