The man who saw into the future
- Thread starter Yusuf
- Start date
the quran is not a book of science, but consistent with science,
your first two examples were discussed in the talk ( the quran and bible in the light of science) you will find it in youtube,
and as for Mariam, no, we do not say that all Christians worship her, some of them do, some of them say that jesus is son of god, while some other say he is the god.
the quran exposes those different views of Christians, whether they are old or new, and denies them all with proof.
untruths, if disproved, otherwise they make a fine logical base unlike any religon.
Faith isn't logical, otherwise it wouldn't be a leap into uncertainty. There'd be no divine mystery or truths to unveil.
https://www.britannica.com/science/clay-mineral
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22769972
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22365403
The rest of that article is essentially stating the human cell culture in a very broad sense. Could find that as well in a regular wikipedia article.
From you wikipedia article, by the way.
Would love to have an example of Quran's interpretation of undiscovered Science though. Makes me all giddy.
the point here is not that science or quran contradict or match, it is that quran mentions this 1400year before microscope was invented, then when it was invented, they discovered that what mentioned in the quran long time ago was right, and so became comfortable to the truth.
Alot of scientists turn to islam, because it shows what matches with what they have spent their enire lifes on, it does not only provide them with a logical base for atheists as example but as well disproves other concepts of false gods.
sure there are alot not discovered yet
- Sep 28, 2008
- 41,244
- 246,706
- 4,281
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 954 so/sx
(2:111) And they say, "None will enter Paradise except one who is a Jew or a Christian." That is [merely] their wishful thinking, Say, "Produce your proof, if you should be truthful."
(2:23) And if you are in doubt about what We have revealed to Our servant, then produce a chapter like these, and call your witnesses apart from Allah, if you are truthful.But if you do not—and you will not—then beware the Fire whose fuel is people and stones, prepared for the disbelievers.
As an example, in Ancient Greece, well before the creation of the Quran, the Atom as well as the modern Constellation model, for example, was already proposed by Greek Philosophy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democritus
http://www.physics.csbsju.edu/astro/asp/constellation.faq.html
The Arabic civilisation was well advanced for its time, i'm not disputing that. But many other Civilisations were as well. And their word is as valid as any other in regards to how the world works, within their limited scope and view on the world.
works within their timeframe of knowledge. And this knowledge was also passed unto between these Civilisations, respectfully so. What bothers me, however, is how anyone that wants to align these Sacred texts (and this is certainly not the Quran alone) aligns this old spiritual view to what is effectively scientific advancement well beyond what these text covered in that time. No the Quran did not predict the cell culture process, it gave a broad description how man would be created in a Spiritual sense. If it would describe all these biological processes accordingly, it would have been written down in much more detail and would essentially be a set of scientific methodologies rather than a set of Spiritual stories. And we would have advanced far beyond what we are now.
And I have nothing against scientists turning to religion for the sake of spirituality of philosophy, but I do have a problem when Religion intermixes itself with the Scientific field based on what is stated in Ancient scriptures that state nothing
in regards to current scientific research or evidence that modern Scientific research covers. Religion should not mix with the current Scientific research for the sake of Scientific progression. Science does not need the Quran to prove any result.
So, show me the part in the Quran where it explicitly states the process of cell culture or any other scientific process. And I doubt, sorry to say, that the Quran will mention anything in regards
to future science such as Intergalactic Physics on relativity, time travel, the Quantum-physical realm, Black Holes, ... because in the time where the Quran was written there were no means to actually observe these phenomena. So again, for the sake of disproving me, please give me a statement of the Quran that might cover future science. Intrigue me... .
On your movie:
First evidence proposal, the Genesis statement that Allah created the Earth and life on Earth. Stating that Science has not yet proven that life exists beyond earth.
DNA will been found on Mars, There is also active research on habitable worlds (of which the criteria are that these worlds should be sustainable for life). Also it is not the role of Science to disproven the Quran.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22404-martian-genome-is-there-dna-on-the-red-planet/
Second evidence proposal, on the end of the Solar system: The moon is slowly removing itself from earth's orbit and will not fall into the sun, the stars will not fall down, there will be no merger, the whole description doesn't make sense. There will be a Supernova destroying the whole Solar system. And when that happens, there won't be a second earth or rebirth...we either move on to another planet or we die with it. And off course this could not be proven Scientifically now because we as observers would be dead as well..We go Epic Boom. The End.
https://www.space.com/3373-earth-moon-destined-disintegrate.html
https://www.sciencealert.com/what-will-happen-after-the-sun-dies-planetary-nebula-solar-system
Sorry, I'm going to wrestling this one down out a bit..
Right, if the quran was to mention scientific facts in details, it would have needed buildings to contain it, but because the quran is not a book of science, it talks about facts in general form which allowed many scientists back at the time to set their theories accordingly, and so allowing them to advance in science.
The bigbang, the continental drift, and so many facts scientists had no idea about at the time.
If we are to compare science books and the quran, then the books will contain much more details about facts and theories which works as rich source of information in our current day, but again, that's not the point here, the quran wasn't sent down to disprove earlier theories or the new ones, it came to confirm, it didn't talk about science in details, but it mentioned some which came to be proven later.
It is a book of signs not science.
With the assumption that quran was formed and made by people 14 centuries ago, then, the knowledge mentioned in it will be limited to scientific discoveries at that time period, but because it wasn't limited on that period, it proves its compatibility with modern science as well.
Here are some summarized examples:
1-
If they aren't enough to convince then i do have many others to share gladly.
An argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), or appeal to ignorance ('ignorance' stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It says something is true because it has not yet been proved false. Or, that something is false if it has not yet been proved true.
An argument from authority (argumentum ab auctoritate), also called an appeal to authority, or argumentum ad verecundiam, is a form of defeasible argument in which the opinion of an authority on a topic is used as evidence to support an argument. It is well known as a fallacy, though some consider that it is used in a cogent form when all sides of a discussion agree on the reliability of the authority in the given context. Other authors consider it a fallacy to cite an authority on the discussed topic as the primary means of supporting an argument.
----------
These are the reasons why you're convincing nobody, and why everyone is raising their eyebrows at your "arguments". It's not that people don't want to accept the 'truth' of your religion. It is simply that you do not seem to know how to argue.
@Yusuf you have point if it is used as a motivator for science. But I'll always remain very skeptical when science and religion are mixed. Especially on the theories as mentioned in the videos, such as the big bang, which still remains a candidate theory of origin, even though it is widely accepted. As you said, it is a book of signs, not science. I'll have a look at the videos this evening.
https://www.space.com/24781-big-bang-theory-alternatives-infographic.html
https://www.space.com/24781-big-bang-theory-alternatives-infographic.html
Yes, and I'm sorry that you felt attacked and defensive, but it had to happen.