Which religion is most the most scientifically accurate?

[OurCreed]

Mind giving examples of some reputable scientists? Plz no muslim ones ..and plz don't tell me u watching zakir niak

Scientists regarding what?

 

[Gurtej]

Mind giving examples of some reputable scientists? Plz no muslim ones ..and plz don't tell me u watching zakir niak

Forget it.. Anyway the verse u gave is very clear that its not scientific..
Heavens and earth were joined together means Quran thinks that earth was there at time of Big Bang .. Unless u have another verse that show otherwise, this verse proves to be either wrong or not talking about Big Bang ...it's has to be one of these two...

Everyone non Muslim or even some rational Muslim here will agree to me.. That in no way means that I am disrespecting Quran..
All I saying is that this verse is not scientific..

Mind sharing other examples or scientific claims ? I will leave it to other users and c how they interept ur given verse and may be it will give u the answer

 

[InformedIgnorance]

It is fine if they are scientists who are muslims, but not (in the tradition of christian scientists) muslim scientists.

There are indeed many scientists who hold religious views, most of them however have a deistic rather than theistic position and for those who belong to religions that have revelead truths, the scientists tend towards metaphorical interpretations (there are no reputable literalists that i know of) - there are however no scientists of any standing who claim to be able to prove that science necessitates the existence of a supernatural dimension (in fact, to point out that reputable scientists do not claim such a thing is almost a tautology)

 

[Gurtej]

It is fine if they are scientists who are muslims, but not (in the tradition of christian scientists) muslim scientists.

There are indeed many scientists who hold religious views, most of them however have a deistic rather than theistic position and for those who belong to religions that have revelead truths, the scientists tend towards metaphorical interpretations (there are no reputable literalists that i know of) - there are however no scientists of any standing who claim to be able to prove that science necessitates the existence of a supernatural dimension (in fact, to point out that reputable scientists do not claim such a thing is almost a tautology)

Agree I shud have said scientists who will look at these verses with glasses of religion

 

[Gurtej]

I already explained it to you.

During the time of the Big Bang, all the matter started expanding, including the matter that created the Earth. It clearly makes sense.

Again it's ur interpretation .. This verse does not make sense.. Where in this verse Mohamad is talking about the matter that created earth...? Ur translation and Quran says earth.. Not matter

 

[Aquitaine]

Mind giving examples of some reputable scientists? Plz no muslim ones ..and plz don't tell me u watching zakir niak

LOL I remember Zakir Naik: "I do not see any book titled fact of Evolution, instead I only see books titled theory of Evolution!".

Which, for a "Doctor" shows either one of two things:

1) He foolishly doesn't know the correct definition of the word Theory, and is instead confusing it with Hypothesis.

2) He is being Intellectually Dishonest to his ill-informed audience, in order to advance his arguement.

Hehe, what a fool!

 

[Gurtej]

LOL I remember Zakir Naik: "I do not see any book titled fact of Evolution, instead I only see books titled theory of Evolution!".

Which, for a "Doctor" shows either one of two things:

1) He foolishly doesn't know the correct definition of the word Theory, and is instead confusing it with Hypothesis.

2) He is being Intellectually Dishonest to his ill-informed audience, in order to advance his arguement.

Hehe, what a fool!

Zakir niak is an utter idiot in my eyes

 

[Aquitaine]

2) Funny how you mention 'vague'. We humans were given brains, and now that we have the knowledge, YOU yourself clearly identified that the verse was talking about the Big Bang, and that proves the verse was very clear.

You may not agree with the contents OF it, but you knew, and scientists knew.

Wrong - YOU claimed it to be refering to the Big Bang, which is why I am arguing against it. I am arguing why it doesn't refer to the Big Bang, understand?

You know what would make the verse INCORRECT? If the verse said something like, 'explosion', which is wrong, because the Big Bang was not an explosion.

Actually, even if it did say "Explosion" you'd use the same excuse you just did in that post: that there are sooooooo many different interpretations and English will never give you the 100% "divine" translation.

The Heavens and the Earth means every single thing in this universe.

That's your subjective interpretation of a vague verse. You're clutching at straws, desperately trying to make out it's refering to the Big Bang, which it isn't.

God revealed many things to Prophet Muhammad (saw) that he himself did not know about, yet God told him that these verses have special purposes meant for people to come in the future.

And here we are, we KNOW what the purpose was. These scientific miracles prove WHY the Qur'an was from the divine, and NOT an illiterate uneducated desert merchant living in the 7th century.

Which do you think is more likely:
That an illiterate cave-dweller from the 7th century was contacted by supernatural forces and given the word of "God".

OR...

That power-hungry Men from that region used the story of a popular Warlord named Mohammad as the basis of their Religious "Hero" in order to help establish a mainstream religion and thus control the population? Much like with the story of the Virgin birth; was she a Virgin and gave birth to the son of God (which is a suspension of natural reproduction, biology and normality), or did she just lie about being a Virgin and gave birth to a boy named Jesus like any other woman?

What seems more credible to you, seriously?

4) The word 'WE' in the verse is referring to God in a majestic way. God uses 'WE' many times in the Qur'an to demonstrate the majesty of His power.

I'm sorry but you're just making this up as you go along, desperately applying your own twisted interpretation to the verse in order to try and convince me it's a miracle - lawl.

Ask any scientist, Arabic or English, they WILL agree this verse talks about the Big Bang. You are just in denial. I answered all your concerns.

No, let's do this the other way around (since you're so confident about it) - name me a bunch of legitimate credible Scientists (not "Islamic" Scientists, real Scientists) who claim that the aforementioned verse is directly talking about the Big Bang.

Untill that time, I'm going to stick to believing in the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. :ignore:

 

[YmirGF]

If I may intrude on your thinking for a moment, my question is straightforward and simple. Have you ever had scientifically literate non-Muslims agree with the hypothesis of the Big Bang being explained in the Qur'an, as given, in your lecture? I'm just curious how it is working as a form of dawa.

Still quietly waiting for a sincere answer.

 

[Gurtej]

Still quietly waiting for a sincere answer.

We will never get a sincere answer

 

[gnostic]

I don't deny the usefulness of experiments and observation in science in thing material and physical.

But before an experiment is made to verify; the possible result is already on the table; because of some faith in observation or experiment and or science.

It is called "prediction".

One of the requirements for putting forward a hypothesis when following the procedure of Scientific Method, is to make a prediction or predictions of what the result may be.

It is not "FAITH".

If during the observation (this could be experiment or measurement or detection, but observation could also be discovering evidences in the field instead of testing in the lab) the real results meet with the "predicted" result. Then the hypothesis MIGHT BE VALID and successful.

I'll stressed "MIGHT BE VALID", because any hypothesis has to be repeatedly tested by the one putting forward the hypothesis. This is to confirm if 1st result was not a fluke, as well as to ensure that there result fall within the margin of errors.

If the real result doesn't fall within the limits of the predicted results, then the hypothesis may not be valid and "verified" hypothesis. But the tests still need to be retested to make sure there were no error in the 1st result.

But regardless if the hypothesis succeed or fail, it is still not valid hypothesis, until it has been tested independently, by independent scientists, and by peer-review. They (independent scientists and peer-review) have to investigate if the prediction in the hypothesis is valid or not. If it is confirmed that the results doesn't meet the predicted results, then the hypothesis has failed, but if it does, the hypothesis has a chance of becoming SCIENTIFIC THEORY.

So the prediction is only valid, depending on the results of repeated experiment or the evidences have been verified.

So science required the prediction to be validated and verified (with observation, testing and evidences), hence science is still not faith-based, but factual-based, as you have claimed.

 

[Aquitaine]

I guess OurCreed won't be blessing us with any more of these Koran "Miracles".....

 

[BruceDLimber]

>Which religion is the most scientificaly accurate?

I don't know:

Does support and endorsement of science (as stated in the scriptures of the Baha'i Faith) count?

Peace,

Bruce

 

[Domenic]

I think Buddhism is fairly malleable (non dogmatic) with a thirst for knowledge and it began on a good foundation of sound logic and reason which makes Buddhism very compatible with science. Which religions are the most sound when compared to science?

Science? Now that’s a strange thing to compare God to.
Lets do a simple test. Science does not invent anything out of nothing. All science can do, is discover what God invented, and copy it from material God invented, Lets take a very little thing…the atom. God made the atom from nothing. Can science make an atom from nothing?
When science was trying to come up with something they could make from material God invented, that humans could wipe their butts with, God had already invented everything science has yet to discover.
If you could gather all the brains of men alive, and who have died, and yes, even those yet born, and build a super science brain, it would be no more than a jelly fish brain along God…the master scientist.
God gave man the brain he needed to do the job he designed us for.

 

[Gram28]

The religion most compatible with science is called Directive, and it's just getting off the ground. It teaches of the linear kind of recurrence possible of a multiverse, and has nothing to do with God or the supernatural.

 

[paarsurrey]

Lets do a simple test. Science does not invent anything out of nothing. All science can do, is discover what God invented, and copy it from material God invented, Lets take a very little thing…the atom. God made the atom from nothing. Can science make an atom from nothing?
When science was trying to come up with something they could make from material God invented, that humans could wipe their butts with, God had already invented everything science has yet to discover.
If you could gather all the brains of men alive, and who have died, and yes, even those yet born, and build a super science brain, it would be no more than a jelly fish brain along God…the master scientist.
God gave man the brain he needed to do the job he designed us for.

I agree with your above words.

 

[Satnaam]

Sikhi

 

[paarsurrey]

It is called "prediction".

One of the requirements for putting forward a hypothesis when following the procedure of Scientific Method, is to make a prediction or predictions of what the result may be.

It is not "FAITH".

If during the observation (this could be experiment or measurement or detection, but observation could also be discovering evidences in the field instead of testing in the lab) the real results meet with the "predicted" result. Then the hypothesis MIGHT BE VALID and successful.

I'll stressed "MIGHT BE VALID", because any hypothesis has to be repeatedly tested by the one putting forward the hypothesis. This is to confirm if 1st result was not a fluke, as well as to ensure that there result fall within the margin of errors.

If the real result doesn't fall within the limits of the predicted results, then the hypothesis may not be valid and "verified" hypothesis. But the tests still need to be retested to make sure there were no error in the 1st result.

But regardless if the hypothesis succeed or fail, it is still not valid hypothesis, until it has been tested independently, by independent scientists, and by peer-review. They (independent scientists and peer-review) have to investigate if the prediction in the hypothesis is valid or not. If it is confirmed that the results doesn't meet the predicted results, then the hypothesis has failed, but if it does, the hypothesis has a chance of becoming SCIENTIFIC THEORY.

So the prediction is only valid, depending on the results of repeated experiment or the evidences have been verified.

So science required the prediction to be validated and verified (with observation, testing and evidences), hence science is still not faith-based, but factual-based, as you have claimed.

Well, you put it like that; I would say that the prediction is made having some or more or full faith in the data at hand. So, element of faith is there.

 

[OurCreed]

Again it's ur interpretation .. This verse does not make sense.. Where in this verse Mohamad is talking about the matter that created earth...? Ur translation and Quran says earth.. Not matter

The verse makes PERFECT sense, you are just not opening your mind.

"See how the heavens and the earth were but one mass."

The heavens is outer space and not the heaven as that of paradise, the word for paradise in the Qur'an is Jannah in Arabic which also means garden.

Back then, people referred to outer space as HEAVENS, in Arabic, Sama.

The verse talks about outer space, and everything in it, as well as the Earth right now. The verse states that this Earth, as WELL as the heavens, once were ALL just ONE mass, one piece.

THEN they were rent apart, split apart, as the verse describes it right after.

How more detailed can you get in regards to what the Big Bang was?

Nobody KNEW this back then!

This is the exact description for the Big Bang.

Before the ONE mass was split, all the atoms and particles were there clumped into one, then under intense heat and friction, they split apart, this event was known as the big bang, and they continued to rapidly expand til THIS day.

And this is also confirmed in the Qur'an.

"And We constructed the heavens with might, and We are indeed EXPANDING it."

This...my friend, is not vague. It is very clear cut.

 

[OurCreed]

Wrong - YOU claimed it to be refering to the Big Bang, which is why I am arguing against it. I am arguing why it doesn't refer to the Big Bang, understand?

Actually, even if it did say "Explosion" you'd use the same excuse you just did in that post: that there are sooooooo many different interpretations and English will never give you the 100% "divine" translation.
That's your subjective interpretation of a vague verse. You're clutching at straws, desperately trying to make out it's refering to the Big Bang, which it isn't.

Which do you think is more likely:
That an illiterate cave-dweller from the 7th century was contacted by supernatural forces and given the word of "God".

OR...

That power-hungry Men from that region used the story of a popular Warlord named Mohammad as the basis of their Religious "Hero" in order to help establish a mainstream religion and thus control the population? Much like with the story of the Virgin birth; was she a Virgin and gave birth to the son of God (which is a suspension of natural reproduction, biology and normality), or did she just lie about being a Virgin and gave birth to a boy named Jesus like any other woman?

What seems more credible to you, seriously?

I'm sorry but you're just making this up as you go along, desperately applying your own twisted interpretation to the verse in order to try and convince me it's a miracle - lawl.

No, let's do this the other way around (since you're so confident about it) - name me a bunch of legitimate credible Scientists (not "Islamic" Scientists, real Scientists) who claim that the aforementioned verse is directly talking about the Big Bang.

Untill that time, I'm going to stick to believing in the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. :ignore:

1) You have yet to prove how this verse, even if it is a mere interpretation, is AGAINST the concept of the Big bang.

2) This is exactly why scientists actually took the time to LEARN Arabic so they can know the 100% correct interpretation! Haven't you ever thought of non-Muslim Arabs that can read and understand Arabic? They have studied the Qur'an, as a matter of fact, they've been doing it since it was revealed.

There are not sooooooo many interpretations for this ONE particular verse, the 4 different translations that I have given you are as far as you are going to get, and yet, with even one translation, the interpretation is synonymous with all the other translations.

You are defending a dying argument right now. Scientists are smarter than the average human being, and even they are astounded, they already tried to find the loopholes, and they surprisingly haven't found any. Your argument about 'interpretations' isn't going to help you here.

In the ARABIC, it states for the Heavens and the Earth, Sama wahti wal Urd.

Sama means heavens (outer space) and Urd means Earth. Earth actually came from the Arabic word Urd. So it is clearly describing the universe here, because God repeats Sama wahti wal Urd so many times in the Qur'an, we all know, Muslim or non-Muslim, that is means the entirety of all creation, AKA, the universe, and everything within it.

Then God goes on further and says that this entirety of His creation was but ONE MASS. So far so good reflecting upon the Big Bang theory, because all of creation came from the very same atoms and particles during the Big Bang, including Earth's atoms.

Then this single mass or entity of hot dense matter, suddenly split open, rifted apart, started expanding at such a high and frictional rate.

The verse clearly mentions it. I had an argument with someone before and they said this verse was too vague and they said, "Why didn't God just say there was a big explosion or something like that."

Face palm right there.

I gave you all the English translations, try to find a translation that is against the Big Bang theory, but as far as we got here today, not a single interpretation has contradicted the theory, yet, it approves of it, miraculously!

3) You want to talk about Muhammad (saw)?

You call him power hungry?

I can relate ONE story to disprove all of your baseless allegations, it's too easy, but I will stop here for now.

4) This isn't made up, I told you to search it on Google, write down 'Majestic We', the verses in English were translated like that for a reason, this thing actually exists in the English language.

Heck, I can just give you the Wiki article! Majestic plural - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

They are called Majestic plural words. They are used by monarchs, popes, and people with high authority or in high office...it isn't something new, and I am not making this up.

It is sad to see how little you know about your own language...