Jump to content
Islamic Forum
Sign in to follow this  
shangobah

Antipigflyism - A Religion That Denies Being A Religion

Recommended Posts

The fact that things do exist means a finite series, and rationally it implies that the existence of a supreme being who determined both the existence of this series and the specific attributes or properties that define it.

Woah... hold on here. This is a typical inductive leap which is one of the most common forms of logic errors. Jumping from a finite series of matter to a "supreme being" which determined its paramaters has no connection whatsoever.

OK, let's stay here for a moment. There is no need for any leap of faith whatsoever.

Stay with me, this universe and EVERYTHING in it has a beginning, therefore this universe and everything in it is NOT eternal i.e they are temporal. What this means is, this universe and all things within it did not exist prior to their existence. IF there is no CAUSE, then this would imply that this universe and all within it come from nothing OR this universe and all that is within it brought their own self into existence.

Can you accept the'things started to exist from nothing' or 'things that did not exist before brought themselves into existence"? Nobody with right mind and intellect would accept this and this has never never been experienced by the entire humanity. What other rational reasoning is there? You tell me..

Edited by RAHIMI

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds

My "atheist" hat was nothing. Every one of your arguments could be described by me as "tired old creationist" arguments, yet I did not complain and instead presented arguments based on knowledge and reason.

 

Your questions require a fairly in depth knowledge of chemistry, cosmology, physics and molecular biology to answer.

 

Your primary argument was essentially....

 

"Matter is huge but not infinite.. look at the huge sky! Its so huge how did it get here?"

 

Most people without education in physics or knowledge of cosmology are going to practically pass out at this point.

 

Then when they are semi-conscious and their head is about to explode you essentially say...

 

THEREFORE GOD DID IT!

 

And rather than try to understand things that require an in depth understanding of physics, cosmology, quantum mechanics, chemistry and molecular biology... an education they may not even have...

 

People just surrender and say "Praise to Allah!"

 

Then you instruct them to "Go kill that scientist he is all alone by himself". ;0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My "atheist" hat was nothing. Every one of your arguments could be described by me as "tired old creationist" arguments, yet I did not complain and instead presented arguments based on knowledge and reason.

 

Which part of what I said that you are referring to? Knowledge and reason tell us that things cannot come from nothing nor things that did not exist in the first place can brought themselves into existence. Do you agree with this or not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OK, let's stay here for a moment. There is no need for any leap of faith whatsoever.

Stay with me, this universe and EVERYTHING in it has a beginning, therefore this universe and everything in it is NOT eternal i.e they are temporal. What this means is, this universe and all things within it did not exist prior to their existence. IF there is no CAUSE, then this would imply that this universe and all within it come from nothing OR this universe and all that is within it brought their own self into existence.

Can you accept the'things started to exist from nothing' or 'things that did not exist before brought themselves into existence"? Nobody with right mind and intellect would accept this and this has never never been experienced by the entire humanity. What other rational reasoning is there? You tell me..

 

I am tired too.. i'm only still here because we atheists are accused of "avoiding all of the issues" and in my arrogance I didn't want to be disrespectful.

 

A "leap of faith" is not the same as an "inductive leap". You can google "logical fallacies". If you do something in the list your argument is irrational.

 

I am staying with you man, this is the same argument. We do not know if there was a cause or not a cause. We do not know how the universe came to be, how old it is, etc. There could easily be a natural physical explanation for its existance, but we simply do not know. Yes, scientists and atheists are so arrogant that we say, "We do not know!"

 

Yet you "know" that the remote cosmology which expands trillions of light years all created by this guy named Allah with all these characteristics that are similar to a man. How humble.

 

What other rational reasoning is there?

 

The rational reasoning is that we don't know. Making up a fairy tale about it doesn't progress the issue. This has been my response to this like three times now but you fail to address all of my serious rebuttals. Instead you incessantly pound away the same questions over and over which typically trip up the uneducated.

 

I studied physics at Berkley and I spent my life as a computational biologist specifically focusing on genetic engineering. Did you know that we have created life from normal ordinary chemicals with a computer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Which part of what I said that you are referring to? Knowledge and reason tell us that things cannot come from nothing nor things that did not exist in the first place can brought themselves into existence. Do you agree with this or not?

 

I have answered that question at least 2 times.. let me quote my own post where I did so.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What do you mean highly probable? If this universe operates on time and has a beginning, then we simply cannot have an infinite series..

 

I am saying there is a high probability that you are correct, but there there are always uncertainties. More atheist arrogance coming out.. claiming I don't absolutely "know" something. I apologize.

 

Shang, lets have some honesty here, the fact of the matter is, this universe is simply too big for any human to ever see even the tinniest part..we are talking about billions of light years across in size..OK?

 

The scientific evidence we have so far supports this yes.

 

Let's me drive home my point & let you ponder over it..

 

The fact that things do exist means a finite series, and rationally it implies that the existence of a supreme being who determined both the existence of this series and the specific attributes or properties that define it.

 

Woah... hold on here. This is a typical inductive leap which is one of the most common forms of logic errors. Jumping from a finite series of matter to a "supreme being" which determined its paramaters has no connection whatsoever.

 

It is also rational to conclude that this supreme Being that is the Cause of the series is superior than whatever that we can perceive since all that we can perceive are temporal and depended on something else for their existence, including ourselves.

 

Im sorry but you can't go forward rationalizing a "Supreme Being's" behavior when you used a logical error (Inductive leap) to conclude that a "Supreme Being" exists.

 

And it is also rational to conclude that the Creator of this universe is superior than this universe since this Creator can exist without the universe but this universe cannot come into existence without the Creator. It is also rational to conclude that this Being must be eternal and without beginning, otherwise it is temporal and forms part of the series. Since this Being can exist without this universe, it is rational to conclude that this Being is not dependent or subjected to whatever laws governing the universe such as time, space and matter, therefore this Being must also be sentient, for a timeless cause producing a temporal effect requires an independent will. Finally, effecting so grand a creation as the universe and all that it contains necessitates knowledge and power. What is so irrational about all these?

 

Im sorry but you can't go forward rationalizing a "Supreme Being's" behavior when you used a logical error (Inductive leap) to conclude that a "Supreme Being" exists.

 

What is irrational is believing things can operate in systems and order all by themselves, things that did not exist brought themselves into existence. A cup, some sugar, water, coffee got together by themselves on your table for you to drink..

 

This has to be broken into multiple statements:

 

1. What is irrational is believing things can operate in systems and order all by themselves.

 

Many things operate in systems and order all by themselves and the only thing needed to understand them is chemistry and some physics. Ever seen a snowflake? The physics behind its ordered structure is well understood. Matter and energy react in ways that have a wide degree of stable and unstable structures. Just look at the differences in isotopes of uranium used in nuclear reactors vs nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons have an isotope that causes a "chain reaction" but reactors have a stable isotope which is impossible to have a chain reaction. There are natural orders throughout the universe which are completely understood using physics, chemistry and quantum mechanics.

 

What is irrational is believing .... things that did not exist brought themselves into existence.

 

It really depends on what you mean by "things". All things are not the same. If you are referring to "all the matter and energy in the universe" we simply don't know the answer to that yet. There are things that beyond human knowledge at this time and making up fantasy stories about the answer doesn't get us anywhere.

 

A cup, some sugar, water, coffee got together by themselves on your table for you to drink.

 

A "manufactured" cup is something that we KNOW is man made, so assuming it got there by itself would be irrational. Sugar, water, and even coffee could have gotten there by various natural physical means such as wind. If they were clearly manufactured... then its highly improbable that they got there "through normal physics".. although life itself can and has been largely explained through normal physical principals. And this life, which is a result ultimately of physics, put the cup there... which means that the cup got there according to the natural laws of physics.

 

I quoted my own post which answered those questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again... you object to me calling your 'we have a finite amount of matter' to 'a supreme being created it and controls its paramaters' an inductive leap.

 

If you are going to make a connection between the amount of matter in the universe and a prove of the existence of a "supreme being" and further even go on to describe that that "supreme being" has some "role" and subsequently go on to claim that you know what those role are....

 

You need something to tie them all together without any gaps. Instead you just jump from one to the other without any explicit connection. That is a logical fallacy and the most common one to be precise.

 

 

Many religious organizations bombard people with a constant stream of logical fallacies, preying on their lack of education or sheer exhaustion. People blindly accept these irrational arguments from their trusted leaders. They then use these same logical fally patterns in other arguments. I actually consider it a form of brain damage inflicted on people. They get to a point where they quickly and easily accept irrational arguments at truth, and just submit to whatever they are told to believe. It is not what I choose for my life, but hey if that is your thing then all the power to you.

 

Peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am staying with you man, this is the same argument. We do not know if there was a cause or not a cause. We do not know how the universe came to be, how old it is, etc. There could easily be a natural physical explanation for its existance, but we simply do not know. Yes, scientists and atheists are so arrogant that we say, "We do not know!"

Well it is pretty much established that the universe started via the big bang approx. 13-14 billlions years ago.Not that you don't know. Look, forget God for a moment, let's deal with the 'Cause'. Using law of Causality, we know that Cause + Action = Effect.

For things to exist from non existence, they need to have a cause + Action, this is true for your computer and also true for the universe. So we know that the Cause of this universe MUST exist. The arrogant part is not the 'humble' 'we do not know' but rather in refusing to admit the existence of the Cause.

 

I studied physics at Berkley and I spent my life as a computational biologist specifically focusing on genetic engineering. Did you know that we have created life from normal ordinary chemicals with a computer?

Then you would also know that we are made up of atoms the very same materials that made up lifeless objects such as lego blocks, yet we are living and they are lifeless, how do you explain that? Created life? copying some existing codes and applied a couple of loops can hardly be called creating, unless I'm missing something?

 

What other rational reasoning is there?

The rational reasoning is that we don't know. Making up a fairy tale about it doesn't progress the issue. This has been my response to this like three times now but you fail to address all of my serious rebuttals. Instead you incessantly pound away the same questions over and over which typically trip up the uneducated.

I thought the question is simple enough? Would you accept something coming from nothing or something that did not exist created themselves? The answer to this is not "We don't know" it's either yes or no, why are you not or refusing to answer this very simple straightforward questions?

Edited by RAHIMI

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im going to start answering your latest big reply one part at a time becuase I am not sure how long I can hold out, its late here:

 

You said,

 

Well it is pretty much established that the universe started via the big bang approx. 13-14 billlions years ago.Not that you don't know. Look, forget God for a moment, let's deal with the 'Cause'. Using law of Causality, we know that Cause + Action = Effect.

For things to exist from non existence, they need to have a cause + Action, this is true for your computer and also true for the universe. So we know that the Cause of this universe MUST exist. The arrogant part is not the 'humble' 'we do not know' but rather in refusing to admit the existence of the Cause.

 

Actually there is evidence that a "big bang" type event had happened repeatedly as matter contracts and explodes. The evidence of this is found in matter here on earth that has many different "rings" leading to timescales way before the big bang as we know it. There are many rings indicating that the universe is much older than that. You seemed to demonstrate no knowledge of m-verse theory or evidence for multiple big bangs... you are a little behind the times brother, no offense.

 

To go on and tell me that I "know" something to be true, and am just in "denial" when the edges of modern science says leads otherise is just a personal attack. It has nothing to do with the rationality of the issue.

 

 

What did Allah do during all of those other big bangs? Create the earth over and over again as the cosmos rhythmically contracted and exploded? Why is our own galaxy in the process of coliding with another one at this very moment? What was his intentions? I am sure the Koran explains this somewhere, right? Science and Reason are just a FALSE western construct so what does your truth book say about it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So how many recorded 'big bangs' out there and what sort of timeline we are looking at & perhaps a reference.

Are you proposing multiple universes or many big bags but just one universe?

 

 

What did Allah do during all of those other big bangs? Create the earth over and over again as the cosmos rhythmically contracted and exploded? Why is our own galaxy in the process of coliding with another one at this very moment? What was his intentions? I am sure the Koran explains this somewhere, right? Science and Reason are just a FALSE western construct so what does your truth book say about it?

I have briefly mentioned this above, the Cause of this universe is superior to the universe since this Cause can exist without the universe. Therefore to apply our sense of dimensions i.e time, space, mass etc based on our perception is illogical. Yes you are right, Quran does offer explanations for all these but that is a subject for another thread.

Edited by RAHIMI

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Then you would also know that we are made up of atoms the very same materials that made up lifeless objects such as lego blocks, yet we are living and they are lifeless, how do you explain that? Created life? copying some existing codes and applied a couple of loops can hardly be called creating, unless I'm missing something?"

 

Matter behaves in a variety of ways. This is why 'organic chemistry' is a separate field from "inorganic chemistry". In organic chemistry chemicals form bonds in such a way that they can self replicate and divide. Again.. we created life with a computer by assembling ordinary chemicals.. it was nothing that has ever existed here on this earth.. we understand the process. We may not know the exact specifics of how it started since it was billions of years ago, but we have a pertty good idea. No god is required for life. You won't be allowed access to that knowledge in most Islamic countries though. That is really going to be bad for you people too since the next huge world industry is going to be bio-tech and you are running out of oil.

 

Its called evolution. Most people in the developed world know about it. Unfortunately the teaching of this extremely well documented body of evidence is banned in most Islamic countries... probably because if you learn the evidence behind evolution it will make you question the validity of your religious teachings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So how many recorded 'big bangs' out there and what sort of timeline we are looking at & perhaps a reference.

Are you proposing multiple universes or many big bags but just one universe?

 

There are many references on the web.. I am not allowed to post links yet I don't think, but here is one

 

cosmologytalk.tribe(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/thread/50163ecd-973b-47c1-80ac-6aa0534a34e7

 

I don't know exactly how many.. again.. we don't know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

-uh uh are we going to have a shangkenstein??..Signing off for now, be back later IA..:-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look up: "Craig Venter unveils "synthetic life" on youtube

 

or

 

watch?v=QHIocNOHd7A (add that to the youtube(contact admin if its a beneficial link))

 

 

Look up "multiple universe theory" in google

 

(sorry link did not go through correctly because of permissions)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
-uh uh are we going to have a shangkenstein??..Signing off for now, be back later IA..:-)

 

 

Haha!! Or maybe make a female one...

 

Me too. I enjoyed our discussion.

 

Peace Brother

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Knowledge and reason tell us that things cannot come from nothing nor things that did not exist in the first place can brought themselves into existence. Do you agree with this or not?

 

It is with enormous disapointment that science found this to be untrue. Sadly whilst that is true(almost allways) for large scale events in the sub-atomic it often happens.

 

Frustrating universe isn't it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DO you or the entire humankind ever experienced things coming from nothing?

Answer yes or no..

Xocoti??..he's gone, let me answer that: NO!!

Have we or the entire human race ever experienced things that did not exist, brought themselves into existence? NO..

 

Have we and the entire humankind ever experienced chaos brought into existence systems and orders?

..

 

Well this this was addressed to me I guess I feel obliged to answer.

 

1. Has mankind ever experienced things coming from nothing?

 

Yes, there are various particles that do appear out of no where and it is hypothesized that they occur because of quantum mechanics. People keep the assumption that matter and energy cannot be created and destroyed because the lack of concrete evidence that these particles are coming from nothing. So yes, humans have, but I think you are making fair amount of unstated assumptions. How does having something come from nothing prove or disprove God? If things did come from nothing in our experience would that validate or invalidate the premise of theistic God? Even the theistic model believes that something came from nothing, where else did god get the something if not from nothing? I strongly think that if there were concrete evidence that this universe came from nothing, and that things came from nothing all the time you would praise this as evidence of God's divinity that he allows us to see things come from nothing to prove how great he is.

 

Mankind and religion have been down this road before. First, the big bang was evidence against a God, and now it is proof that he exists. Evolution was seen as a godless heresy, but now it shows God's majesty. Well at least some of the time, religion people haven't quite made up their mind if it or not which is why we see half of religious people of various faiths saying its evil, the other half saying its God's plan, and some more saying evolution is fine, but man didn't evolve. The acrobatics involved are tremendous. The issue behind it is that God is always found just out of reach and just into the unknown. He always has been and always will be.

 

The next question is so what? Rationally and logically we may assume that the universe had a beginning ( or possibly a loop), we may identify this idea or force as "the first cause" or "the prime mover" as Aristotle did and that is as far as we can go rationally and logically. That means rationally and logically based on the the idea of the cosmology argument everyone at the most can be a deist, or in other words believe that some force created the universe and set it in motion, but thats it. Once you start identifying this force as a cogent being who has wants, desires, makes demands, is personal etc you have to link that entity itself with the creation of the universe and not just a generic "first cause". It is not enough to say 1. The universe had a cause 2 That cause was Allah 3 Therefor Islam is true. You have to logically prove what you assume, and no one has done that. Not Muhammad, not Jesus, not Buddha, not Moses, no one. It is fine if you want to believe in Islam but understand that there is plenty of room for doubt and understand that if someone said, " You still haven't shown me the rational for how or why Allah exists" that they are probably going to doubt you, not because they evil or just don't want to know but that the force of evidence behind it is lacking.

Edited by xocoti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3. Order coming from chaos is described scientifically in Chaos Theory.

Chaos Theory describes systems that are so complex and dynamic that in order to determine the determine the outcome or prediction of outcomes, one must know the exact state of the triggering events. Even if one does know the exact state of the triggering events, even in a deterministic system, the outcomes are impossible to predict. Chaos Theory therefore is not Order coming from Chaos. Chaos Theory could be pointed to if one wished to discuss a god event. We do not know the initial state or event triggering the creation of reality. We believe we know many things. We have know way to predict the final outcome of that creation event. Science is not based completely on fact, but rather much of science is based on belief. We know this, so we believe this should follow suit. There is a law: Matter cannot be created or destroyed. This law has not been violated that we know of, even in quantum level events. This law is based on some tested facts that have held SO far, as well as beliefs that it should hold under all conditions. Quantum physics is still an infant, as really is all of science. They are just beginning to scratch the surface of how our cells operate at a quantum level, even communicate, and are studying quantum brain biology and the study of neural communication at the quantum level. All this is happening. However, it is all based on chains and chains of beliefs that get overturned when new facts or beliefs emerge. It is a dynamic system we cannon predict the outcome of. This infinitely wonderful complexity came from a single initiating event. Science speaks in terms of multi-dimensions and multiple 'worlds', string theory, and other wonderful belief systems that are budding fresh. Yet for all of those gifted scientists and great minds, who among you and I can and have proved the world is round. You and I go out and we see the horizon and we are told the world is round, or by some that it is flat, yet who among us has proved it to ourselves to make sure it's fact? We believe. Science is belief. So is belief in the Anti-God. Atheism would have you believe it is based on reason, logic, fact, but is no less a belief system than any religion, nor is it worshiped less. See here its crusaders spreading its word to the unbeliever. Were they to be scientifically honest, they'd be agnostic, a wise stance and in holding with Chaos Theory. A stance of many scientists. But no, they worship Anti-God instead and say they know what happened at the initiating event and all other following events. They know the source and the outcomes. They alone, based on beliefs. As we preach to them, they preach to us. There is little difference. We say we know because we are counselled by that initial Event, while they say they know because they are counselled by men. There will be no gain on either side until we stop trying to sell our goods to each other and deal with the things that matter, together, such as using our resources and knowledge to lift the people of this complex world out of pain and strife.

 

panentheist13

 

 

...end rant :sl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is with enormous disapointment that science found this to be untrue. Sadly whilst that is true(almost allways) for large scale events in the sub-atomic it often happens.

Frustrating universe isn't it.

Ahh we have Tim the plumber to share his wisdom..Hey Tim don't count on your sidekick xocoti too much.. he buggered off and left Shangstein all by himself to take all the punches,,chicken..

I take it that what you are alluding to here is the so called 'string theory' and 'virtual particles'? If you let me share my limited knowledge..Science started the concept of gravitational attraction with Newton apple fell on my head Newton and this later was 'enhanced (not replaced) by Enstein's relativity. The latest theory is this so called 'string theorem'. In short this is a mathematical theory on how two masses interact with each other. So in short if you hold two opposite magnets on both of your ears, your brain would be filled with these tiny massless strings..So just like magic, these tiny massless strings appeared from 'nothing' ..

 

Look Tim, it is impossible for something to come from nothing, that is the law of logic and common sense. That is why everyone who participate on this thread had not directly admitted that, because they know full well that would mean defying logic and entering the never never land where cuckoos and loonies reside..

 

Look up: "Craig Venter unveils "synthetic life" on youtube

Uhh you call that 'creating' life?

Sorry pal, that is not even anywhere close in my book. Fists the guy actually copied the existing DNA/genome of existing microb, changed a few lines of codes using computer (the parts that they understood and can decipher of course) and plant it back into an existing cell. That's more like changing one tyre of a car and claim you created the entire car..

I tell you what I would be interested in, how about creating a fly? That would be something wouldn't it?

Edited by RAHIMI

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a little bit more than that. While I don't cheer for his side, knowledge is knowledge.

 

Just Wiki on String Theorem

 

It doesn't help the atheist argument, really, as I see it. Only adds to the ultra complexity, and beauty, of, I'll call it, the Initiating Event. Heh. Science is a wonderful lens through which to see the work of the divine methinks. Wonder upon wonder.

 

 

-panentheist13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Points taken, I would presume that the theorem involve gravity, space,energy and time, right? The last time I checked, prior to big bang there were none of those., i.e absolute nothing. enlighten me..

Edited by RAHIMI

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one has a good idea of what existed before the big bang. Like a massive explosion it has erased almost any trace of what was before it. Likewise in a few million years the markers used to know that there was a big bang will be too faint to measure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahh we have Tim the plumber to share his wisdom..Hey Tim don't count on your sidekick xocoti too much.. he buggered off and left Shangstein all by himself to take all the punches,,chicken..

 

Attitudes like this aren't conducive to good conversation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My contribution to this thread:

 

For everyday, every week, every year brings more and more evidence that the Qur'an is a force to be contended with - that its authenticity is no longer to be challenged! For example, one verse in the Qur'an reads;

 

"Do not the unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together, then We clove them asunder, and made from water every living thing? Will they not then believe?"

 

Ironically, this very information is exactly what they awarded the 1973 Noble Prize for - to a couple of unbelievers. The Qur'an reveals the origin of the universe - how it began from one piece - and mankind continues to verify this revelation, even up to now. Additionally, the fact that all life originated from water would not have been an easy thing to convince people of fourteen centuries ago. Indeed, if 1400 years ago you had stood in the desert and told someone, "All of this, you see (pointing to yourself), is made up of mostly water," no one would have believed you. Proof of that was not available until the invention of the microscope. They had to wait to find out that cytoplasm, the basic substance of the cell, is made-up of 80% water. Nonetheless, the evidence did come, and once again the Qur'an stood the test of time. In reference to the falsification tests mentioned earlier, it is interesting to note that they, too, relate to both the past and the present. Some of them were used as illustrations of Allah's omnipotence and knowledge, while others continue to stand as challenges to the present day. An example of the former is the statement made in the Qur'an about Abu Lahab. It clearly illustrates that Allah, the Knower of the Unseen, knew that Abu Lahab would never change his ways and accept Islam. Thus Allah dictated that he would be condemned to the Hellfire forever. Such a chapter was both an illustration of Allah's divine wisdom and a warning to those who were like Abu Lahab.

 

An interesting example of the latter type of falsification tests contained in the Qur'an is the verse which mentions the relationship between the Muslims and the Jews. The verse is careful not to narrow its scope to the relationship between individual members of each religion, but rather, it summarizes the relationship between the two groups of people as a whole. In essence, the Qur'an states that the Christians will always treat the Muslims better than the Jews will treat the Muslims. Indeed, the full impact of such a statement can only be felt after careful consideration of the real meaning of such a verse. It is true that many Christians and many Jews have become Muslims, but as a whole, the Jewish community is to be viewed as an avid enemy of Islam. Additionally, very few people realize what such an open declaration in the Qur'an invites. In essence, it is an easy chance for the Jews to prove that the Qur'an is false - that it is not a divine revelation. All they have to do is organize themselves, treat the Muslims nicely for a few years and then say, "Now what does your holy book say about who are your best friends in the world - the Jews or the Christians? Look what we Jews have done for you!" That is all they have to do to disprove the Qur'an's authenticity, yet they have not done it in 1400 years. But, as always, the offer still stands open!

 

All of the examples so far given concerning the I various angles from which one can approach the | Qur'an have undoubtedly been subjective in nature; I however there does exist another angle, among others, which is objective and whose basis is mathematical. It is surprising how authentic the Qur'an becomes when one assembles what might be referred to as a list of good guesses. Mathematically, it can be explained using guessing and prediction examples. For instance, if a person has two choices (i.e., one is right, and one is wrong), and he closes his eyes and makes a choice, then half of the time (i.e., one time out of two) he will be right. Basically, he has a one in two chance, for he could pick the wrong choice, or he could pick the right choice. Now if the same person has two situations like that (i.e., he could be right or wrong about situation number one, and he could be right or wrong about situation number two), and he closes his eyes and guesses, then he will only be right one fourth of the time (i.e., one time out of four). He now has a one in four chance because now there are three ways for him to be wrong and only one way for him to be right. In simple terms, he could make the wrong choice in situation number one and then make the wrong choice in situation number two; OR he could make the wrong choice in situation number one and then make the right choice in situation number two; OR he could make the right choice in situation number one and then make the wrong choice in situation number two; OR he could make the right choice in situation number one and then make the right choice in situation number two. Of course, the(only instance in which he could be totally right is the last scenario where he could guess correctly in both situations. The odds of his guessing completely correctly have become greater because the number of situations for him to guess in have increased; and the mathematical equation representing such a scenario is 1/2 x 1/2 (i.e., one time out of two for the first situation multiplied by one time out of two for the second situation).

 

Continuing on with the example, if the same person now has three situations in which to make blind guesses, then he will only be right one eighth of the time (i.e., one time out of eight or 1/2 X 1/2 X 1/2). Again, the odds of choosing the correct choice in all three situations have decreased his chances of being completely correct to only one time in eight. It must be understood that as the number of situations increase, the chances of being right decrease, for the two phenomena are inversely proportional.

 

Now applying this example to the situations in the Qur'an, if one draws up a list of all of the subjects about which the Qur'an has made correct statements, it becomes very clear that it is highly unlikely that they were all just correct blind guesses. Indeed, the subjects discussed in the Qur'an are numerous, and thus the odds of someone just making lucky guesses about all of them become practically nil. If there are a million ways for the Qur'an to be wrong, yet each time it is right, then it is unlikely that someone was guessing. The following three examples of subjects about which the Qur'an has made correct statements collectively illustrate how the Qur'an continues to beat the odds.

 

(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 yetjannah(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/articles/amzquran.html"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetjannah(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/articles/amzquran.html[/url]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Do not the unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together, then We clove them asunder, and made from water every living thing? Will they not then believe?"

Wrong. The heavens and earth were never joined.

 

Living things are made in water from carbon.

 

Look Tim, it is impossible for something to come from nothing, that is the law of logic and common sense. That is why everyone who participate on this thread had not directly admitted that, because they know full well that would mean defying logic and entering the never never land where cuckoos and loonies reside..

It is the law of logic and common sence and wrong. Sadly.

 

The never never land of cuckoos loonies and physics is full of concepts which utterly defy the understanding of all of us including the phyicists who come up with it all. They are able to use their maths to predict results they cannot understand. Weird eh?

 

If I were you I would avoid using physics to justify God because your understanding of the subject will allways be, like mine, not good enough to come to conclusions about "causes" of stuff. The whole concept of cause looses it's meaning in high end physics. I could not cope with the brain ache and hard maths of physics so I did engineering where I couold not cope with the maths and the brain ache of "entropy", or indeed the workload.

 

Chaos maths says that you cannot predict exactly the result of complex deterministic systems but you can make some predictions. e.g.;

 

I cannot know the the weather will be fine or rainy in a months time but I know that in July it will be fairly hot and in december it will be fairly cold. At least it will be here in Sheffield England where it rains a lot.

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  

×