Jump to content
Islamic Forum
parvez mushtaq

Nothing Created Everything .....a Question To Atheists

Recommended Posts

Xocoti, you have clearly demonstrated your extra ordinary talent at deriving wrong conclusions based on false presumptions, some bizarre people believed planet earth rested on the back of a turtle, therefore Islam is wrong, some Christians televangelists who live in mansion and fly in private airplane swindled people out of millions, therefore Islam is wrong, huh?

Science doesn’t know how life began, so evolution MUST be true, Science cannot prove or disprove that God exists, therefore there is NO God. What kind of bizarre twisted logic is that? SO please no more of this, stick to the facts and issue in hand and do not argue with established scientific facts.. else we are just wasting time and end up nowhere..

 

The pattern of a river's deposits is unique to the river and to the moment it made that deposit. If the deposit is studied it will tell where it was laid down, when this happened, what rock had been eroded to create the deposited material, how this had happened, when it had happened, what the climete was like when it happened and lots more. There is a huge ammount of information there.

 

If Xocoti committed a crime and left behind DNA it would be unique just like the river valley deposits. If he left behind a foot print it would be unique.

 

Informatin can be got from analising the world if you like you can call this decoding foot prints. DNA shows no sign of being designed.<snip>

 

Tim, what can I say, a little disappointed to tell the truth, here you are whining about Christians twisting facts and logic to fit their views..can’t you see that you are doing exactly the same thing here? Could you atleast reread what you wrote?I thought we had passed the ‘code’ part and ready to move on to the next point, apparently not. Let addressed this code issue yet again..

 

Footprints is a code? Look, there is no denying that foorprints or fingerprints can be considered as evidence and they are unique to each person. But fingerprints, footprints, river patterns, snowflakes are NOT codes, they are patterns. Let me illustrate this to you, get any Tom, ###### and Harry and get them to print their thumb print of 2 sets of paper, give one set to a ten year old and ask him to match the prints, can he do it, sure he can. What kind of code is that if a ten year could solve it in the first try?

Now get the same Tom ###### Harry to spit on two separate plates and see if you can anybody to match the spits..Could anyone do it? Nobody can unless they send the sample to some sophisticated lab and run a DNA test. Then not only they would know exactly which spit belongs to who, they could also find out things like are they related to each other etc..

 

Look at the definition of what code is again:

code (k d)

n.

1. A systematically arranged and comprehensive collection of laws.

2. A systematic collection of regulations and rules of procedure or conduct: a traffic code.

3.

a. A system of signals used to represent letters or numbers in transmitting messages.

b. A system of symbols, letters, or words given certain arbitrary meanings, used for transmitting messages requiring secrecy or brevity.

4. A system of symbols and rules used to represent instructions to a computer; a computer program.

5. Genetics The genetic code.

6. Slang A patient whose heart has stopped beating, as in cardiac arrest.

 

Source: (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 yetthefreedictionary(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/code"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetthefreedictionary(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/code[/url]

 

Unless you disagree with these definitions, then obviously your statements that river pattern, footprints, snowflakes can be considered as codes are indeed baseless and in contradiction with science.

Now read the last definition: Genetic Code, what is genetic code:

Genetic codes is what makes you to have certain features of your parents, show who we are related to etc.

 

Now google for the definition of genetic code:

Here’s one:

genetic code

n.

The sequence of nucleotides in DNA or RNA that determines the specific amino acid sequence in the synthesis of proteins. It is the biochemical basis of heredity and nearly universal in all organisms.

Look at every single definition at the link below, DNA contains genetic CODE.. this is just about as scientific as it gets. DNA contains genetic CODES

 

Source: (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 yetthefreedictionary(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/genetic+code"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetthefreedictionary(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/genetic+code[/url]

 

SO your attempt to lump patterns as codes and to dispute that DNA is a code is rather pathetic really..anything to justify your disbelief? Sure, since we know for a fact that CODES can only arise from a MIND and Intellect, and that is something that you are not willing to accept, eh Tim?.. is there any point in carrying this discussion any further? You tell me...

Edited by RAHIMI

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds

OK I am now getting angy!

 

DNA is refered to as "code" by scientists explaining it to common people.

 

It is not:-

 

1. A systematically arranged and comprehensive collection of laws.

2. A systematic collection of regulations and rules of procedure or conduct: a traffic code.

3.

a. A system of signals used to represent letters or numbers in transmitting messages.

b. A system of symbols, letters, or words given certain arbitrary meanings, used for transmitting messages requiring secrecy or brevity.

4. A system of symbols and rules used to represent instructions to a computer; a computer program.

 

 

OK!!!!

 

A single word can in English and most other languages have multiplde meanings.

 

DNA is not deliberatly organised!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Xocoti, you have clearly demonstrated your extra ordinary talent at deriving wrong conclusions based on false presumptions, some bizarre people believed planet earth rested on the back of a turtle, therefore Islam is wrong,

No, only that religions have tried various times and in various ways to explain the creation by the method of simply telling people how it was done.

some Christians televangelists who live in mansion and fly in private airplane swindled people out of millions, therefore Islam is wrong, huh?

? no clue what your talking about.

 

Science doesn’t know how life began, so evolution MUST be true

Evolution is true on its own merits, probably more so than many theories we have. Abrogenesis and evolution are two different fields of study.

 

Science cannot prove or disprove that God exists, therefore there is NO God.

Not that there isn't a God, but that there is no way to prove or disprove that God exists ( the deistic God, the Abrahamic religions can be proven false) therefore God simply doesn't factor into what one believes or doesn't believe. Logisticans and scientists call this " not even being wrong" because it cant be proven wrong or right.

 

What kind of bizarre twisted logic is that?

 

Nope, as you can see above I have listed your misconceptions.

Edited by xocoti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OK I am now getting angy!

 

LOL do not worry too much Tim, that is quite a common syndrome in people, more acute in the arrogant ones, the dislike of being proven wrong..more so by the very same people that they refer to as idiots..

 

 

It is not:-

 

1. A systematically arranged and comprehensive collection of laws.

2. A systematic collection of regulations and rules of procedure or conduct: a traffic code.

3.

a. A system of signals used to represent letters or numbers in transmitting messages.

b. A system of symbols, letters, or words given certain arbitrary meanings, used for transmitting messages requiring secrecy or brevity.

4. A system of symbols and rules used to represent instructions to a computer; a computer program.

OK!!!!

 

and why did you stop there? What about no. 5..GENETIC CODES? Well obviously becasue it would then become evidently clear that DNA contains genetic codes..

Can you understand the statement below:

 

The genetic code is written in 'words' of three letters in DNA (such as ATG, CCG, TAA and so on). This code must be 'transcribed' and then 'translated' by the cell into the building blocks of molecules such as proteins. ...

you are not allowed to post links yetyourgenome(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/glossary/

 

or this:

 

The genetic code is the set of rules by which information encoded in genetic material (DNA or mRNA sequences) is translated into proteins (amino acid sequences) by living cells. The code defines a mapping between tri-nucleotide sequences, called codons, and amino acids. ...

en.wikipedia(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/wiki/Genetic_code

 

or this:

the standard code is shown in the table. Each sequence of three nucleotides in DNA or RNA potentially specifies an amino acid. In RNA, all T (thymidine) bases are replaced by U (uracil). Other than this, the DNA and RNA codes are the same. ...

you are not allowed to post links yetpalaeos(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/Eukarya/Lists/EuGlossary/EuGlossaryF.htm

 

This is carried on chromosomes, which are made up of DNA. Humans have 46 chromosomes. Each chromosome contains many genes which encode various traits.

you are not allowed to post links yetmed.illinois.edu/hematology/Glossary.htm

 

The above should be clear and direct enough..you have no evidence to back up what you're saying..

So once again, river patterns, snowflakes, footprints, finger prints etc.contain no coded information because it symbolically represents nothing (no plan, no idea, no instructions) other than itself, genetic codes which is in the DNA, is a totally different animal as you can see from the definitions above,..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because genetic code is a semantic issue. Like both of us have said before a code used in the definition you gave above doesn't not imply intelligence, only a set of information. They could have called it the genetic pattern and it would makes any difference, they just chose code instead of pattern.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because genetic code is a semantic issue. Like both of us have said before a code used in the definition you gave above doesn't not imply intelligence, only a set of information. They could have called it the genetic pattern and it would makes any difference, they just chose code instead of pattern.

 

LOL, they just choose code instead of pattern???Sorry Xocoti..this may come across as arrogance, but that comment of yours is just not worthy of my time nor my response..

Edited by RAHIMI

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LOL, they just choose code instead of pattern???Sorry Xocoti..this may come across as arrogance, but that comment of yours is just not worthy of my time nor my response..

 

That is because you are arrogant. They chose code over pattern yes. We have explained multiple times that your "evidence" is nothing more than word play the likes of which Christian Intelligent Designers tried and failed before. If we were to accept your claim, then astrology would be considered evidence of the stars controlling our fates because there is a code to decipher in order to arrange the explanation of our fates. We have explained to you that if we accept the idea that DNA indicates a creator then the creator cannot be named because Islam, Christianity, and Judiasm have creation stories that do not match or contradict the idea that DNA is a code, It has no predictive powers nor can explain anything. The definition of code that you are using has no basis in science at all and the only response is to list the definition of code and show that " gasp!" people call it a "genetic code". The whole argument hinges on Webster's definition which doesn't not go into detail about the implications of code that you are supposing. Tim has already explained this before though.

 

(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 yetyoutube(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/watch?v=UQx1U8eBz1o"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetyoutube(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/watch?v=UQx1U8eBz1o[/url]

 

(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/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_en.wikipedia(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/wiki/Kitzmiller_v....School_District[/url]

Edited by xocoti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That is because you are arrogant.

 

Well, obviously that would depend on the actual definition of 'arrogance' wouldn't it? Wait,,since we can't 'see' arrogance, it could also mean just about anything or it may not even exist!

 

 

That is because you are arrogant. They chose code over pattern yes. We have explained multiple times that your "evidence" is nothing more than word play the likes of which Christian Intelligent Designers tried and failed before. If we were to accept your claim, then astrology would be considered evidence of the stars controlling our fates because there is a code to decipher in order to arrange the explanation of our fates. We have explained to you that if we accept the idea that DNA indicates a creator then the creator cannot be named because Islam, Christianity, and Judiasm have creation stories that do not match or contradict the idea that DNA is a code, It has no predictive powers nor can explain anything. The definition of code that you are using has no basis in science at all and the only response is to list the definition of code and show that " gasp!" people call it a "genetic code". The whole argument hinges on Webster's definition which doesn't not go into detail about the implications of code that you are supposing. Tim has already explained this before though.

 

(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 yetyoutube(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/watch?v=UQx1U8eBz1o"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetyoutube(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/watch?v=UQx1U8eBz1o[/url]

 

(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/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_en.wikipedia(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/wiki/Kitzmiller_v....School_District[/url]

 

Wow, talk about contradiction..if DNA is such a simple rambling patterns, then why it took something like $40 million and massive computing prowess to generate such a simple strand of DNA codes opps patterns..? and to call it 'synthetic life' is rather bogus don't you think? Did they even create a cell? No, they injected the computer generated dna into a goat's cell. That's like a 5 year old kid who saw a blueprint of something, did his best to copy it, and pass it the same construction crew i.e goat cell, voila the kid now is the designer and the constructor..

 

Your second link just proved my earlier contention, the west are just a bunch of secular/godless nations, hence of course would do their best to eliminate whatever trace of religion as best as they can, what else is new??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is the fact that it is hard(expensive) to do genetic eneineering, and we are as yet just on the first steps of the immensly powerful control over disease and life an argument that we are rubbish?

 

In 1494(?) when columbus set off to discover the new world he did so in 3 old three quarters rotten ships with a crew of convicts. That he did not set off in a 100,000 tonne cruise liner with 6 restoraunts and nightly entertainment did not mean he was doing something of no value.

 

Defeating disease is important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have published this article on Triond ,but i feel like publishing here .

 

 

Did everything come from nothing? .This a biggest question on net right now. The answers given by the atheists is ,quantum events CAN occur without a cause .Note that “CANâ€, their answers will always contain auxiliary verbs such as “CAN†,â€MAYâ€,â€MIGHTâ€â€¦..In short they themselves don’t validate their answers

James Watson Cronin,<a href="you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_newsgroups.derkeiler(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/Archive/Talk/talk.origins/2007-09/msg08481.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">(click here)</a> who won the 1980 noble prize for physics declared that 96% of the universe is consists of dark matter which does not emit or reflect any light .In other words it is dark and we know nothing about that dark matter. The remaining four percent of the universe consists of atoms and molecules. In other words it is the illuminated part of the universe. Even, our knowledge about the four percent is trifle. Just imagine , with these knowledge, atheists claim “nothing gave everything†.But, there is a mention of this fact in Koran, 1400 years ago!

 

Read this verses

067.003

YUSUFALI: He Who created the seven heavens one above another: No want of proportion wilt thou see in the Creation of (Allah) Most Gracious. So turn thy vision again: seest thou any flaw?

 

067.004

YUSUFALI: Again turn thy vision a second time: (thy) vision will come back to thee dull and discomfited, in a state worn out.

 

067.005

YUSUFALI: And we have, (from of old), adorned the lowest heaven with Lamps, and We have made such (Lamps) (as) missiles to drive away the Evil Ones, and have prepared for them the Penalty of the Blazing Fire.

 

Quran is very clear here , only the lower part (which is only 4% of the universe) is illuminated and stars are missiles , indicating that stars are balls of fire ! i dont know when scientist established that stars are fire balls

 

SubhanALLAH! Can you able to appreciate this fact ?

Sir George Howard Darwin, son of the famous Charles Robert Darwin, gave a hypothesis <a href="you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_en.wikipedia(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/wiki/Giant_impact_hypothesis" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">(Click here)</a> to the regarding the formation of earth crust .As per his hypothesis, The Earth and the moon were once been a one body and by centrifugal forces moon slowly drifted away from the earth. On this line, later it was established that, an iron rich mars sized planet, Theia, collided with the earth about 30-40 millions.The result of this impact was moon and the iron core .So the present iron in the earth belongs to Theia and does not belong to Earth.

 

Let us check this verse form Quran

 

57.025

YUSUFALI: We sent aforetime our messengers with Clear Signs and sent down with them the Book and the Balance (of Right and Wrong), that men may stand forth in justice; and We sent down Iron, in which is (material for) mighty war, as well as many benefits for mankind, that Allah may test who it is that will help, Unseen, Him and His messengers: For Allah is Full of Strength, Exalted in Might (and able to enforce His Will).

 

Now who would have known in the 7 Th century that iron does not belong to earth rather it was send to Earth , is it “nothing†or is it GOD

The wonderful thing about this findings is , Sir George Howard Darwin,Son of Charles Darwin .Look here for one of the wonders of Allah.Charles Darwin became a cause of Atheism but Allah had different planing , He made his son to prove his signs .

 

Can you able to appreciate this ?

 

SubhanALLAH !

 

Finally, Habitable Zone is the distance from the star where the temperature is neither too hot nor too cold or in other words a place from the star where the Earth like planet can maintain water on its surface and there by earth like life exist on it .my question to atheists is , does that “nothing†send the iron to earth or the GOD who revealed 1400 years ago that he send iron to the earth .was it “nothing†which placed the earth in the habitable zone or is it GOD who said in Quran .

 

055.007

YUSUFALI: And the Firmament has He raised high, and He has set up the Balance (of Justice),

 

I don't know whether this ayah meant this but do you have any another explanation for this ayah

any way , it is quite clear that Habitable Zone is one of the evidence for Allah's Creation as mention in

67.003

YUSUFALI: He Who created the seven heavens one above another: No want of proportion wilt thou see in the Creation of (Allah) Most Gracious. So turn thy vision again: seest thou any flaw?

 

So, which one we should believe now, the theory of “nothing gave everything†or the Quran which confirms the recent findings of science before 1400 years

 

Is it science confirming Quran or Quran confirming science?

AlHamdulilah

I am logging in after a while

it is very surprising ..........116,286 views !!!!![using large font size is not allowed] for this post

 

Is it true or it is a mistake !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Assalam-o-Alaikum: Allah the LONE & the ONE has created the nothing & something both ,what we know or don't know. We know "nothing" from "something".Nothing is nothing with Allah the LONE & THE ONE.AND HE IS THE CREATOR OF ALL PHYSICALS & NON-PHYSICALS.

IF NOTHING IS NOTHING ,THEN HOW WE KNOW & RECOGNISE "THE NOTHING"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your post is nonsense and what's more, tremendously disrespectful to the time, effort, and intelligence that goes into creating scientific theory.

 

To begin with, YOU assert that the Quran says that (I'm paraphrasing) stars are missiles made of lamps. Then you go on to say a line or two later that stars are balls of fire and pose the question of when science was able to corroborate this fact. I have no idea if the Quran really says this, I'm assuming you have quoted it correctly.

 

The problem with the Quran, which is the same problem as the Bible, is that it speaks in metaphors. A metaphor is a tool one uses to convey meaning when your audience would not understand a direct explanation. The problem with metaphors is that they mean different things to different people. For example, the Quran says that stars are lamps that move through the sky(according to you) and you interpret that to mean that stars are balls of fire traveling through lower part of the universe. However this is ridiculous. My interpretation of your Quran passage, that stars are lamp-missiles, is that stars give off light and move in the sky. Anybody can see that stars give off light and the constellations have been moving through the night sky noticed by human beings since time immemorial. Nothing novel or illuminating is illustrated by this passage you relate from the Quran.

 

Furthermore, if you ask an astrophysicist the question, what is a star? You will not get an explanation like; "basically they're lamps moving through the sky." You will get a highly sophisticated explanation that will encompass fusion, thermodynamics, gas law, relativity, quantum mechanics and a whole lot more.

 

To criticize the rest of your post would just be a waste of time. Your disdain for science is noted.

 

Rand

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Assalam-o-Alaikum: Allah the LONE & the ONE has created the nothing & something both ,what we know or don't know. We know "nothing" from "something".Nothing is nothing with Allah the LONE & THE ONE.AND HE IS THE CREATOR OF ALL PHYSICALS & NON-PHYSICALS.

IF NOTHING IS NOTHING ,THEN HOW WE KNOW & RECOGNISE "THE NOTHING"

 

Nothing is known as nothing by a comparison with what we call something, physical matter, or energy of some sort.

Isn't that right?

 

kb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
blaa...blaaaa,....blaa

 

Flying comments .......Ignored !

If you really want to know .....and can withstand ..... lets see who is wrong !

InshaALLAH ..sometime next week .....if you really want ..otherwise ....BYE !! :sl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Assalam-o-Alaikum: Allah the LONE & the ONE has created the nothing & something both ,what we know or don't know. We know "nothing" from "something".Nothing is nothing with Allah the LONE & THE ONE.AND HE IS THE CREATOR OF ALL PHYSICALS & NON-PHYSICALS.

IF NOTHING IS NOTHING ,THEN HOW WE KNOW & RECOGNISE "THE NOTHING"

 

Nothing is known as nothing by a comparison with what we call something, physical matter, or energy of some sort.

Isn't that right?

 

kb

 

Keith, you're right that we encounter linguistic problems when trying to discuss "nothing"; physicists sometimes use the term "a true vacuum" (as opposed to the "false vacuum" with which we're familiar and which contains, at least, the negative energy of the gravitational field). If you seek additional ideas about how the universe seemed to have "created itself" from a quantum-like symmetry-breaking fluctuation in a true vacuum, leading to the Big Bang, you might want to start by reading the chapter of my on-line book that's at (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_zenofzero(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/docs/Z_The_Zen_of_Zero.pdf"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_zenofzero(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/docs/Z_The_Zen_of_Zero.pdf[/url] .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, this is very interesting and more my sort of stuff. I am also interested as to how far we can discover 'the truth' within ourselves, given the tools we already posess and can develop such as logic, reason and knowledge obtained fromvarious irrefutable sources.

 

Perhaps you would interested in reading my book (due out later this summer), probably to be called 'The Third Testicle'. This has a common theme of reflection and Zen influenced ideas.

 

It could be to our mutual benifit to communicate with each other!

 

KB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, this is very interesting and more my sort of stuff. I am also interested as to how far we can discover 'the truth' within ourselves, given the tools we already posess and can develop such as logic, reason and knowledge obtained fromvarious irrefutable sources.

Yes, discovering "truth" is a real challenge. I directly devoted two chapters to the topic: (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_zenofzero(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/docs/T1_Truth_&_Knowledge.pdf"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_zenofzero(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/docs/T1_Truth_&_Knowledge.pdf[/url] and (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_zenofzero(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/docs/T2_Truth_&_Understanding.pdf"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_zenofzero(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/docs/T2_Truth_&_Understanding.pdf[/url] .

 

Perhaps you would interested in reading my book (due out later this summer), probably to be called 'The Third Testicle'. This has a common theme of reflection and Zen influenced ideas.

Sounds interesting. I assume you have a good reason for the proposed title, sufficient to overcome the expected response: "It sounds bulky and superfluous!"

 

It could be to our mutual benifit to communicate with each other!

We can see. You can find my e-mail address at my website, (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_zenofzero(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_zenofzero(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/[/url] .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, discovering "truth" is a real challenge. I directly devoted two chapters to the topic: you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_zenofzero(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/docs/T1_Truth_&_Knowledge.pdf and you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_zenofzero(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/docs/T2_Truth_&_Understanding.pdf .

Sounds interesting. I assume you have a good reason for the proposed title, sufficient to overcome the expected response: "It sounds bulky and superfluous!"

We can see. You can find my e-mail address at my website, you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_zenofzero(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/ .

 

Hello Zoro

 

It is good to see you again in my thread

but I think you are almost spamming my thread with your zenofzero

 

 

regards

 

Mushtaq

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hello Zoro

 

It is good to see you again in my thread

but I think you are almost spamming my thread with your zenofzero

regards

 

Mushtaq

Well, Mushtaq, if you're the one who added "you can't post links until you reach 50 posts", tell me: is 58 larger than 50? And as for your "almost spamming" remark, should I interpret it to mean that you thank me for not loading up my post with quotations and, instead, for supplying just references? If so, you're welcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, Mushtaq, if you're the one who added "you can't post links until you reach 50 posts",

LOl , zoro ,I am not related anything to this forum ,if i was , then my post count would have been 3800 rather then 38! I don't who formulated this rule .even I feel it is bit superfluous in an Islamic forum because you know very well that to talk about a religion one should have knowledge .so it should be quality rather than quantity .anyway rules are rules .as per Islamic law ,we should adopt rules otherwise we should leave .as a Muslim I will honour these rules.one more thing , i don't have a die-hard desire to make 50 posts !

 

And as for your "almost spamming" remark, should I interpret it to mean that you thank me for not loading up my post with quotations and, instead, for supplying just references?

Do you know Zoro , while writing this article I concentrated on "word rich" concept to make this search engine friendly .anyway , I felt , you are more bothered about making others to read your zenofzero rather than talking about the issue . This is my view point .if you don't like it .... my apologies !

 

 

Regards

 

 

Mushtaq

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it science confirming Quran or Quran confirming science?"

 

Niether.

 

Ive yet to read, watch or hear any reputable science organisation ever confirm either of your questions.

 

The over whelming silence from the mainstream sicentific community would suggest that, dont you think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I must admit I have not read every post. However, Mushtaq posted a link asking for me to join... 

 

Firstly, I want to make a point about what an Atheist is. Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities (wiki). That does not confirm a belief in an specific scientific approach. e.g. BIG Bang. There is nothing to say the Big Bang theory wont be discredited by scientists in 100 years. Just like we thought the world was flat, then the world was round with the sun orbiting us, later, we discovered we were orbiting the Sun.  

 

Re: the idea that something started nothing is not the only view. Some Atheists (such as myself) believe that time does not need a start or end point. The concept that time started seems as peculiar to me as religion. It does not seem natural (even appears supernatural). But of course, I treat it as a possibility. Just not in my eyes a probability.

 

I recently read The Grand Design, by Stephen Hawking's, and he made a point of saying something along these lines: 

 

We know the universe is expanding, therefore if we go back in time we know it was more condenced. And if we go back further in time, logic would say the universe had to be similar to a single mass - therefore the theory of the big bang. Most religious and scientific people now accept this as probable - (lets exclude those who think the earth is 6000-7000 years old).

 

It is interesting that Quantum Physics is now pointing to new evidence that something physical can actually start from nothing. Even more interesting is that something (on a quantum level), can actually come in and out of existence and be in several places at the same time. If religious people think they can discredit or refute this - they should remind themselves that they believe God / Allah has these powers. Regardless what you believe - science is trying to research and understand it. Science is the search but not the answer. The search is never complete.

 

It should also be stated, that the only real reason the big bang is thought of as 'the start of time', is because we can not possibly comprehend how we could explore beyond this point. That does not mean that 'time' did not exist 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000s of billions of years before the big bang - even if there was nothing.

 

All we know for certain is that life exists... If science decides Quantum Physics is the truth. Islam will believe Allah created Quantum Physics (sorry fellow Atheists - you will never win this one... they're one step ahead...) 

 

Regarding this small proximity that we live in from our star and the fact that we have the perfect conditions for life, if should be noted that there also 60 - 600 million sperm in an ejaculation. There is no denying we are all extremely lucky to exist. But that does not prove God... 

 

Fish2000

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not very hard to be one step ahead when the other guy places himself behind by coughing over the word "nothing" to begin with. By saying that quantum physics demonstrates evidence that something comes from "nothing" people like Lawrence Krauss (in his case by his own admission) don't really mean nothing at all, they mean fields, they mean forces, they mean all sorts of bells and whistles and preexisting conditions, carefully arranged and laid out in a harmonious mathematical pattern whose arrangement and pre-existence materialists always seem curiously adamant to avoid trying to explain. This is a subject which takes thousands of words to delve into fully and while I have started a lengthy discourse which, God willing, should eventually go up on my website I have recently been sidetracked by something else. It could be many, many weeks before it sees the light of day. In any case it's neither accurate nor fair to talk about theists as if we're liable to move the goalposts when what's actually happened is you've said you've reached the goal just by declaring it to be made of rubber instead of metal. When you start saying "nothing" and actually meaning it, then we'll talk.

Edited by IAmZamzam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zamzam/Yahya in your advertised "lengthy discourse", you should be careful to distinguish between  two different "vacuums".  One is what's normally called the "false vacuum", with which we're familiar, which is commonly called 'space', and in which (as you mention) there exist various fields, such as the gravitational and electromagnetic fields.  This, familiar, "false vacuum" is to be distinguished from what is normally called the "true vacuum", which is not postulated to contain any fields and which is what's normally referred to in models of the universe being created from "nothing".  Thus, it's the true vacuum that Einstein referred to as "nothing" when he said

 

… the universe [is] matter expanding into nothing that is something.


Similarly, it's the true vacuum that Edward Tryon was referring to when he wrote

 

… it [our universe] may simply be a fluctuation of the vacuum, the vacuum of some larger space in which our universe is imbedded.  In answer to the question of why it [the universe] happened, I offer the modest proposal that our universe is simply one of those things [that] happen from time to time.


As for how something could have been created from the true vacuum, the ancient Egyptians postulated that, when their creator god Re named something, it came into being.  Thus, their genesis myth includes:
 

 

In the beginning, before there was any land of Egypt, all was darkness, and there was nothing but a great waste of water called Nun. The power of Nun was such that there arose out of the darkness a great shining egg, and this was Re.  Now, Re was all-powerful, and he could take many forms.  His power and the secret of it lay in his hidden name… if he [Re] spoke other names, that which he named came into being…


Similar speculations appears in the Bible and the Koran, but all such speculations suffer from the obvious inadequacy of failing to suggest how the creator god was created.  Further, if the suggestion is made that the creator god always existed, then the obvious criticism is that one might just-as-well assume that the universe always existed (obviating a creator god).

In contrast to the these "western" speculations about a creator god is the speculation of the ancient Chinese, who posited that creation of the universe was a manifestation of their Yin-Yang (or complementarity) principle of balanced opposites.  The idea can be expressed mathematically as

 

Nothing = Zero = 0  –>  Something + (–Something) .


In the case of our universe, apparently the "Something" that was created was primarily energy, with the total energy of our universe still summing to zero, as do the total momentum and the total electrical charge.  Elsewhere , I've suggested how, consistent with ancient Chinese cosmogony, a symmetry-breaking quantum-like fluctuation in the true vacuum might have led to a first precipitate (possibly a string of energy or the first elementary particle), which then led to the Big Bang.

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


×