Creation of the night in the Qur'an

[Caladan]

Why go that far back , there are still some nocturnal mammals living among us. Desert people know that too well, yet God speaks to them through one of them( Mohammad PBUH) to affirm that the night/day divide is a blessing for human beings . His assertion is so simple and common sensical even to those desert people who also stay up, go to war, and travel at night and see all kinds of nocturnal desert animals. Whetheror not you believe it was caused by an intelligent and present force, namely God, is a persoanl question for your mind and heart to ponder.

I think you are missing the point. im not talking about whichever nocturnal animals out there, i'm talking about early mammals (of whom we are members of) NOT living their lives in day but by night, as opposed to your poetic description of Allah's division of night and day tailored to human life.

 

[Iman]

I think you are missing the point. im not talking about whichever nocturnal animals out there, i'm talking about early mammals (of whom we are members of) NOT living their lives in day but by night, as opposed to your poetic description of Allah's division of night and day tailored to human life.

Are you saying that you think humans and dinosaurs coexisted? I think you're way off. The first human, to whom this statement is addressed, never existed until millions of years after the extinction of dinosaurs. I thought that was elementary. Human beings as a species have always been more active during the day light and their eyesight and other physiological traits are more compatible with active daylife as opposed to night.

 

[McBell]

Are you saying that you think humans and dinosaurs coexisted? I think you're way off. The first human, to whom this statement is addressed, never existed until millions of years after the extinction of dinosaurs. I thought that was elementary. Human beings as a species have always been more active during the day light and their eyesight and other physiological traits are more compatible with active daylife as opposed to night.

 

[Caladan]

Are you saying that you think humans and dinosaurs coexisted? I think you're way off. The first human, to whom this statement is addressed, never existed until millions of years after the extinction of dinosaurs. I thought that was elementary. Human beings as a species have always been more active during the day light and their eyesight and other physiological traits are more compatible with active daylife as opposed to night.

Oh boy..

 

[skydivephil]

Response: You'll get credit perhaps for producing the longest strawman in this post but that's about it. And there's too many in just this post alone to point out without one point being overshadowed by the other. So like always, I'll break them one at a time.

First one, you claim that I've said:

"So according to you, people that write dictionaries are more of an authority over the subject matter on atmospheric physics than atmospheric physicists, you really do live in a fantasy world."

Now the fun part. Quote any post of mine in which I say that dictionaries have more authority over the subject matter on atmospheric physics than an atmospheric physicist", if you are truthful.

Sure you said it here:
post 167
"Response: Then the scientists are playing with words if they are defining words with different definitions then the actual word and what the dictionary says. Scientists did not invent the english language, so to say that the qur'an is wrong because the language does not match is absurd, thereby it doesn't disprove the logic of the qur'an."

 

[skydivephil]

I will address the two fairly new points raised in your last two responses. First why one religion and not another? In the context of this discussion I am building a case for religion in general as opposed to atheistic materialism that you and skydivephil seem to stand for. In general, religion is not measured in the same way as science or emerging scientific facts because the realm of religion is metaphysics rather than physics. That being said, I stated in my previos posts that the facts that there has been a string of prophets with a fairly consistent, simple and logical message is in itself proof that God is communicating with us. I do believe in all the revealed messages of God including Judaism and Christianity. Islam is the culmination of all revelation and the Quran is the most authoritative and direct communication between heaven and earth. Unlike all other holy books, it is given in the first person, so God is speaking to us word for word in a sacred preserved unchanging text in the same language inwhich it was revealed 14 centuries ago. If you want details about why Islam and not Christianity or Judaism or Budhism, then that's another topic for another discussion but it is not because it gives me scientific knowledge for future generations, but for other profound and holistic criteria that may in themselevs vary from one person to another. I think I am right in following Islam but I respect other people's choices. In addition, the examples you cite including the creation of the earth or the universe are actually compatible with the Quran as interpreted by early Muslims who were the first to adopt the view that the earth was round and that the universe was all connected and started to expand after a cosmic tear. It is not that the Quran talks about scientific facts, but when you read it (properly) you realize the level of depth, authority and knowledge with which it articulates natural phenomena.

The second point is whether a text needs to be either true or false if it carries truth or falsehood. The Quran never speaks explicitly about the shape of earth or the big bang, but speaks about God's creation in highly literary language, yet you can find plenty of evidence to support recent findings such as the movement of the earth which is mentioned unequivocaly in the Quran" And you see the mountains and think that they are still, while in reality, they are moving like clouds". This kind of authority that does not shock 7th century audience is to me extremely effective and prudent.
As for the completion of the Quran, yes it is self endowed, and complete. Its words will not change, but the meanings they carry will evolve as we evolve our understanding of the world and as our societies and needs also evolve. The Prophet Mohammad says" Oh Muslims,God will send you someone every one hundred years to renew your religion for you". Yes it is complete and the text will not change, it is our understanding and application of it that should.

Early Muslims were the first to adopt the idea the Earth was round? I dont think so.
You may want to read about Eratosthenes who lived about 800 years before Islam:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes
More importantly round does not describe the shape of the Earth adequatley. A disc is round, so the phrase round does not describe its 3d shape and doesnt tell us whether its flat or not. The most accurate shape is that of an oblate spheroid. Don't remember that being mentioned in the Qur'an.
Look at these ancient models of the Universe, one they are round, two they are flat, three they sem to match the Qur'an very well:
Cosmology and Cosmogony of Ancient Civilizations Brent Meeker
perhaps you can also address my point earlier, Ill restate it :
if you can redefine the text to make it fit what you want, then the text is meaningless.

 

[Iman]

Oh boy..

I am trying to make sesne of your point. What does your argument that early mammals who may be the far ancestors of human beings were active during the night, have to do with the statement that daytime is more suited to the needs of humanbeings? Are you referring to the fact that day/night divide was there before the begining of human life on earth? If so, then even the story of creation states that day/and night as well as the earth as we know it were created before Adam, inwhich case it was Adam who was created to suit the night/day distiction not the other way round. But the reference in the Quran is simple than that and refers to a known by common sense reality that , regardless of how, God created day/night divide that is most appropriate and conducive of human activity/rejuvination. You also cannot use a statement addressed to one species and apply it to another. In the theory of evolution even the single cell, sea life and vegetation may also be far ancestors of human beings.

 

[Caladan]

I am trying to make sesne of your point. What does your argument that early mammals who may be the far ancestors of human beings were active during the night, have to do with the statement that daytime is more suited to the needs of humanbeings? Are you referring to the fact that day/night divide was there before the begining of human life on earth? If so, then even the story of creation states that day/and night as well as the earth as we know it were created before Adam, inwhich case it was Adam who was created to suit the night/day distiction not the other way round. But the reference in the Quran is simple than that and refers to a known by common sense reality that , regardless of how, God created day/night divide that is most appropriate and conducive of human activity/rejuvination. You also cannot use a statement addressed to one species and apply it to another. In the theory of evolution even the single cell, sea life and vegetation may also be far ancestors of human beings.

Hi Iman,

I was beginning to answer you, and then went on to read your entire post. dont take offense, but since I can see where this is going. I'll just stop this debate from my part in its infancy, as you are knowingly or unknowingly enter the realm of circular reasoning, from which only you can remove yourself.

 

[Iman]

Early Muslims were the first to adopt the idea the Earth was round? I dont think so.
You may want to read about Eratosthenes who lived about 800 years before Islam:
Eratosthenes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
More importantly round does not describe the shape of the Earth adequatley. A disc is round, so the phrase round does not describe its 3d shape and doesnt tell us whether its flat or not. The most accurate shape is that of an oblate spheroid. Don't remember that being mentioned in the Qur'an.
Look at these ancient models of the Universe, one they are round, two they are flat, three they sem to match the Qur'an very well:
Cosmology and Cosmogony of Ancient Civilizations Brent Meeker
perhaps you can also address my point earlier, Ill restate it :
if you can redefine the text to make it fit what you want, then the text is meaningless.

Skydivephil,
I have addressed your last point several times. An ancient divine text is not concerned with scientific facts and theories. A great and universal text will have enough fluidity in matters of natural phenomena to accommodate changing human perceptions. You are not familiar with Arabic which is the original language of the Quran. If you were, you'd know more about the literary style of the Quran which has many layers of meaning. You will also have access to a massive body of interpretations that does not necessarily agree with the literal meaning you may want to cite.

The Quran again does not refer to the shape of earth explicitly, the early Muslim astronomers such as Al Idrisi drew one of the first maps of the world illustrating an egg shaped globe. In their scietific pursuits, early Muslims never thought that there were scietific mandates stated in the Quran to prevent them from free thinking. In fact, even with the theory of evolution, some attribute its beginings to AviSina, and the group called Ikhwan Assafa that lived a few centuries after the prophet during the times of the Islamic Caliphate. Your literal arguments and trying to measure words with a ruler are really futile in trying to explain or evaluate an ancient text with the depth, richness and higher objectives such as the Quran.

 

[Fatihah]

Response: Simply amazing. I asked you in post 37:

First one, you claim that I've said:

"So according to you, people that write dictionaries are more of an authority over the subject matter on atmospheric physics than atmospheric physicists, you really do live in a fantasy world."

Now the fun part. Quote any post of mine in which I say that dictionaries have more authority over the subject matter on atmospheric physics than an atmospheric physicist", if you are truthful.

To which you've responded in post 45 with:

Sure you said it here:
post 167
"Response: Then the scientists are playing with words if they are defining words with different definitions then the actual word and what the dictionary says. Scientists did not invent the english language, so to say that the qur'an is wrong because the language does not match is absurd, thereby it doesn't disprove the logic of the qur'an."

Once again demonstrating your inabilty to comprehend. The words, "people that write dictionaries are more of an authority over the subject matter on atmospheric physics than atmospheric physicists" are not to be found in the first post, nor is there anything synonymous to it. The word "authoritive" is not there. The word "physicists" is not there. The word "atmospheric" is not there". Nor are there any synonymous. So how can it mean that if the words are not there? Does "The dog is fast" mean the same as "the cat is fast"? No. Because "dog" and "cat" are not synonymous words. This is simple english. But according to your logic, it is. That's absurd. Any even a person with half a brain can see just how illogical your whole claim is. You never fail to amaze Mr. Strawman.

 

[skydivephil]

You keep going on about english but you seem to have a complete lack of understanding of it.
Words and sentences have implications. The Qur'an for example never says atheists are going to hell. But it does say non believers are. From that we can conclude that as atheists fall within the definition of a non believer, the Qur'an implies they are gong to hell. We can infer a meaning beyond the strict words. would you be unable to infer a man was shot if you heard this statement?
"hes was found dead with two bullets in his head" , after all the word "shot" was nowhere in the sentence. It doesnt need to be we can infer it. This is simple logic.

Now perhaps you could tell us do you accept scientists conclusion that there are five layers of the atmosphere or do you not? the reason you previously said you didnt was becuase of what is in the dictionary, the implication of your words seems clear to me.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

First why one religion and not another? In the context of this discussion I am building a case for religion in general as opposed to atheistic materialism that you and skydivephil seem to stand for.

You miss the point. The question is not essentially about which religion is the true one. The question is related to the ability or the method that can or should be used to find the truth. We are talking about verification, falsification, reason and logic.

In general, religion is not measured in the same way as science or emerging scientific facts because the realm of religion is metaphysics rather than physics.

I see no reason why one would have to accept a simple excuse formulated as a claim.
Just because you say that religion is not measured (by you) in the same way as science doesn't make that the right way to deal with religion. Why shouldn't I apply the same level of scepticizm on religions that I apply on all other things?
If it is for the reason that metaphysics are not verifiable and testable like physics then of course you render metaphysics sophistry and meaningless. Anybody can say anything and you have no means to argue about whether it is false or not.

Now perhaps you just want to say that religion should be judged, but it should be judged "differently" than science. That would be an interesting claim. What however is missing is the method that should be applied.
It is not sufficient to say "religion must be judged differently". You must also include th details of "how" exactly it should be judged and why it should be judged that way. This however is something that you did't do. So when you speak about "proper" reading then this is meaningless unless you define what proper reading is. Ad that would have to be a view that would need to be valid for religions in general.

That being said, I stated in my previos posts that the facts that there has been a string of prophets with a fairly consistent, simple and logical message is in itself proof that God is communicating with us. I do believe in all the revealed messages of God including Judaism and Christianity.

You are not speaking about "facts". You already speak about a specific interpretation from the islamic point of view. Islam states that God had sent prophets to all people throughout time with the same message (islam). Islam states that God revealed the message and the people modified the teachings resulting in wrong Torahs, wrong Bibles etc.
But when you want to talk about "facts" then you would have to look at it from a neutral perspective. And there is simply no proof that the prophets were related to one another. Actually when you look at the scriptures you see wide differences between their teachings and also their view on god or even whether there is one single god at all.
You are even inconsistent here because according to your above statement you would have to be a bahai....

Islam is the culmination of all revelation and the Quran is the most authoritative and direct communication between heaven and earth.

Again this is not evidence based reasoning but simply belief. Belief for which again you have not provided any proof.
While you say this, a christian may say the same about the bible, a jew about the torah and a buddist about his book.

Unlike all other holy books, it is given in the first person, so God is speaking to us word for word in a sacred preserved unchanging text in the same language inwhich it was revealed 14 centuries ago.

Again that is simply a statement, no proof. Anybody can write from the first person. The claim that all was unchanged ... well again... how would you proove that? Is this also something "metaphysical"?

If you want details about why Islam and not Christianity or Judaism or Budhism, then that's another topic for another discussion...

You said above that you would make a general case for religion. Yet you wrote mainly about an islamic viewpoint of yours. And you didn't so far provide any method by which one would conclude that a religion is true.
So what should I do with your post?
Here now you write that you would talk about the "reasons" for choosing islam over others in another thread if need be. Well what remains? You didn't provide a reason for religion itself, you didn't provide a method for judging a religion and you didn't provide the reasons why you have chosen yours.
What we end up with is what i said at the very beginning: its obviously an arbitrary thing for as long as no details are given.

but for other profound and holistic criteria that may in themselevs vary from one person to another.

Truth normally shouldnt vary from person to person.
Remember that what you said above is something that for example a drug addict could also say. If you think your views are more enlightened or better than those then you should provide more than just simple subjectivity.

I think I am right in following Islam but I respect other people's choices.

Its a good thing to hear. One might wonder how you got that view while reading through the quran. The best I could read out of it would ba a tolerance of other views.

In addition, the examples you cite including the creation of the earth or the universe are actually compatible with the Quran as interpreted by early Muslims who were the first to adopt the view that the earth was round and that the universe was all connected and started to expand after a cosmic tear. It is not that the Quran talks about scientific facts, but when you read it (properly) you realize the level of depth, authority and knowledge with which it articulates natural phenomena.

The whole paragraph rests on one single word: "properly". What is that? When you read the quran properly then there are no contradictions. Thats the same statement you hear from everybody else as well. When you think in the bible you will find contradictions rest assured that some christian will just tell you to read it properly. What exactly is properly? When you look at the passage of time and the different religions then you might come to the conclusion that "properly" means "in a way that doesnt contradict".
Then however by mere definition things never contradict;-)

The second point is whether a text needs to be either true or false if it carries truth or falsehood. The Quran never speaks explicitly about the shape of earth or the big bang, but speaks about God's creation in highly literary language, yet you can find plenty of evidence to support recent findings such as the movement of the earth which is mentioned unequivocaly in the Quran" And you see the mountains and think that they are still, while in reality, they are moving like clouds". This kind of authority that does not shock 7th century audience is to me extremely effective and prudent.
As for the completion of the Quran, yes it is self endowed, and complete. Its words will not change, but the meanings they carry will evolve as we evolve our understanding of the world and as our societies and needs also evolve. The Prophet Mohammad says" Oh Muslims,God will send you someone every one hundred years to renew your religion for you". Yes it is complete and the text will not change, it is our understanding and application of it that should.

The last sentence could be summarized in one word: bida. And bida is forbidden as you should know. As I said before if you followed your doctrine then you would already be a Ahmadiyat or a bahai. They all claim to have their own renewers of islam. Strangely enough you reject them. What reasons would you bring forth?
Now when it comes to the scientific claims made in the Quran or as you say the highly literal language that contains "plenty of evidence to support recent findings", I think you are somewhat reading more into it than there is. The mountain passages are an example for "wishful" interpretation. You refer to a verse that is set in the time of "yaum al qiyama".

I have had that science in the quran debate already 20 years ago with a lot of scholars and scientists.
Most interestingly after something is read into the quran and science for example finds out that it is wrong nobody draws the conclusion that the quran is wrong making the claim. No suddenly it happens that the new scientific discovery is already to be found and the old one not.
Whenever something doesnt fit it is ignored. Stars are of course not created to drive away satans. And TODAY you know that. So suddenly this verse has a different meaning than before. A sceptical mind would simply conclude that the author of the book actually meant what the people understood some 1400 years ago. And thus that the author simply was a human of that time.
You as believer simply can't allow that to be true, hence you start reinterpreting.
All the more reason to demand a proper method of investigation for religions.

 

[Iman]

ThereIsNoSpoon,

Correct me if I misunderstand but your major argument is that there needs to be reasonable and rational criteria by which to assess religions to figure out which are true and which are not. I agree. However, the criteria is not the same as science. Even within various sciences, the criteria vary. In human 'sciences' including sociology and history, there is use of historical evidence but there is no direct observation or experimentation as is the case in physical sciences. Science utilizes direct observation, hypothesizing and direct experimentation to verify. That method cannot be used with humanities let alone belief systems. However, if it is your objective to understand the thought processes of a believer, I will try to walk you in the footsteps of a believer, a Muslim in particular. If you observe the workings of the world around you and your own existence, both self evident or through emerging scientific findings and think to yourself, there has to be an intelligent force behind all that, you've crossed a major threshold on the road to belief. If you observe the world and say , 'there is nothing behind it, it is all self propelled and a sequence of accidents over a long period of time', you have no need to go any further. No religion or system of belief will sound real to you. However, once you've crossed that threshold, you are bound to assume that the intelligent and purposeful force out there must communicate with human beings to let us know things about It and about ourselves that are otherwise inaccessibe through mere observation and reasonong. The answer then will lie in revealed religions which state that they are from a Higher Deity that created the world and is present to foresee it. Throughout history, we've had such revelations and as far as I know they all preached monotheism and an afterlife. Historically, revealed texts were either lost, translated and interpreted several times over to the detriment of the original message as people did not develop yet enough tools to preserve these texts or narratives in their original form. There had to be a final text that is thorough, authoritative, yet pliable and yielding to a multiplicity of evolving human perceptions , preserved in its original form and inclusive of other revelations. The Quran, form and content, fit that description. There is so much to say about the Quran and why it is unique, authoritative, and universal in its appeal. But you can research that on your own. If you expect me to give you a mathematical equasion ending with, therefore there is God and Islam is the final and correct religion, I'm afraid I cannot help you. It is all simpler and more elementary than digging into specific details without first looking at the big picture, missing the forest for the trees.

 

[Fatihah]

You keep going on about english but you seem to have a complete lack of understanding of it.
Words and sentences have implications. The Qur'an for example never says atheists are going to hell. But it does say non believers are. From that we can conclude that as atheists fall within the definition of a non believer, the Qur'an implies they are gong to hell. We can infer a meaning beyond the strict words. would you be unable to infer a man was shot if you heard this statement?
"hes was found dead with two bullets in his head" , after all the word "shot" was nowhere in the sentence. It doesnt need to be we can infer it. This is simple logic.

Now perhaps you could tell us do you accept scientists conclusion that there are five layers of the atmosphere or do you not? the reason you previously said you didnt was becuase of what is in the dictionary, the implication of your words seems clear to me.

Response: I also said that not only is the word(s) not there, but neither is their anything "synonymous" to it. Thus your whole point is pointless and once again demonstrates your inability to comprehend. Your inability to comprehend is your fault, not the qur'an. As for your question, it's already been explained. But due to your inability to comprehend english, you've failed to grasp it.

 

[skydivephil]

Response: I also said that not only is the word(s) not there, but n "synoneither is their anythingymous" to it. Thus your whole point is pointless and once again demonstrates your inability to comprehend. Your inability to comprehend is your fault, not the qur'an. As for your question, it's already been explained. But due to your inability to comprehend english, you've failed to grasp it.

As has been pointed out to you you cant just claim something with a rationale behind it. You say youve made no claim synonmous with claiming dictionary authors know more about atmopspheric physics than atmospheric physicists yet the reason you gave for rejecting the five layers of the atmosphere given by atmospheric physicists was because the dictionary definition didnt mention thermal properties.
Your own words:
"Then the scientists are playing with words if they are defining words with different definitions then the actual word and what the dictionary says. Scientists did not invent the english language, so to say that the qur'an is wrong because the language does not match is absurd, thereby it doesn't disprove the logic of the qur'an."

Are you seriously telling me that this statement is not meant to imply dictionary authorities take precendence over scentific one?
Since you refuse to give us your definition of atmosheric layers and we all know why you wont do that dont we? perhaps you could answer some of the other questions posed to you: for example n the pasage in the qur'an
"So He ordained them seven heavens in two periods, and revealed in every heaven its affair; and We adorned the lower heaven with brilliant stars and (made it) to guard;
you claim the seven layers are atmospheric layers and the stars are not strars but the light from stars. But the lowest layer of the atmopshere is the troposphere and the stars are visibile in all the layers abve it. How do you explain that?

 

[skydivephil]

ThereIsNoSpoon,

Correct me if I misunderstand but your major argument is that there needs to be reasonable and rational criteria by which to assess religions to figure out which are true and which are not. I agree. However, the criteria is not the same as science. Even within various sciences, the criteria vary. In human 'sciences' including sociology and history, there is use of historical evidence but there is no direct observation or experimentation as is the case in physical sciences. Science utilizes direct observation, hypothesizing and direct experimentation to verify. That method cannot be used with humanities let alone belief systems. However, if it is your objective to understand the thought processes of a believer, I will try to walk you in the footsteps of a believer, a Muslim in particular. If you observe the workings of the world around you and your own existence, both self evident or through emerging scientific findings and think to yourself, there has to be an intelligent force behind all that, you've crossed a major threshold on the road to belief. If you observe the world and say , 'there is nothing behind it, it is all self propelled and a sequence of accidents over a long period of time', you have no need to go any further. No religion or system of belief will sound real to you. However, once you've crossed that threshold, you are bound to assume that the intelligent and purposeful force out there must communicate with human beings to let us know things about It and about ourselves that are otherwise inaccessibe through mere observation and reasonong. The answer then will lie in revealed religions which state that they are from a Higher Deity that created the world and is present to foresee it. Throughout history, we've had such revelations and as far as I know they all preached monotheism and an afterlife. Historically, revealed texts were either lost, translated and interpreted several times over to the detriment of the original message as people did not develop yet enough tools to preserve these texts or narratives in their original form. There had to be a final text that is thorough, authoritative, yet pliable and yielding to a multiplicity of evolving human perceptions , preserved in its original form and inclusive of other revelations. The Quran, form and content, fit that description. There is so much to say about the Quran and why it is unique, authoritative, and universal in its appeal. But you can research that on your own. If you expect me to give you a mathematical equasion ending with, therefore there is God and Islam is the final and correct religion, I'm afraid I cannot help you. It is all simpler and more elementary than digging into specific details without first looking at the big picture, missing the forest for the trees.

Your claims about science are not correct. You make a false dichotomy between social and physical sciences saying pysicical sciences use direct observation and social sciences dont. This is wrong. No one ever directly observed an electron before we had evidence it existed, no one has ever directly obseved a black hole yet we have good evidence they exist.
All science is based upon one critreira: evidence . Social sciences are the same , theY do use diret observation and experiments:
Experimental economics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Experimental psychology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

of course we should be less confident in the conclusions of social sciences and humanities becuase human behavour is more subject to change than the behaviour of atoms or molecules. Its also harder to control for other variables in humanties. But that doesnt make it impossible. For example , one hypthoesis is that legalsing abortion in the 1970's in the USA led to a drop in the crime rate in the 1990's. How did social scienctists test this? They found a number of states that changed their abortion laws before the nation as a whole did. Therefore the data should show these states should have seen a fall in their crime rates earlier than others. Thats exactly what they found. Read here:
SSRN-The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime by John Donohue, Steven Levitt


All claims about objective features of the world should be based upon one criteria: evidence. Revelation is not evidence.

I also have to question what you say about crossing the threshold and being bound to believe in:
an "intelligent and purposeful force out there must communicate with human beings to let us know things about It a"
There are plenty of deists out there, who believe in an intelligent force that does not communicate with its creation"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

even if we accepted an intelligent designer why must we assume it needs to communicate with its creation?
Are you aware some scientist speculate it might be possible to create another universe in an experiment?
Sentido.tv :: Science :: Physicists in Japan Plan to Create New Universe in Lab

Suppose they can do this, the implication is that they would not be able to commuicate with the univrse they have created, and even if they could why should we assume they will?

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

ThereIsNoSpoon,

Correct me if I misunderstand but your major argument is that there needs to be reasonable and rational criteria by which to assess religions to figure out which are true and which are not. I agree. However, the criteria is not the same as science.

It is very good that you agree.
Now you make the same claim that you already made earlier, namely that it shouldn't be the same criteria.
As long as the criteria are based on resaon and rationality I see no problem.

Now what you didn't say last time and didn't say this time either although I explicitly asked for it is:
"What are the criteria?"
Since You agree with me I would assume that you have exactly those criteria that we both supposedly demand for verifying a religion.
So it shouldnt be a problem to write them down here so we can check the religions according to them (provided they are reasonable and rational).

I left out your paragraph about the different sciences because it doesn't actually fit. When we talk about science we do talk about one basic and fundamental method. The means and the details may vary depending on the field of science, but the basics don't. We talk about evidence, falsification, verification, predictions.

Science utilizes direct observation, hypothesizing and direct experimentation to verify. That method cannot be used with [..omitted..] belief systems.

You state so. You do neither provide evidence nor proof why it has to be so.
Anyway ... i await your criteria and method for determining the correctness of a faith system.

However, if it is your objective to understand the thought processes of a believer, I will try to walk you in the footsteps of a believer, a Muslim in particular.

This is not my intention. I do already know that process and i do already know the islamic perspective.

If you observe the workings of the world around you and your own existence, both self evident or through emerging scientific findings and think to yourself, there has to be an intelligent force behind all that, you've crossed a major threshold on the road to belief. If you observe the world and say , 'there is nothing behind it, it is all self propelled and a sequence of accidents over a long period of time', you have no need to go any further. No religion or system of belief will sound real to you.

Your reasoning is not very convincing. Basically you say that you require a leap of faith in order to have faith. If you don't make that leap then no faith will ever be.
So you demand faith in what you actually supposedly want to give reasonable and rational criteria for.
Think about that.

The rest of your statement just worsens it by making more and more speculative assumptions based on your own already implanted wishes and your faith. There is no logically conclusive chain here. And of course when it comes to such things as revelations and supposed unalteredness of them you betray your specific belief as muslim, while others as stated before already would simply conclude the same as true for their own scriptures. So all believers follow similar inconclusive chains that only differ in their ending: their own, special scripture.
But no reason can be given why scripture A or scripture B must be correct just as no conclusive reasoning is given why andthing before the scripture must be true.
There is for example no conclusive reason why a creator "must" speak with its creation. there actually is not even a reason why he must have specifically created our species with some special purpose in mind. He might just as well have experimented. There might just as well be a group of gods that played around. And on and on it goes.

 

[Fatihah]

As has been pointed out to you you cant just claim something with a rationale behind it. You say youve made no claim synonmous with claiming dictionary authors know more about atmopspheric physics than atmospheric physicists yet the reason you gave for rejecting the five layers of the atmosphere given by atmospheric physicists was because the dictionary definition didnt mention thermal properties.
Your own words:
"Then the scientists are playing with words if they are defining words with different definitions then the actual word and what the dictionary says. Scientists did not invent the english language, so to say that the qur'an is wrong because the language does not match is absurd, thereby it doesn't disprove the logic of the qur'an."

Are you seriously telling me that this statement is not meant to imply dictionary authorities take precendence over scentific one?
Since you refuse to give us your definition of atmosheric layers and we all know why you wont do that dont we? perhaps you could answer some of the other questions posed to you: for example n the pasage in the qur'an
"So He ordained them seven heavens in two periods, and revealed in every heaven its affair; and We adorned the lower heaven with brilliant stars and (made it) to guard;
you claim the seven layers are atmospheric layers and the stars are not strars but the light from stars. But the lowest layer of the atmopshere is the troposphere and the stars are visibile in all the layers abve it. How do you explain that?

Response: Are you seriously confirming once again that you can't comprehend simple english? Clearly the statement means that a dictionary has the proper definition of words. The simple fact that you are questioning that just shows just how absurd you're willing to go. And yes, we do all know why I won't provide a definition of "atmospheric layers" because you're the same person who doesn't know the difference between a "classification" and a "definition". So because of your inability to comprehend, explaining simple english words (which a child would understand) would be pointless because, after all, you can't comprehend. As for the verse, this is another one of your famous strawman. For we're in a thread which you've created in which the topic is "Creation of the night in the qur'an", in which you question a particular verse, yet here you are talking about atmospheric layers and stars in the lower heaven from another verse. Classic strawman, which by the way, people only use to run away from a point in a conversation. Thanks for the confirmation.

 

[skydivephil]

Can you provide a single academic source that makes the distinction between "classification" and 'definition" of an atmospheric layer? Just one?

 

[Iman]

Skydivephil & ThereIsNoSpoon,

First of all, I never pretended to be anything but a Muslim and if I am one then I would have to argue for the Islamic perspective rather than the Hindu or Christian perspective. I know you are atheists and your arguments are going precisely in that direction.
If you can't see evidence of an intelliegent force in the universe and believe that a haphazard and accidental chain of events could have resulted in the meticulous universe and the presence of life, intelligence and consciousness, it is you not I who is making a dangerous leap of faith. Second, who says that revelation is not evidence in itself. If it were only one or two figures who came and claimed to have such close contact with the divine, you may be right in your skepticism, but it is a string of prophets in different times , places and historical contexts who claimed the same thing, one God, and an afterlife. Their message was substantial andconsistent. It had strong appeal and followers who number more than half of earth population. They were certainly not crazy and their message touched an instictive cord for all of us humanbeings. We need God in our lives, We needed Him yesterday, we need Him now and we will always need Him in our lives.Can all these messangers be delusional or lying? My common sense says No. A series of witnesses to the same act are admissable in court, why not here?
As for Islam, I have already talked about it as the natural culmination for all revelations and why I think that. In the end, faith and belief are personal issues. You will never produce evidence that God is not here. You argue that disbelief is the default mode for human beings. I think belief in God is the default mode of humanbeings. There will always be variations in the reasoning of individuals and I am _unlike you_ realistic enough to admit that there is no argument or equasion that will lead all fairly intelligent people to have the same religious conviction. There are scientists of all specializations who vary in the way they construct their worldviews. I don't have any illusions about that. If you think you can argue humanity into abandoning faith, go ahead.