Creation of Universe, Scriptures vs Science

[KWED]

I could learn something from Hawking? Well yeah, obviously. I try to learn from as many sources as possible, and always keep an open mind - I certainly wouldn’t let a declaration either of atheism or faith prejudice me against the person making the declaration. I urge you to adopt a similar attitude, you might benefit from it.

So do you agree with Hawking about god, the afterlife and philosophy - or are you now done with that disingenuous appeal to authority?

 

[KWED]

Yet nobody mentioned any of this till recently? Could you cite these passages?

This is what I mean by vague and ambiguous prophecies and 'facts'. I think you're being apophenic; seeing patterns where there are none. You're interpreting vague passages to support specific facts. It's wishful thinking, not ancient scientific insight.

People have been finding modern wisdom in all sorts of religious and secular writings for years. Strange that none of the ancients ever ran with it.

This is the thing. It is merely post hoc rationalisation (and that's using "rational" very loosely).
Until a discovery is made because of it being written in the Quran and then confirmed by science, these "prophesies" are utterly meaningless.

 

[Suave]

Firstly, the word used in the Quran means "rolled", like a scroll, not folded.
Second, it is referring to the day of judgement, a final and single act, definitely not a constant, ongoing phenomenon.

What it means is that on the Day of Judgement, Allah will end his creation. The analogy is to show the end of all things. Renowned classical scholar Ibn Kathir explains...
What is meant by Sijill is book. As-Suddi said concerning this Ayah: "As-Sijill is an angel who is entrusted with the records; when a person dies, his Book (of deeds) is taken up to As-Sijill, and he rolls it up and puts it away until the Day of Resurrection.'' But the correct view as narrated from Ibn `Abbas is that As-Sijill refers to the record (of deeds). This was also reported from him by `Ali bin Abi Talhah and Al-`Awfi. This was also stated by Mujahid, Qatadah and others. This was the view favored by Ibn Jarir, because this usage is well-known in the (Arabic) language. Based on the above, the meaning is: the Day when the heaven will be rolled up like a scroll.

I understand English, some Spanish, and a bit of German. However, I don't know Arabic; hence, I must rely on expert translations of the Quran.

 

[Sheldon]

I'd consider the existence of a creator as being a sims controller, a reality based virtual reality programmer of human consciousness as being rather quite plausible.

Scientific breakthroughs, let alone paradigm shifting discoveries, are not announced on YouTube. If there was a scientific consensus we were living in a computer simulation, we'd know about it, and not from YouTube or an online forum discussion.

Again what you are describing is unfalsifiable, it's therefore meaningless, as are all unfalsifiable claims.

 

[KWED]

Please note Quran verse 21:104 "
"The Day when We will fold the heaven like the folding of a [written] sheet for the records...."

I interpret "fold the heaven like the folding of a sheet" such as space being bent for wormholes". Maybe, I'm wrong about this, but how else could anybody interpret a folding of heaven like a sheet of paper?

It is not your interpretation.
But anyway, the analogy used is perfectly clear. It is describing the end of the universe in a way that would resonate with 7th century Arabs. Are wormhole a feature of the ending of the universe of the universe? No. Therefore the wormhole interpretation is clearly wrong.

A couple of verses later it says "Indeed, in this is notification for a worshipping people."
By your method of interpretation, the use of the word "notification" is evidence that the Quran predicted social media.

"Indeed, He knows what is declared and He knows what you conceal."
This clearly prophesies airport scanners and x-ray machines.

We could do this all day...

 

[RestlessSoul]

So do you agree with Hawking about god, the afterlife and philosophy - or are you now done with that disingenuous appeal to authority?

I would love to have had the opportunity for a conversation with Hawking about God, the universe, and philosophy.

Not sure I have much interest in pursuing any of those topics with someone whose only motivation for discussing them is to ridicule others, though.

 

[KWED]

With advanced technology, consciousness may be simulated. Then based on Nick Bostrom's simulation argument, we would most likely be living in a simulation. Of course, with current technology, simulation hypothesis in neither verifiable nor falsifiable. If we were indeed living in base reality, then this might imply intelligent beings becoming extinct before obtaining the technology to realistically simulate universes, I don't want to even consider that intelligent beings become extinct before being able to conduct realistic simulations. Do you?

This is what is known as the "non sequitur" fallacy. Just because simulating consciousness may be possible in the future it does not mean that therefore our consciousness is simulated.

Essentially, you are arguing that because some people have hallucinations, everything we see is therefore a hallucination.

 

[Sheldon]

Until a discovery is made because of it being written in the Quran and then confirmed by science, these "prophesies" are utterly meaningless.

Even then I'd be a dubious about leaping to the conclusion it was derived from a deity, not being able to explain something does not justify leaping to any conclusion we want. It is usually based on a false dichotomy fallacy. It's not a choice between an unevidenced deity or a natural explanation, so that if we don't have a natural explanation, then theists get to misrepresent this as "there is no natural explanation" and leap to the only conclusion they wanted in the first place.

We know natural phenomena exist for an objective fact, we have no such objective evidence for any deity, only personal testimonies, and then a bare appeal to the numbers of those. Both of which seem not to have noticed that different deities are validated by theists using the same claim. That's because we can validate literally anything using this claim.

 

[KWED]

I would love to have had the opportunity for a conversation with Hawking about God, the universe, and philosophy.

IOW, no, you don't agree with him.
Which makes your quote mining even more egregious.

Not sure I have much interest in pursuing any of those topics with someone whose only motivation for discussing them is to ridicule others, though.

In the immortal words of Homer...
"If you're going to get mad at me every time I do something stupid, I guess I'm going to have to stop doing stupid things".

 

[Suave]

Scientific breakthroughs, let alone paradigm shifting discoveries, are not announced on YouTube. If there was a scientific consensus we were living in a computer simulation, we'd know about it, and not from YouTube or an online forum discussion.

Again what you are describing is unfalsifiable, it's therefore meaningless, as are all unfalsifiable claims.

Scientific consensus might occur at a technologically more advanced date with regards to whether or not we are likely in a numerical simulated cubic space-time lattice Matrix or simulated universe with an underlying grid., Observable effects of a grid-like space-time have been studied from these computer simulations which use a 3-D grid to model how elementary particles move and collide with each other. Anomalies found in these simulations suggest that if we are in a simulation universe with an underlying grid, then there'd be various amounts of high energy cosmic rays coming at us from each direction; but if space is continuous, then there'd be high energy cosmic rays coming at us equally from every direction.

High Energy Physics - Phenomenology
Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation
Silas R. Beane, Zohreh Davoudi, Martin J. Savage
(Submitted on 4 Oct 2012 (v1), last revised 9 Nov 2012 (this version, v2))

 

[blü 2]

Your claim: It's irrelevant to you that science has excellent reasons for concluding that the supernatural exists only as concepts / things imagined?

I don't know where you got that idea from. In this context it's right on the point.

The Question: So what are these "excellent reasons science has" please?

Some of the obvious ones are:
1. There is no coherent definition of 'supernatural' as part of reality.
2. There is no coherent concept of how magic might work in reality.
3. The number of authenticated examples of magic is zero.
4. There is no definition of "God" appropriate to a being with objective existence, such that if we found a real suspect we could determine whether it was God or not.
5. There is no coherent concept of "godness", the real quality a real god would have and a real superscientist who could create universes, raise the dead, travel in time &c would lack.

If you think any of those statements is incorrect, please provide what in your view is the correct statement and your basis for proposing it.

 

[Suave]

Even then I'd be a dubious to leap to the conclusion it was derived from a deity, not being able to explain something does not justify leaping to any conclusion we want. It is usually based on a false dichotomy fallacy. It's not a choice between an unevidenced deity or a natural explanation, so that if we don't have a natural explanation, then theists get to misrepresent this as "there is no natural explanation" and leap to the only conclusion they wanted in the first place.

We know natural phenomena exist for an objective fact, we have no such objective evidence for any deity, only personal testimonies, and then a bare appeal to the numbers of those. Both of which seem not to have noticed that different deities are validated by theists using the same claim. That's because we can validate literally anything using this claim.

Why assume God-did-it, if there could be another explanation? I've heard that line of reasoning before!

 

[Sheldon]

I would love to have had the opportunity for a conversation with Hawking about God, the universe, and philosophy.

Not sure I have much interest in pursuing any of those topics with someone whose only motivation for discussing them is to ridicule others, though.

It would have been a short conversation about a deity, since Professor Hawking was an atheist. Despite the constant insinuations he was somehow more on your level, and the putdowns that others are somehow unable to understand this. Though this does make your accusation of ridicule pretty ironic. The only thing atheists have ridiculed here is the sophistry of using a quote from SH just because it contained the word god as a metaphor, and trying to spin that into his ideas on a deity and yours having any comparison whatsoever.

Stephen Hawking was an atheist...

Now while I don't read much into this, since it is true of a lot of elite scientists, and am happy to admit his ideas on physics are way beyond me, I have noticed people who name drop in this way are usually showboating. Combined with the none too subtle condescension and putdowns, that makes your accusation of atheists ridiculing theists here pretty funny tbh.

Beliefs can be criticised in a debate, and they get the respect they deserve. People can demand respect up front, ideas cannot.

 

[Suave]

This is what is known as the "non sequitur" fallacy. Just because simulating consciousness may be possible in the future it does not mean that therefore our consciousness is simulated.

Essentially, you are arguing that because some people have hallucinations, everything we see is therefore a hallucination.

1. Most people hallucinate 2. I am a person 3. I am most likely to have hallucinate 4. I have hallucinated.

I experienced a hallucination/astral projection when I was 13 years old. It happened immediately after I had a fainting spell from hyperventilating and holding my breath in such a way that I forced myself to pass out. When I woke up from this fainting spell, I was floating outside and above my body. While I was floating outside and above my body, everything in the room started spinning around me and then became brightly illuminated with a blinding white light which blinded me until I descended back into my body.

In college, I hallucinated by means I'm not at liberty to discuss here on RF.

 

[Sheldon]

Why assume God-did-it, if there could be another explanation? I've heard that line of reasoning before!

A false dichotomy fallacy, or false dilemma, is used quite often in religious debates in my experience. It's not far from a god of the gaps polemic, you pick a gap in our knowledge, you wrongly assert if there is no explanation it must be a deity, there is no other explanation. It is irrational of course.

 

[KWED]

A more logical response is that the author did not know that the Earth was a sphere. The educated population generally knew that the Earth was at least roughly spherical in shape, but that does not mean that everyone knew that. I do believe that Muhammad was supposed to be rather uneducated. This would seem to support that belief.

There are several references in the Quran that suggest a flat earth (eg, "Allah spread out the earth like a carpet"), as well as a geocentric system (night and day caused by the sun and moon "in their orbits").
Although Islamic claims that Muhammad was an illiterate shepherd are somewhat dubious given the context (eg. his privileged upbringing and his successful career running Mecca's largest trading empire), it is entirely reasonable to think that his knowledge of established "science" was limited.
However, there are occasional nuggets, like the description of human embryology that closely matches that described earlier by Galen. One of Muhammad's companions, Ibn Kalada, was a physician who had studied at the "university" at Gundeshapur in Persia, where Galenic medicine was taught. This perfectly explains the passages that contain a rudimentary description of human embryology that some apologists hold up as an example of a "scientific miracle" in the Quran ("how could an illiterate shepherd have known about it?!").

Another classic "Quran scientific miracle" is the sex of worker bees (female). There is a passage in the Quran that refers to bees and although it never mentions their gender, there is a linguistic marker that is in the feminine. Apologists insist this means that it is stating that the worker bees are female "something only recently discovered by science!"
Had they taken the time to do a little research, they would have known that in his "History of Animals" Aristotle states that worker bees are female.

My favourite (you may have gathered by now that this is a pet subject of mine) is the "round earth miracle".
This is based on verse 79:30 - "And after that He spread the earth." (which ties in nicely with the flat earth issue).
In Arabic, the word used in the Quran for "spread" has a root that can refer to the way an ostrich clears a patch of ground of stones to lay its egg. This has been interpreted to mean that it is describing a round earth, "like an ostrich egg" (yes, I know, but they are genuinely serious!). "The round earth was only recently discovered by science!!" (which seems to be the mantra of the scientific miracleist).
Had they done a little research they would have known that not only did Eratosthenes work out that the world was round 1000 years before the Quran was written, he actually calculated its circumference reasonably accurately.
Not only that, the "egg" description is the wrong shape. The earth is an oblate spheroid while an egg is a prolate spheroid. A better description (had it actually been describing it at all) would have been an apple or pomegranate.

Sorry to digress!

 

[RestlessSoul]

IOW, no, you don't agree with him.
Which makes your quote mining even more egregious.

In the immortal words of Homer...
"If you're going to get mad at me every time I do something stupid, I guess I'm going to have to stop doing stupid things".

A lesson in humility from Homer there, from which we would all do well to learn.

 

[KWED]

The fourth pillar of Islam, Ramadan fasting, can't be equally followed and adhered to by everybody in the world.
Ramadan fasting rules, as written on behalf of Muhammad in the Quran, requires dawn to dusk fasting for all healthy Islamic followers worldwide during the month of Ramadan. The dawn to dusk fasting rules as written in the Quran does not apply equally to all persons in all regions. This law can't be applied equally to all regions of the world. The period of sunrise to sunset varies according to the latitude of where a person lives. Therefore, equal periods of day and night don't exist for everybody. Consequently, Ramadan sunrise to sunset fasting can't possibly be followed equally by all healthy Muslims. The length of time required for sunrise to sunset fasting during Ramadan is based solely on a person's geographical location. I think it doesn't make any sense and it's unfair that the amount of Ramadan sunrise to sunset fasting time required for each Muslim is different based solely on the latitude of where the Muslim lives. Because the southern most inhabitants experience very short days during summer month of Ramadan, and they would only be required to fast for a few hours a day. The northern most inhabitants experience daylight throughout the month of Ramadan, and they would die from starvation while fasting for a whole month without food and drink. Nowhere in the Quran is it written that people of the polar regions can break their fast at the time of sunset until sunrise of the country next to them, this law was added later in Islam in order to correct Muhammad's ignorance of the Earth's near spherical shape.

Seasonal difference in daylight is caused by the earth's axial tilt, not by being spherical.

 

[KWED]

I understand English, some Spanish, and a bit of German. However, I don't know Arabic; hence, I must rely on expert translations of the Quran.

And most expert translations say "rolled like a scroll".

 

[RestlessSoul]

It would have been a short conversation about a deity, since Professor Hawking was an atheist. Despite the constant insinuations he was somehow more on your level, and the putdowns that others are somehow unable to understand this. Though this does make your accusation of ridicule pretty ironic. The only thing atheists have ridiculed here is the sophistry of using a quote from SH just because it contained the word god as a metaphor, and trying to spin that into his ideas on a deity and yours having any comparison whatsoever.

Stephen Hawking was an atheist...

Now while I don't read much into this, since it is true of a lot of elite scientists, and am happy to admit his ideas on physics are way beyond me, I have noticed people who name drop in this way are usually showboating. Combined with the none too subtle condescension and putdowns, that makes your accusation of atheists ridiculing theists here pretty funny tbh.

Beliefs can be criticised in a debate, and they get the respect they deserve. People can demand respect up front, ideas cannot.

No need to shout (that’s what bold text is).

Hawking may have been an atheist, or he may have shifted his opinions throughout his life, as open minded people do. Most likely he veered between agnosticism, atheism and deism before deciding that the universe did not require a creator so probably didn’t have one.

He didn’t just publish esoteric academic papers, he wrote essays and a best selling book aimed at the layperson. You could perhaps read some of those yourself, before making assumptions about how hypothetical conversations involving him might go.

To repeat myself for the last time; Hawking, like Einstein and Niels Bohr in their lifetime of discourse, referred frequently to God. What each of them meant by the word is open to debate, but the point is they used it, to illustrate scientific and philosophical concepts.

I don’t claim to be the intellectual equal of any of these great minds btw. One doesn’t have to be, to have an interest in what they discovered, and in the significance of their ideas.