The creation of the heavens and the Earth

StopS

Salaam,

I have a similar but other point of view. While sience tries to approximate the truth, The Quran is the unchanging truth. The Quran is like Pi, while sience is trying to approach Pi with real numbers.

Nope, if it's "the truth" it's not science.
Pi is irrational. Is the Koran?
The sentence Koran = truth is nonsensical. The same as "The car is the speed" is nonsensical.
There is no such thing as "approximate the truth". Truth is truth and absolute. There is no large or small truth. There is no high or low truth or an approximation.

RED Really??? As far as I know we have a theory which per definition is not proven, so we know nothing, we are just guessing on basis of this theory.

You will have to be more precise with what you are saying. What do you mean by "theory which per definition is not proven"??? Are you trying to tell me that you think a scientific theory is based on a hunch?
We have a model, the Big Bang, for the Universe and proof for the age of Earth. Where exactly is your problem?

BLUE Nope, I don't see anything allegoric in The Quran about it. When the Quran says 6 ayyaam (which is most of times translated as days), then it is in 6 ayyaam. We can discuss what ayyaam means in The Quran but for sure it's 6 ayyaam.

Are you telling me that you think the entire Koran is to be understood literally? Even if there is something which does not apply to reality?

GREEN This is not from The Quran

"what was created on what day"

I don't understand what you are saying. This is what I find in the Koran
754, 103, 117 all say Allah who created the heavens and the earth in six days

7927 Are ye the more difficult to create or the heaven (above)? ((Allah)) hath constructed it
...
7930 and, after that, He spread out the earth.

419 says Him Who created the earth in two Days
4112 says He completed them as seven firmaments in two Days

If this is not from the Koran where else would I find this? This specifies what was created when and for how long. At least when I read it.

Bender

Nope, if it's "the truth" it's not science.

Salaam,

Did I said it's sience nope

Pi is irrational. Is the Koran?

in some sort of way it is.

The sentence Koran = truth is nonsensical. The same as "The car is the speed" is nonsensical.

red I do not agree
green I agree

There is no such thing as "approximate the truth". Truth is truth and absolute. There is no large or small truth. There is no high or low truth or an approximation.

Maybe you misunderstood, I said "science tries to approximate the truth".
What do you think scientific theories and models do? In case you don't know they try to represent the truth.

You will have to be more precise with what you are saying. What do you mean by "theory which per definition is not proven"??? Are you trying to tell me that you think a scientific theory is based on a hunch?

I was very clear, it's not hard to understand.
A theory is per definition not proven, as simple as that. No matter on what it is based as long as it is called a theory, it is not proven.

We have a model, the Big Bang, for the Universe and proof for the age of Earth. Where exactly is your problem?

O I don't have any problems thanks for asking.

As you write yourself the big bang is a model. You can take a look in history books what the history is of models.
Do we have a proof for the age of earth? Can you quote for me from a scientific paper were it says that the age of the earth is proven, thanks.

Are you telling me that you think the entire Koran is to be understood literally? Even if there is something which does not apply to reality?

If something is allegorical then it is said so or it can be concluded from the context.
There is absolutely nothing allegorical in the verses about creation, unless it is said so.

"what was created on what day"

I don't understand what you are saying. This is what I find in the Koran
754, 103, 117 all say Allah who created the heavens and the earth in six days

7927 Are ye the more difficult to create or the heaven (above)? ((Allah)) hath constructed it
...
7930 and, after that, He spread out the earth.

419 says Him Who created the earth in two Days
4112 says He completed them as seven firmaments in two Days

If this is not from the Koran where else would I find this? This specifies what was created when and for how long. At least when I read it.

I thought you were talking about "on monday there was light, on tuesday there was earth, on wednesday there were animals ( or somthing like that) etc etc etc."

Salaam,
Bender

kgwithnob

http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9600440.msg247806#msg247806

Peace,
Khalil

StopS

Salaam,

Did I said it's sience nope

Oh please stop acting dumb! What is this then? "while sience is trying to approach Pi with real numbers"

in some sort of way it is.
red I do not agree
green I agree

You must.

Maybe you misunderstood, I said "science tries to approximate the truth".
What do you think scientific theories and models do? In case you don't know they try to represent the truth.

No, they don't, you need to check.

I was very clear, it's not hard to understand.
A theory is per definition not proven, as simple as that. No matter on what it is based as long as it is called a theory, it is not proven.
O I don't have any problems thanks for asking.

As you write yourself the big bang is a model. You can take a look in history books what the history is of models.
Do we have a proof for the age of earth? Can you quote for me from a scientific paper were it says that the age of the earth is proven, thanks.

No, you were not.
No, you are not.
Wrong.
Of course I can.

If something is allegorical then it is said so or it can be concluded from the context.
There is absolutely nothing allegorical in the verses about creation, unless it is said so.

No, it does not.

I thought you were talking about "on monday there was light, on tuesday there was earth, on wednesday there were animals ( or somthing like that) etc etc etc."

Salaam,
Bender

That's your problem and jumping to conclusions.

Bender

Oh please stop acting dumb! What is this then? "while sience is trying to approach Pi with real numbers"

You must.

No, they don't, you need to check.

No, you were not.
No, you are not.
Wrong.
Of course I can.

No, it does not.

That's your problem and jumping to conclusions.

Salaam,

Thank you for your answers, you are right and I was wrong.

Have a nice evening and try to calm down a bit, it's bad for your heart.

Salaam,
Bender

StopS

Salaam,

Thank you for your answers, you are right and I was wrong.

Have a nice evening and try to calm down a bit, it's bad for your heart.

Salaam,
Bender

Now you know what it is like to get replies formulated the way you sent them to me.

inquisitivetrini

Ok. I'm so sorry. I have to jump in. I have to. rotfl

Let's break this down really quick before things get confusing. Let's start with two quotes.

Nope, if it's "the truth" it's not science.

Science and religion are diametrically opposed. They are completely, utterly different things. While science continuously improves and gets more accurate, religion is static. By necessity and definition.

So is it possible to assess or evaluate anything religious scientifically? Not in my opinion.

Ok. So what you're saying is basically "religion" doesn't change and it's static. It is not "religion" that does not change. It is God that does not change. Now from what I understand, you are unsure of why God is the truth manifested or in other words the creator of reality. But I think that this attribute of God is very important to consider when reading about the purpose of science. This is copied and pasted from the website sciencemadesimple.com. Don't judge me. It was the first link that came up when I searched for "the purpose of science".

Science Definition

The word science comes from the Latin "scientia," meaning knowledge.

How do we define science? According to Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, the definition of science is "knowledge attained through study or practice," or "knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method concerned with the physical world."

What does that really mean? Science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge. This system uses observation and experimentation to describe and explain natural phenomena. The term science also refers to the organized body of knowledge people have gained using that system. Less formally, the word science often describes any systematic field of study or the knowledge gained from it.

What is the purpose of science? Perhaps the most general description is that the purpose of science is to produce useful models of reality.

Bender said

I have a similar but other point of view. While sience tries to approximate the truth, The Quran is the unchanging truth. The Quran is like Pi, while sience is trying to approach Pi with real numbers.

And based on the definition of science and its purpose, he is absolutely right. Now for the next point.

Pi is irrational. Is the Koran?

From mathisfun.com

It is irrational because it cannot be written as a ratio (or fraction),
not because it is crazy!

But that should have been common knowledge. Irrational in the mathematical sense is completely different from the dictionary definition

irrational ir?ra?tion?al (-rsh'-nl) adj. Not rational; marked by a lack of accord with reason or sound judgment.

How can Pi lack reason or sound judgement???

Truth is truth and absolute.

I agree with this. And I think defining the terms above should clear things up, but let me know if they haven't.

You will have to be more precise with what you are saying. What do you mean by "theory which per definition is not proven"??? Are you trying to tell me that you think a scientific theory is based on a hunch?
We have a model, the Big Bang, for the Universe and proof for the age of Earth. Where exactly is your problem?

Here's a link explaining the difference between a hypothesis, a theory, and a scientific law.
http//www.wilstar.com/theories.htm

Now StopS, you are right in this case. A scientific theory is a tested hypothesis that is generally accepted to be true. But let's go a bit deeper into the meaning of a scientific theory. I think this article draws it out nicely, even though it's talking about a different subject.

http//www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

Excerpts from the article

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

So yes. A fact still has the possibility to be proven wrong. The same with a scientific theory. Now you said we have a model for the Big Bang and proof for the age of the Earth. Well let's see.

From http//www.big-bang-theory.com/

According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a "singularity" and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don't know for sure. Singularities are zones which defy our current understanding of physics. They are thought to exist at the core of "black holes." Black holes are areas of intense gravitational pressure. The pressure is thought to be so intense that finite matter is actually squished into infinite density (a mathematical concept which truly boggles the mind). These zones of infinite density are called "singularities." Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity. Where did it come from? We don't know. Why did it appear? We don't know.

In addition, proof of the age of the Earth and universe has not yet been proven. The 13.7 billion year estimate is still just an estimate and can be unproven at any time. We only make do with the tools we have to bring us to near certainty but it will never and can never be 100% truth. We can always get closer to the truth, so much so that it may be confirmed so frequently that it would be perverse to not agree with, but remember this makes whatever truth generally accepted as truth.

The dates of Big Bang generally accepted as 13.7 bya http//biologos.org/questions/ages-of-the-earth-and-universe

A proposal suggesting an older date than this http//www.newscientist.com/article/dn9676-big-bang-pushed-back-two-billion-years.html

But after all that, I agree with your last point. A scientific theory is indeed NOT based on a hunch.

I hope that wasn't too long....I guess my point is, always question!!! And science vs truth CAN coincide as long as we're aiming to explain reality.

Peace! yay

inquisitivetrini

salaam all,

A few points

Quran does not always use "yawm" to mean 24 hours.
Classical Arabic dictionaries yawm = day, era, time, today, this/that day, age/period of time, rising of the sun till it's resting, accident or event
A "day" is not a fixed period of time as it depends on what is the reference point. Before the creation of the earth and its revolving etc a day is not defined period of time as we know it today.
I have little idea why mmkhan referenced 325, but in any case, see 704. Thus if one wishes to use the unsound argument of a "yawm" is a 1000 years, then they will have to reconcile 704 in which a "yawm" is 50 000 years. Perhaps stating the obvious, but this proves a "yawm" is NOT a fixed period of time according to Quran, i.e. time is relative.
As Bigmo pointed out, if we do not know the period of time referred to as "yawm" in the earth/universe creation verses, we do know the proportionality and that seems sound, according to science.

I dont see the issue.

bravo

I personally like your explanation best. It makes a lot of sense, especially when "day" in our sense is based on the rotation of the earth, yet earth being made in six days is based on.... o

It's impossible to have a fixed period for "day" in this manner because what is it fixed on?

Peace. yay

sushi1992

It is 6 and 2 based on some nuance of the common factors of whatever other numbers there are. E.g. foods were assigned in four periods IIRC and so on and so forth.

What is amazing about all of these glaring mistranslations is that they expose the hadeethist idealogy for what it truly is. When people preach based on ignorance and create these incredible stories of creation in a matter of literal days, then the more simpler and clearer explanation of a verse comes forth revealing their ignorance. Absolutely loving it. People write volumes upon volumes rejecting scientific examination but all they have done is expose their own folly and they can't even see it.

Selam IAMOP,

To be honest, in the back of my mind i always thought that it wouldn't make too much sense it being LITERALLY 6 days that we know of today i.e. 144 hours... but luckily i never was brought up in a hadeethist society however I was brought up in a catholic environment where it was imprinted that it was literally 6 days and God rested on the 7th. Obviously i found the idea of God resting on the th ridiculous but i saw how they tried to fit this into our current 7 days a week.... sad really ( but my logic never was happy about it, considering I was quite into my science like physics and such, then i knew 6 days must have been some kind of equivalence to another period of time.

Peace ) peace

sushi1992

salaam all,

A few points

Quran does not always use "yawm" to mean 24 hours.
Classical Arabic dictionaries yawm = day, era, time, today, this/that day, age/period of time, rising of the sun till it's resting, accident or event
A "day" is not a fixed period of time as it depends on what is the reference point. Before the creation of the earth and its revolving etc a day is not defined period of time as we know it today.
I have little idea why mmkhan referenced 325, but in any case, see 704. Thus if one wishes to use the unsound argument of a "yawm" is a 1000 years, then they will have to reconcile 704 in which a "yawm" is 50 000 years. Perhaps stating the obvious, but this proves a "yawm" is NOT a fixed period of time according to Quran, i.e. time is relative.
As Bigmo pointed out, if we do not know the period of time referred to as "yawm" in the earth/universe creation verses, we do know the proportionality and that seems sound, according to science.

I dont see the issue.

Agreed Wakas, I think what was bugging me is because I was in a catholic environment, people made it seem like 6 days was referring to our actual days. My downfall was being blinded by this whilst reading the Quran, which I have tried at my best to remove any preconception but if i post about something it will be related to a preconception i've always had that has been niggling at me... But yes I agree that the word "yawm" can be any period of time and the proportionality also fits well with this understanding aswell.

peace

seekingtruth1111

Selam IAMOP,

To be honest, in the back of my mind i always thought that it wouldn't make too much sense it being LITERALLY 6 days that we know of today i.e. 144 hours... but luckily i never was brought up in a hadeethist society however I was brought up in a catholic environment where it was imprinted that it was literally 6 days and God rested on the 7th. Obviously i found the idea of God resting on the th ridiculous but i saw how they tried to fit this into our current 7 days a week.... sad really ( but my logic never was happy about it, considering I was quite into my science like physics and such, then i knew 6 days must have been some kind of equivalence to another period of time.

Peace ) peace

Sad indeed ) .

5038 And We have created the heavens and the Earth and what is between them in six days, and no fatigue touched Us.

Peace

Abdullah

sushi1992

bravo

I personally like your explanation best. It makes a lot of sense, especially when "day" in our sense is based on the rotation of the earth, yet earth being made in six days is based on....

It's impossible to have a fixed period for "day" in this manner because what is it fixed on?

Peace. yay

Selam inquisitivetrini,

Nice picture btw, i like it .

I think this is also where the proportionality of the 6 days for everything/2 days for the Earth comes into it. I think this is the most important thing the way i see it now... and a "day"is obviously something we cannot define in this case, however with the guidance of Allah i have now seen the proportionality to make perfect sense for the 62 days. Science isn't too far off as well .

peace

sushi1992

Sad indeed .

5038 And We have created the heavens and the Earth and what is between them in six days, and no fatigue touched Us.

Peace

Abdullah

Peace seekingtruth1111,

"No fatigue touched us" clarifies that the Biblical understanding of God rested for 7 days is smashed out of the window .

peace

seekingtruth1111

Peace sushi1992

Peace seekingtruth1111,

"No fatigue touched us" clarifies that the Biblical understanding of God rested for 7 days is smashed out of the window D.

peace

Yes of course Quran authenticates what is true or false in the previous scriptures .

1037 This Quran could not have been produced without God, but it is to authenticate what is already present, and to provide detail to the book in which there is no doubt, from the Lord of the worlds.

Peace

Abdullah

StopS

Ok. So what you're saying is basically "religion" doesn't change and it's static. It is not "religion" that does not change. It is God that does not change.

If that is your definition of a god, then yes.
But then what is religion for you? For me religion is the representation of this very god.

Now from what I understand, you are unsure of why God is the truth manifested or in other words the creator of reality. But I think that this attribute of God is very important to consider when reading about the purpose of science.

I said that the term "truth manifested" is nonsensical. There is only truth.

This is copied and pasted from the website sciencemadesimple.com. Don't judge me. It was the first link that came up when I searched for "the purpose of science".

Yes, they try and make it simple. But I find it simpler still science just documents, analyses and describes our natural world.
If there is something which is a law, it does not interest me any longer. I want to find out new facts and new understandings.

Bender said
And based on the definition of science and its purpose, he is absolutely right.

Science does NOT try to approximate the "truth".
A book can't be THE TRUTH.
A description such as UNCHANGING TRUTH is nonsensical, as "changing truth" never was the truth, was it?
Pi is an irrational number and science is NOT trying to "approach Pi with real numbers".

So, sorry, Bender is wrong in every single way.

But that should have been common knowledge. Irrational in the mathematical sense is completely different from the dictionary definition

Hahaha, you did not understand the wordplay... or the implications of your own statement.....

Here's a link explaining the difference between a hypothesis, a theory, and a scientific law.

I have no idea what any of your statements are supposed to mean or what relevance they have. You are confirming what I said - yet somehow implying something else.

inquisitivetrini

If that is your definition of a god, then yes.
But then what is religion for you? For me religion is the representation of this very god.

My definition of God? No sir. It is a characteristic that God expresses Himself.

1777 Such was the way of those whom We had sent before you of Our messengers. And you will not find any change in Our way.

3362 This is the way of God with those who have passed away before, and you will not find any change in the way of God.

As for what religion means to me. To be honest? I'm not really sure. I don't really think religion is important at all. The word itself is so difficult to translate and not many really know what it is.

http//www.religioustolerance.org/rel_defn.htm

The words ?millat? and ?deen? are usually translated to ?creed? and ?religion? respectively. But I think that religion may be irrelevant to Islam. Excerpt from ?What's in the Name?
http//www.free-minds.org/whats-name

Obligation/"deen"

When we read about "deen"/obligation, we find that it is often referred to using almost the same terminology used to refer to the "qibla"/target

And that persist your direction to the "deen"/obligation monotheistic and do not be from those who set up partners.
So persist your direction to the "deen"/obligation monotheistic, The God's natural system that He originated people on, there is no substitute to The God's creation but most people do not know.
So persist your direction to the worthy "deen"/obligation before a day made inevitable by The God comes. On that day they will be splintered.

Like "qibla"/target, we are asked to persist our direction towards the "deen"/obligation. Moreover, like verse 2143 that we saw earlier in the context of the target, the obligation is described as making "Al-Muslimin"/the balanced nation witnesses over the people

Like this we made you a balanced nation, so that you will be witnesses over the people and the messenger will be on you a witness. And we didn't make the (physical) target that you were on except to make it known who follows the messenger from who rolls on his heels and it (i.e., the physical target) is big except for those who The God guided and The God would not waste your faith, indeed The God is compassionate and merciful to people.
And strive in the cause of The God its truly deserving striving. He is the One who has chosen you, and He didn't make difficulty for you in the obligation, it is the creed of your father Ibrahim. He is the One who named you Al-Muslimin from before and in this, so that the messenger will be on you a witness and you will be witnesses over the people. So persist in the "salat" and provide the purification and hold tight to The God, He is your Protector, the best Protector, and the best Victor.

As we see from 2278 the obligation ("deen&quot is equivalent to the creed of Ibrahim. Moreover, as we saw earlier from verses 2120 and 2145, the creed seems to be equivalent to the target ("qibla&quot. So this means that "obligation", "creed of Ibrahim /monotheism", and "target/qibla" are all equivalent concepts.

I'm pretty new to all of this, so I am not completely sure about whether the concept of ?religion? is relevant to Islam or not, but this kind of thinking makes more sense to me, at least at first glance.

I said that the term "truth manifested" is nonsensical. There is only truth.

You say ?Truth Manifested? is nonsensical. There is only ?Truth?. Hmm. Please let me think out loud for a sec.

The arabic word for ?Manifest? is ?mubinun?. It means more like ?clear? or ?open? or ?obvious?.

Dictionary term for manifest

readily perceived by the eye or the understanding; evident; obvious; apparent; plain a manifest error.
to make clear or evident to the eye or the understanding; show plainly He manifested his approval with a hearty laugh.
to prove; put beyond doubt or question The evidence manifests the guilt of the defendant.

Concordance list for ?mubinun? http//corpus.quran.com/search.jsp?q=lem%3Am~ubiyn+pos%3Aadj

2425 On that day, God will pay them what they are owed in full, and they will know that God is the Truth Manifested.

I kind of see what you're saying StopS. If the truth is the truth, there isn't a variation of a truth. There's no almost truth or in the middle of truth or in other words, no gray area. Therefore how can truth be manifest? I think the opposite of manifest truth would then be concealed or hidden truth.

2146 Those to whom We have given the Scripture know it as they know their own children; and a group of them hides the truth while they know.

This is a theme that is pervasive throughout the Quran ? that certain types of people conceal the truth. Definitely gave me something to think about.

Yes, they try and make it simple. But I find it simpler still science just documents, analyses and describes our natural world.

Is our natural world not reality? What is the purpose of doing these things? Is it not to produce a model of reality? If science = documenting/analyzing/describing our natural world, and our natural world = reality, then science is therefore looking to make useful models of reality which in turn means that the model produced by science is representative of reality. It is coming as close as it can to reality. It is approximating reality. I guess the only hang up here is to determine whether reality/our natural world is the same as truth. That's certainly something to consider. That would determine whether Bender is completely right or not.

Truth
1.conformity with fact or reality; verity the truth of a statement.

Reality

The quality or state of being actual or true.

They're quite related, but I don't think they're the same. Perhaps I should edit Bender's statement?

"Science tries to approximate reality which is the state of being true/actual."

You know, I think Bender's still right. But perhaps likening the Quran to ?Pi? is what made his statement confusing. Seems like you don't like Pi very much. Care for some cake instead?

A book can't be THE TRUTH.

I absolutely agree with you. A book is not the truth, but it can contain the truth.

Hahaha, you did not understand the wordplay... or the implications of your own statement.....

Didn't realize you were utilizing wordplay. Sorry I didn't catch the pun. And I'm quite sure what the implications were in my own statement since all I did was post 2 dictionary definitions and briefly explained why they're different.

In any case, why do you think the Quran lacks reason and sound judgement?

I have no idea what any of your statements are supposed to mean or what relevance they have. You are confirming what I said - yet somehow implying something else.

Yea, it was confirming what you said, and I'm sure I said that, too. Perhaps I should've directed that to Bender instead?

Hey Bender. Salam! A scientific theory is generally accepted as truth because it has frequently been tested to be true until proven wrong! Ok?

Peace! yay

StopS

My definition of God? No sir. It is a characteristic that God expresses Himself.

Sorry, but I only know of an unchanging actions, religion, book or words, but not that god himself does not change.

I understand the problem. For me god is the concept and religion is the practical application. It becomes very important when income is treated as tax-free income due to the religious nature.

I kind of see what you're saying StopS. If the truth is the truth, there isn't a variation of a truth. There's no almost truth or in the middle of truth or in other words, no gray area. Therefore how can truth be manifest? I think the opposite of manifest truth would then be concealed or hidden truth.
This is a theme that is pervasive throughout the Quran ? that certain types of people conceal the truth. Definitely gave me something to think about.

Whether truth is immediately visible or apparent does not change truth itself. It is absolute. Also, truth can't be treated as an adjective. You can say that a claim is true and it then becomes the truth. But you can't do what some people try and do is say the claim is truth.

Reality

The quality or state of being actual or true.

"Science tries to approximate reality which is the state of being true/actual."

It is 1425. Is that true? Well, it might be for me, but for someone in Tonga it might not be. In 60 seconds I will be lying if I make the same statement. So how is "it is 1425" the truth?
On the other hand, I can make scientifically accurate statements which are the absolute truth the moon is not made out of blue cheese.
And that is my point scientifically accurate statements which are true are not interesting or challenging and warrant no further research.

Didn't realize you were utilizing wordplay. Sorry I didn't catch the pun. And I'm quite sure what the implications were in my own statement since all I did was post 2 dictionary definitions and briefly explained why they're different. o

The comical value comes from the use of Pi and Koran, where Pi is an irrational number and this can then be interpreted that he thought the Koran was equally irrational, because both meanings can be combined in one sentence here.

In any case, why do you think the Quran lacks reason and sound judgement?

Because there is too much which does not conform with reality. Regardless whether its water, mountains or any other natural phenomenon.

Yea, it was confirming what you said, and I'm sure I said that, too. Perhaps I should've directed that to Bender instead?

Hey Bender. Salam! A scientific theory is generally accepted as truth because it has frequently been tested to be true until proven wrong! Ok?

Peace! yay

Haha, clear enough. Except that I object to the term truth and would prefer fact, representing reality.

inquisitivetrini

Sorry, but I only know of an unchanging actions, religion, book or words, but not that god himself does not change.

I understand the problem. For me god is the concept and religion is the practical application. It becomes very important when income is treated as tax-free income due to the religious nature.

I see where you're coming from. Fair enough.

Whether truth is immediately visible or apparent does not change truth itself. It is absolute. Also, truth can't be treated as an adjective. You can say that a claim is true and it then becomes the truth. But you can't do what some people try and do is say the claim is truth.

I see your point.

And that is my point scientifically accurate statements which are true are not interesting or challenging and warrant no further research.

Which means that science has done it's job - made an accurate model of reality. And that's why it's no longer interesting.

The comical value comes from the use of Pi and Koran, where Pi is an irrational number and this can then be interpreted that he thought the Koran was equally irrational, because both meanings can be combined in one sentence here.

Like I said, didn't catch on to the wordplay. My bad.

Because there is too much which does not conform with reality. Regardless whether its water, mountains or any other natural phenomenon.

Like what? Do you think the topic here was an accurate rendition of how reality came into existence? That creationism and the big bang theory actually coincide?

Haha, clear enough. Except that I object to the term truth and would prefer fact, representing reality.

Truth

conformity with fact or reality; verity the truth of a statement.
Fact
a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true Scientists gather facts about plant growth.

Touch?.

Student_of_Allah

Shalom Aleikhem,

RED Really??? As far as I know we have a theory which per definition is not proven, so we know nothing, we are just guessing on basis of this theory.

I was very clear, it's not hard to understand.
A theory is per definition not proven, as simple as that. No matter on what it is based as long as it is called a theory, it is not proven.

O MY GOD !!

One could not be more mistaken. You managed to misunderstand "scientific theory". Now, before we begin, let me ensure you that I know that in everyday life, we use the word "theory" to propose an untested idea. But that is not how scientists use the word. In science, an untested idea would be a "hypothesis".

We have scientific laws that we can check and confirm to be true. We have "facts" / confirmed observations. What we do then is come up with a hypothesis. And test if our hypothesis is true. When we can back the "hypothesis" up with observations/tests, then we are making it into a theory.

To keep it short, a scientific theory is the opposite of what you stated. It is the logical construct of all known facts, confirmed observations, laws of nature and guess what ? You can even test it. When you have a theory, it should make predictions which you can go and check if they are true. And for all scientific theories, they earned their title by proving that they are true.

Peace
------------ Student of Allah

StopS

Which means that science has done it's job - made an accurate model of reality. And that's why it's no longer interesting.

Oh dear, no, far from it. Humans have been researching for 200 years and we've barely scratched the surface.

Like what? Do you think the topic here was an accurate rendition of how reality came into existence? That creationism and the big bang theory actually coincide?

The topic here has been around a couple 1000 years. The separation of Earth and the heavens has been described by Sumerians, Babylonians, Hindus, ...... The same as the creation of humans from clay. The Koran only says that the Universe was created somehow and so was Earth. Without further details.

It's the details that then start going wrong, depending on how you treat them. If you take the statement that mountains were set on Earth and then add that they stabilise the surface like pegs it is not truly representing reality. It would actually be interesting to find out how this is reconciled here by people who know the Koran much better than I do. The same then applies if you read that thunder can punish and even kill a human. Today we know lightning causes thunder.

Truth

conformity with fact or reality; verity the truth of a statement.
Fact
a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true Scientists gather facts about plant growth.

Touch?.

True, depending on definition and intention. Like they say even a broken analogue clock is right 2x a day. Does that make the clock real or the truth?