Unscientific Quran
-
Peace Wakas, all
I would prefer to see the specific examples where people think the reading is contradicting science etc.
From my experience, they eventually get disproven after a bit of research.
And vice versa... so called "scientific" prophecies eventualy get disproven after a bit of research...
However i wasnt claiming that the revelation contradicts the science...I was claiming that it could be led into contradicting it if one is allowed to employ the same manner of analysis or interpretation which is employed in the process of discovering of the "scientific" prophecies in the book...
In both cases, respecting the principles of the understanding of the revelation, those set by the author of the revelation Himself, one can see that the scientific prophecy, as well as, the scientific blunder is clearly not meant, although, strictly linguisticaly spaeaking, both the blunder and the prophecy are among valid interpretations....
it seems to me that in both cases such an intepretation is wrong and a result of ignorance or subjective desire to denie the revelation or to find/invent a proof to its divine authorship....
This is a prevailing pattern in regards of so called "scientific" prophecies of the revelation....though, I repeat there might be some exception to this....
Particularly if one is to understand the science in a broader sense...as all the knowledge acessible to people through all their senses and tools of which some are maybe not recognised by the "official" science....(on the other hand there are some tools of the modern science that are overvalued and their restrictions and incapability of "proving" the creator or his message unrecognised...)...
In this sense i do not question the scientific aspect of the revelation....
best wishes,
Zlatan
-
Salam Primanda,
The thing about science is that all things must be falsifiable. To me the Qur'an is not to be falsifiable. I leave it to you to connect the dots together.
Khi- Ur wrong there. Of course the Quran is falsifiable. It gives u the challenge 2 produce one sura like the ones in It. It also says tht if It has been from any other than GOD u wld find in It many contras which we dont find a single except by twisting the meaning which has been proven false over n over again. N as far as my knowledge is concerned the Quran is the ONLY relgious Book in the world which contains these challenges/falsification tests. GOD Bless!
-
Salam Primanda,
The thing about science is that all things must be falsifiable. To me the Qur'an is not to be falsifiable. I leave it to you to connect the dots together.
Khi- Ur wrong there. Of course the Quran is falsifiable. It gives u the challenge 2 produce one sura like the ones in It. It also says tht if It has been from any other than GOD u wld find in It many contras which we dont find a single except by twisting the meaning which has been proven false over n over again. N as far as my knowledge is concerned the Quran is the ONLY relgious Book in the world which contains these challenges/falsification tests. GOD Bless!
Thanks for the correction Khizar.
-
.
.
.
http//members.aol.com/masadi/sci.htm
.
.
.I have seen many times all these arguments of Mauricie Buccaile, Asadi, Keith Moore etc ....they are NOT SERIOUS , they are very weak and imo cant be called scientific proofs-if not all, then most of their arguments does not hold water....
best wishes
-
if not all, then most of their arguments does not hold water....
I say most, not because i believe that some of their examples have merit but because i have not studied all of the examples, particularly not in detail...
First, because of the physical improbability to study them all, they are innumerable and are created on a daily basis...it seems that there is as much of them as there is authors who write about such things...
and the second, because some of them are based rather on the very subtle and highly specialised scientific findings and theories and not upon the undeniable facts observable by anyone-..these findings and their interpretations, or theories based on them, might be disproved in future and are hard to check even for a scientist in the field let alone for a layman like me -and others like me who, unlike myself, believe in such scientific "confirmations"...
best wishes, Zlatan
-
The assumption that the civilisations or nations prior to ours or those of Muhamad`s time were astronomicaly or scientificaly undeveloped in a measure that would prevent them from understanding or inventing so called scientific prophecies is highly questionable...if not outright false...
best wishes
-
salam Zlatan.
what do u think about the falsification tests in the koran ?salam Saladin!
can you be more specific?
salam zlatan.
i mean , the challanges that the koran gives , that koran challanges to falsify it , do u think it can be falsified too ? like u think the "scientific" stuff is incorrect . -
Peace
I am sorry saladin D but i realy do not understand what exactly your question is about....maybe its my poor english...can you cite some verses to which your question is reffering?
are you asking me could the scripture be imitated or contain contradictions?best wishes, Zlatan
-
-
Peace Zlatan,
It is an interesting point you are making, I think that the great reading should not be put forward as anything but what it claims to be 'a beacon and a mercy for the believers'. You make a great point about the fact that parts are narrated from man's point of view.
Lotetree, I agree that we shouldn't treat the book as a science book or limit it to that, but I cannot ignore some of the interesting findings in the book, the confirmation of tested science, I think these are remarkable.
All that is needed is common sense when reading this great book, this is why we are encouraged to REFLECT upon this message.
Nural