Big bang theory is exist in Quran.
Nothing can be built/found from no existence without plan .
plan can't be without intelligence.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Space-Time and Theory of Evolution
- Thread starter atanu
- Start date
Nothing can be built/found from no existence without plan .
plan can't be without intelligence.
Firstly, that's not the big bang theory: It doesn't posit that there's a plan.
Second: I understand that your scripture says something. Why do you have the need to try and use it in an argument about science? Even if you find one thing that completely matches scientific theories, it doesn't mean that everything will. In fact, it's pretty safe to say that there are things in ALL scripture, including the Quran, that do NOT match with it. You would either have to compromise scientific theory, or the scripture itself, by making either conform to one another.
Third: A plan cannot be without intelligence behind it. But like i said, the idea that there is a plan to begin with... Has no scientific basis whatsoever.
I think overall, arguments like this are unfair. To be honest, you posited the question "Who gave the life in first place ?" in a discussion about space-time and evolution... There's no reason why you should ask that question in this context. Evolution doesn't seek to answer origins of life in the first place, and the space-time is merely a mathematical model for the entire universe: I.E the "place and time" where all things take place.
I'm not saying your scripture doesn't have ANY actual verifiable claims: It probably does. Some things were verifiable even with the tools available at the time. I have read both the Quran and the Bible, so this is not completely idle conjecture. The Quran seems to initially conform "better" with the natural sciences, but even then it seriously contradicts it in MANY places. One of the best examples in this context is your very post: NO scientific theory posists the existence of a creator, or a plan. Furthermore: It can be and is proven that a creator / plan is not NECESSARY for the universe to function exactly as it does.
TLDR: This thread was NEVER about plans. Or intelligence. OR the Big Bang theory! You essentially came in, and asked an unrelated question because you felt like proving that your belief is more correct than other peoples'. I honestly think this kind of argument is lazy and dishonest.
If you cannot argue something without quoting a verse from scripture in a scientific argument... I don't think you should even bother entering. Because the Quran isn't a science text book: There simply is no context here for you to have come in to this thread in the first place.
I'm sorry but... That's just how i see it.
/E: I feel that a TRUE believer of any kind should consider that the natural laws are an extension of whatever being's will. Without mixing it up with scripture. Let's equate space-time with god: Assuming a god is omnipotent, and omniscient, then that is the closest approximation as a real-life example: Everything happens within space-time. So why cannot everything happen within god's will? AS it happens, WITHOUT having to compromise both scripture and theory. I've seen many religious people think exactly the way i just described. Are they more or less right than you?
If a god is omnipotent and omniscient, it would imply "limitless" in practicality.
I personally don't hold the view that creators are necessary. But i am open to the idea. With evidence. And scripture never counts as evidence.
Last edited:
Hello DarkstornFirstly, that's not the big bang theory: It doesn't posit that there's a plan.
Second: I understand that your scripture says something. Why do you have the need to try and use it in an argument about science? Even if you find one thing that completely matches scientific theories, it doesn't mean that everything will. In fact, it's pretty safe to say that there are things in ALL scripture, including the Quran, that do NOT match with it. You would either have to compromise scientific theory, or the scripture itself, by making either conform to one another.
Third: A plan cannot be without intelligence behind it. But like i said, the idea that there is a plan to begin with... Has no scientific basis whatsoever.
I think overall, arguments like this are unfair. To be honest, you posited the question "Who gave the life in first place ?" in a discussion about space-time and evolution... There's no reason why you should ask that question in this context. Evolution doesn't seek to answer origins of life in the first place, and the space-time is merely a mathematical model for the entire universe: I.E the "place and time" where all things take place.
I'm not saying your scripture doesn't have ANY actual verifiable claims: It probably does. Some things were verifiable even with the tools available at the time. I have read both the Quran and the Bible, so this is not completely idle conjecture. The Quran seems to initially conform "better" with the natural sciences, but even then it seriously contradicts it in MANY places. One of the best examples in this context is your very post: NO scientific theory posists the existence of a creator, or a plan. Furthermore: It can be and is proven that a creator / plan is not NECESSARY for the universe to function exactly as it does.
TLDR: This thread was NEVER about plans. Or intelligence. OR the Big Bang theory! You essentially came in, and asked an unrelated question because you felt like proving that your belief is more correct than other peoples'. I honestly think this kind of argument is lazy and dishonest.
If you cannot argue something without quoting a verse from scripture in a scientific argument... I don't think you should even bother entering. Because the Quran isn't a science text book: There simply is no context here for you to have come in to this thread in the first place.
I'm sorry but... That's just how i see it.
/E: I feel that a TRUE believer of any kind should consider that the natural laws are an extension of whatever being's will. Without mixing it up with scripture. Let's equate space-time with god: Assuming a god is omnipotent, and omniscient, then that is the closest approximation as a real-life example: Everything happens within space-time. So why cannot everything happen within god's will? AS it happens, WITHOUT having to compromise both scripture and theory. I've seen many religious people think exactly the way i just described. Are they more or less right than you?
If a god is omnipotent and omniscient, it would imply "limitless" in practicality.
I personally don't hold the view that creators are necessary. But i am open to the idea. With evidence. And scripture never counts as evidence.
We take the habit to open multi-subjects in same thread in this forum,and everyone join and exchange their opinions, so don't worry
Hello Darkstorn
We take the habit to open multi-subjects in same thread in this forum,and everyone join and exchange their opinions, so don't worry
Despite what it says, i'm not actually a new member: I know the function of this forum, thank you.
And i think your very first question was completely off-topic from the discussion at hand: Evolution in the context of space-time. Neither of those concepts has anything to do with how life began; and definitely NOTHING to do with "who" caused life to begin. It... Just doesn't have anything to do with THIS topic. I think you should have gone to one that addresses the origin of life, such as a Big Bang thread. There are many here. You're talking about a completely different thing compared to everyone else here...
"Who gave the life in the first place" is not a logical continuation of "Give life enough space and enough time and watch how it evolves." You might think it is because he said the word "life". But that's a very shaky foundation... You took the word completely out of context. There was NEVER any question about "WHO" created anything, or even "WHY". This is only about space-time, and evolution. Those fields don't deal with the things you are arguing about.
But trust me: Everyone already knows the approximate method of how life began according to Abrahamic myths on this forum: You don't need to go explain it in completely unrelated threads... You should by default assume that as members of a religious forum, we all understand what creationism means. There's no need to try and basically push it into every orifice it barely even fits... We always knew that some people believe that the universe was designed according to the whims of a creator. This is not part of the debate on this particular thread.
TLDR: I'm not really arguing about your methodology as much as the fact that the content of your posts had nothing to do with this topic; But you chose to try and derail it anyway. That's wrong and intellectually dishonest. It would not be right for me to hijack this thread to talk about cartography for example: It is scientific as well. But it has nothing to do with this topic... Your stretch from evolution and space-time to how life began is... Wrong.
/E: I forgot to address the point that what you call big bang theory isn't even close to that. So REALLY you were just pushing another creationism view on a completely unrelated thread. :/
/E2: This sub-forum is in the debate section: You cannot introduce unrelated ideas and still think it somehow answers the original debate... I think YOU might be the one missing the point of this forum section.
Last edited:
Weclome back thenDespite what it says, i'm not actually a new member: I know the function of this forum, thank you.
/E2: This sub-forum is in the debate section: You cannot introduce unrelated ideas and still think it somehow answers the original debate... I think YOU might be the one missing the point of this forum section.
It's happened all time that we (all of us) take off-topic question or point, I think it's normal ,if it was serious point
This DIR forum is called science and religion in section of debate
It's happened all time that we (all of us) take off-topic question or point, I think it's normal ,if it was serious point
This DIR forum is called science and religion in section of debate
You cannot possibly imagine what you did was a "serious point".
When you asked "what gave the life in the first place" you were WANTING SOMEONE TO SAY "GOD". That's it. You know this to be true. You weren't trying to debate. There was only one possible answer that you were looking for. Be honest: God should know even if you manage fool me. And it had NOTHING to do with the topic. Nothing. Literally; Nothing.
And yes, it's a debate forum about science and religion... But they should RELATE to each other: Just because you're talking about religion, doesn't mean you are RIGHT to talk it in a way that makes absolutely no sense contextually. Again: it's intellectual laziness. You knew exactly what you were doing. You didn't want to talk about evolution and space-time: You wanted to try and prove to yourself that you can successfully argue for the existence of a creator in a thread that's not even about one... That's it. And you're not being successful at it. For one: you're doing it in a completely unrelated discussion. You're trying to derail the debate from the original point to yours. That's just plain wrong. And again, dishonest.
You should never use dishonesty as a tool if you want to call yourself righteous.
You were just another guy(tm) trying to push the creationism view in a thread that's not even about how life began: Meaning you were being not only proselytizing, you were ALSO being off-topic. That's actually poison for debate. Your job is not to convert us here. I've read the Quran: So any verse you use from there is not going to convince me. I've already read it.
I've read it, and it didn't convince me.
And again: You don't even know what the big bang theory is if you claim that "god created everything" is the same thing. Seriously guy, give us SOME credit here.
You cannot in good conscience defend intentional derailing of threads. No matter how important you consider it to be. This is a debate forum. Not a conversion altar.
/E: I'll give you an idea that should work out: You're welcome to talk about gods and belief; Just do it in a way that conforms to the following: Evolution and space-time. How do THEY relate to god in your view? Seriously: This thread has nothing to do with either creationism, OR the big bang. It's about two completely unrelated fields; And most level headed muslims and christians i know accept evolution as fact. So it's not nearly as incompatible with your beliefs as you think: Remember. Omniscient and omnipotent, essentially limitless. You simply didn't NEED to introduce your idea of god here; It was redundant. I believe you only did it in order to try and validate your views, not to argue any serious points.
Last edited:
ok , go report that to be deleted .
Really? The big bang theory relies fundamentally on general relativity. So where, in the Quran, is Einstein's equation, a geometry of spacetime, or anything remotely like a description of the expansion into nothingness at "no time" of a point in "no space" that "cools" to form the constituents of atoms (then atoms, then eventually more familiar substances)? The big bang theory doesn't say that anything was created, but does require that space and time be treated in a non-Euclidean 4D space we don't find even the faintest hint of in the Quran.
God created time , and creat everything , there is many verses mentioned about these.
Relativity of Time & Quran
Can you kindly explain the above? My question pertains to TOE in space-time framework.
Tiapan
Grumpy Old Man
Oh dear I think the author of your video needs to attend a Physics 101 lesson,
Its all out of context, it assumes relative means the human perception of time, rather than that of Special Relativity which basically is newtonian until really massive speeds are reached, I am not even sure the quoted 1000:1 ratio can be achieved with out a lot of acceleration to relativistic speed over a long time and vast light years of distant space travel, so it is IMHO an incorrect interpretation of your quoted verses. Using Lorenz contraction equation SQRT(1-(v^2/c^2))
Further the verses could also ambiguously be interpreted, more literally, because a "day" is defined as the planets rotational period about its axis relative to a reference eg star
So one earth day of "tarrying" is only a 29th of a moon "day" or an 88th of a mercury "day"
A "God" would not actually have a "day" because I presume he is not residing on a rotating planet, but floating about somewhere in space. Does your type of god spin?
And the sisters thing, surely that is just saying, if you jump off a cliff you will get to the bottom quicker than if you walk down the mountain. Its all interpretation. It could mean anything you want it to which does not make it very useful. I did not see a verse number for that one either.
Cheers
Last edited:
You are actually not correct. Space-time indicates that, each clock, even a perfect atomic clock, will run at a different rate, depending on two factors: a) how fast the clock is moving and b) how far down it is in the Earth's gravitational field.
So, the part highlighted in red makes it possible that my 'present' and an alien's (separated a few light years away from me) 'present' may differ drastically even if there is only a minor difference in relative motions.
gnostic
The Lost One
I don't think I could have said it better.
And what I have highlighted in red, that was excellent way to sum up your 2nd point.
That's because creationists and ID advocates like to use the very faulty the Watchmaker analogy, to back their claims, which have little to no merit in science.
Okay. Let me put it in another way. Do we lose anything (i.e partially or totally render TOE irrelevant) by applying spacetime concepts to observations that form backbone of TOE?
I'll answer for him, since he's away.....
We lose clarity by introducing irrelevant & complicating matters.
Silly analogy time.....
When discussing arithmetic, it would be counter-productive to introduce tensor calculus.
I do not think my query is irrelevant. Let me use another so-called irrelevant example. People fight over possession of things and ideas forgetting or ignoring that death will take away everything. So, a change of perspective often is useful.
Let me introduce another irrelevant issue. As it is understood today, in line with Huxley, natural selection has nothing to do with mind of organisms. In this form, TOE and natural selection do nothing for us but only help to foster selfishness. I am sure Darwin did not mean that.
You may get an inkling of what I am saying from the following, and especially in the section "Huxley's problem".
http://www.informationphilosopher.c...ural_selection_and_the_emergence_of_mind.html
But if an additional perspective is complex, yet adds no understanding, then it's counter-productive.
I don't understand your problem with selfishness, which is a complex thing regarding evolution.
The article in the link doesn't use the theory of special or general relativity though.
It only mentions it once, but not with any application to evolution.
I do not think it is.
The selfish gene can be explained by biologists but the opposite may or may not be true.
I did not say that it did. Karl Popper's lecture was pointed out to you to show that what you consider irrelevant may not be so to all.
...
Subject matter of the OP is a curiosity.
Can you explain how relativistic effects affect evolution?
Special relativity.....I can handle the math.
But for general relativity, you'll have to go slowly with the math for me.
The "selfish gene" is a concept different from selfish behavior of individuals.
Selfish genes can also engender altruistic behavior.
This doesn't mean that all things are relevant.
One must show how additional concepts are useful.
Otherwise, I could claim that one couldn't discuss Catholicism without introducing metalurgy.
But no one has answered the question with anything connecting evolution with relativistic effects.