Okay how about you look into the first few stages of embryology, you will see that the human fetus at 6-8 weeks resembles a leech, as it looks like one, has a tail and "sucks blood" from the inside of the mother like a leech. And the other stages are explained too, most of which wasn't discovered untill very recently. They did not know these things at that time... and im NOT interpreting it to benefit my claim... its right there if you had common sense you would believe it.
Oh ok, so the embryo is the leech like creature... see I don't get it, alot of things are leech like - why did you pick the embryo? Anyway as for the other stages, etc I believe it's been recently discovered that a greek physician knew about the developmental stages and published this before the koran... this has been accepted by most islamic scholars I believe.
NOBODY understand the idea of the big bang... all that is proven is that at one stage everything was in one place, since the universe is expanding we assume this... the only reference of the UNIVERSE/SPACE/HEAVENS being "one" is the reference to it in the Qur'an untill such ideas were discovered by doppler. So dont go and make these inane idiotic STUPID conclusions. IF you read into it you will see the significance... it is saying the universe expanded... it was RIPPED like an explosion....
I don't see how a rip is like an explosion, I also don't see why you'd think it's talking about the big bang - i'd like to see some context to it.
Its funny... you atheists... its right there! in your face! but because you dont want to believe in religion you deny it.
Don't be stupid, I want to believe. I want to believe when I die there will be something more, I want to believe my family that have passed away are somewhere happy - But at the same time I want to know the truth, don't get it wrong. It is you that will reject evidence because you want your belief to be true, I don't really want my belief to be true but at the same time I want to be as close to the truth as I can be.
Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens and the earth were of one piece, then We parted them, and we made every living thing of water ? Will they not then believe ?
I'm pretty sure this whole thing is actually in the bible, and I heard off a guy that analyses the bible that this is a pagan belief that had made its way into the bible and I guess the koran too (the idea that living things come from water).
Anyway it's still extremely vague - and note that it was only discovered that this was talking about the big bang etc... after the fact, don't you find that odd? I'd really like you to answer me.
Science does say it was intelligently designed... the universe is a creation... not a matter of circumstance... science explains WHAT happened.. not how....
Now science attempts to explain how it happens too, however of course there are holes. Science does not say it was intelligently designed, i had no idea where you get that from, nor does it say that the universe is a creation in the sense you're talking about (i.e. a creation with an intelligent creator).
Because it sais the "heavens" and the earth. And in the qur'an nothing is in "heaven- which has a different name then the one it refers to it is called JANI" That heaven means space... as was used by the greeks... that you love so dearly... they say IN THE HEAVENS!
Space is relatively recent term to describe.... whats not on earth.... lol... heavens...
Yea the heavens and the earth... the sky and the the ground. I'd like to know what the term for sky is and the term for heaven, also whether heaven is ever used to describe sky.
Anyway my point is pretty much moot, I just like to bring various things up.
That is the challenge of allah for you to discover what is not known... and as of yet not scientific information has been rejected by islam... if we get into other religions... there has been milions... eg; "evolution", "heliocentric universe" etc etc...
and now these religions who supposedly have FAITH try to discredit islam? its a trick....
I believe I asked you before - do muslims accept evolution? I find that odd because most on this forum don't, and i've listened to debates about evolution between a muslim and a scientist.
If you took your head out of your ass you would see that i explained all those who are pure of heart will go to heaven regardless of religion... according to islam... so your religion has no significance to the person of islam... just your purity...
If you took your head out of your ass you would see that I think there's a problem with the whole 'pure of heart' thing. You need to define pure of heart, which you really didn't do a very good job of doing, I suspect in the end you'd end up saying to go to the koran to find what pure of heart is, which will just lead me back to being a muslim/leading a muslim lifestyle.
why would you question a religion with moral and peaceful and family values?
Because you are an atheist jack-ass who listens to the media and is easily influenced...
I question the religion because it is not promoting what I feel are moral and peaceful values (cutting off burgulars hands.... many things relating to crime and punishment) - I also question the religion because I believe it is wrong.
Now some other "interesting" things the media blows up...
the 2 Australian Gang Rapings?
Which happened 3-4 years ago? and all of the people involved got sentenced to over 35 years?
Or the incident where a group of men attacked a life guard who they overheard say "those fucking lebos" even if they werent referring to them...?
Thats about 20 people.. these people do not reflect the odd.. 2 million muslims in australia who abide with the laws... have a sense of nationalism and pay taxes...
Yes ok, these people don't represent them all perfectly, however when you have a group of people with one characteristic (i.e. poor) committing crimes at a higher rate than the average person without that characteristic, or a similar group of people without that characteristic... you have to look into the problem and see what lies there.
because at that time people couldnt conceive the idea 1,000,000,000 years... people of the 7th century had a superiority complex....
(10,000 - 50,000 is just symbolising that it IS a long period so it wouldnt be disregarded as a contradiction to science)
How come it's just symbolising there (how do we know? it seems like you're putting the cart before the horse) and how come it's targetted to the people of the time?
Muhammad (PBUH) who "introduced" the Qur'an to the world lived in a secluded part of the world with NO access to Greek literature...
You have no idea what could have been going on, trade of information etc... we just don't know, it seems like special pleading to just say 'no, it doesn't matter that the things he came up with were already known at the time! because he's in a distant land'.
You question the integrity of a book you know nothing of... and have faith that the universe was created without a god? I know enough about astronomy to tell you, you are wrong.
I don't know whether it was created without a god, I just see no evidence that it was so I'm going to say 'there isn't a god' and I think given the facts we have I am accepting the 'provisional' truth until more facts come to light.
I also figured out that alot of what is known about the big-bang is true... and a lot is untrue... and i know how the conditions for the creation of the universe would occur and unfortunately it does not necessarily require a creator. However i will never release this information as it could be interpreted that there is no "creator" and i have absolute faith in allah... Hopefully it will die with me....
You are a nut.
I know it seems there is alot of contradictions in my post... its because of the contradictions, in my thoughts... its not an accident....
Wow what a nut..
About Science
I think science may be re-expressed as a system that tries to dictate.
Science is a way of learning, so it's not about trying to dictate.
A lot of people bring up arguments like, if God can't be proved via science, it must be false. The extreme, opposite standpoint to this view is that there's no reason why, if something can't be proven via science, we can't accept that it's true. Or, if you take the flipside, there's no reason why science makes something true.
It's not that it
must be false, it's just that given the facts we currently have it is provisionally false - until new facts come to light.
The extreme, opposite standpoint to this view is that there's no reason why, if something can't be proven via science, we can't accept that it's true.
Well there's no reason why you can't accept that it's true, it's just that it'd be pretty illogical to considering that most people accept what science has to say in other areas. It doesn't really make sense to just ignore the facts you currently have before you in favour of a story, but of course you
can if you want.
Or, if you take the flipside, there's no reason why science makes something true.
Science doesn't 'make' something true, there are true things (an objective reality) out there and science attempts to verify them. Now given what current facts we have on this effect we call 'gravity' we can say it exists, this is provisionally true, while new facts might come to light saying that it is not.
However, it makes alot more sense to work with the provisional truths which science provides us based on known fact, than working with absolute truths that you've created for yourself based on a story.
A lot of science is based on experiments. Hypotheses are made, and experiments are conducted to test them. For example, I might want to test what the effect of throwing my computer out the window is. We expect it to fall because science tells us that gravity has this effect on the mass of the computer. But... even if I throw the computer out 10000000 times, I can't say for sure that it won't fly off or float on the 10000000th and first time.
Yep correct, but why would you postilate that computers can fly with no evidence of it? It's illogical. Refer to my above points on 'provisional truths'.
This might sound really stupid... but I guess my this is my point. There are people saying God is false because science can't prove his existence. And there are others who say God might well be true, however, science has yet to verify this.
I'm saying that God is provisionally false (based on current facts) because science can't prove his existence (a god as most people describe it, a supernatural power, i doubt science will ever prove... it would have to be a naturalistic god like some sort of natural effect on the universe). Anyway, I also say that god might well be true, however science has yet to verify it - the big point tho is that why would I believe something with no facts when the current facts are pointing me in the other direction? Why would I believe that a computer can fly when the current facts say it does not? I should accept that a computer cannot fly (as a provisional truth - truthful until proven to not be), but still be open to the possibility that it might.
Why can't we step out of this box and say, well... science might be false because it can't prove its existence via God.
Uhh what the hell?
Why is it that we prefer to accept hypotheses testing and experiments over stories about miracles?
Because they provide us with fairly solid facts which we can use to form provisional opinions. Instead of just floating around in fairy land. Science and facts have done us alot of good in the past, it has cured diseases etc... miracles and stories have not. People believe in science because it provides solid results.
but what I'm really getting at is that western culture has brought people up differently from those who are brought up in the Middle East.
Yep ok.
Our starting point is science... their starting point is God.
A bit of a huge generalisation there. Also, you have to realise is that the starting point of science is 'we don't know'.
For us, we frustrate over trying to prove God via science. For them, the question is why isn't science proved via God?
If their question is 'why isn't science proved via God' then they're all truely illogical.
Once we step oustide this box, maybe our thinking will become more moderate and tolerant.
Or maybe we'll get no where and work with some odd rhetoric like you just did.
