Eve ? Who is that girl ?

[Man_of_Faith]

I suppose even a human who wrote a book called Quran over thousand years ago realized the wings of the bird is propelling them and keeping them into the air. People were not stupid.

The phenomenon which makes them able to remain in the air could be what "is that it is" refers back to. law of physics and that "is that it is" stands for and thus the Quran does not make humilation of itself. People may not have understood why the birds are kept in the air except that the wings are their tool to accomplish this, but the lesson is the wonders of nature.

Same is that the skies (everything away from Earth) that are kept away without pillars because the people were again not stupid and understood the effect of the law of gravity and that things would come down unless something kept them up and again we have "is that it is" who keeps things like they are instead of letting everything fall and crash back on the ground and "is that that it is" assures no pillars accomplish this and invites for the beholder to contemplate existence. A modern man may want to extend his contemplation on how the laws of nature are in existence such as gravity and who made everything revolve and cause gravity fields instead and why it seems illogical that it all begun this process out of nothing without guidance from a trigger entity that had an aim with it.

The pillars similitude does not impress people today but then they should remember it was written over thousand years ago and was intended primarily for them and the allegories still work for us to raise our thougts, but we may need to extend our philosophies.

All allegories are inviting to contemplate why all natural laws are in existence and reflect back to "is that that it is" and then ask yourself of it was not for it then how is everything in existence? Did it create itself?

Now you can instead reflect upon the phenomenon that the planets and other bodies revolve around their star instead of just crashing back to it. Even if science explains it is the revolving mechanism that does it you can always ask yourself how it all got into place so that it could begin its rotation. And why does gravity exist without just saying the objects generate gravity but why?

Be of one in is that that it is

[Zulf]

First of all I agree with the statement that we can't apply Quran as a scientific textbook. But Student of Allah, you are making a very unfair argument here. I even think you are aware of what you are doing, if not this may be enlightening to you. The verse you quoted here does not literally tell us God holds up birds in the air with some mystical force. That is the most extremely literal interpretation of that verse I have ever heard and I doubt very much you yourself are even convinced it should be taken that literally. You are deliberately ignoring the metaphorical interpretation in which this verse relates to Gods creation of this universe resulting in the atmosphere of this planet and Newtonian laws of physics as a product of that intelligent evolutionary design. Without atmosphere and Newtonian physics that bird would be unable to create lift, it wouldn't even be able to breathe or produce the kinetic energy to do so. All of those are according to Quran results of Gods evolutionary design of this universe. Maybe you were doing this to drive home your point of view, but there are less cheap ways to do so. Don't you agree? I could expand this criticism towards your narrative easily to your other examples but I think this one already illustrates it sufficiently.

Quran is not a scientific textbook, though it contains many clear signs relating to scientific understanding that are often remarkable in their compatibility with modern scientific understanding.

Yes, indeed it seems like a very literal interpretation, yet still a kind of interpretation that many atheist-scientists would hold.

In any case, an atheist would find it silly to involve a god who holds up birds in the sky or who spreads clouds and makes rain fall, when the physical mechanisms are quite well known (in terms of the known physical world). It seems unnecessary to involve a god when things already seem to work on their own, as per the natural laws.
The point is however that this view, held by the science conscious atheist, presumes a "religious god". By this I mean that the atheist refutes the involvement of a god as God is described by the usual religions... i.e. some super natural creature with human like qualities. Obviously there is no need for a Man in the Sky if things already work thanks the the natural laws. The atheist is adopting the image of God found in the Religions and then rejects this image (rightly so I have to say). But this is, in my mind, a case of false dilemma. Either we have a God as per Religion, or we don't have God at all. This is black and white scenario is quite limited. This leads to the mindset which dictates that since we understand many natural laws and related phenomena, then there is no need for God. It is assumed God is a separate being, imagined to run things like a master of puppets pulling the strings from outside the natural world and outside the normal network of cause and effect.

Some people then compromise and see world where God put the natural laws in action and then remains God who can interfere in the business of the world. This is just a scientific smelling version of the Religious version of the world. It still assumes and views God as a separate Guy in the Sky. The theist would naturally reject this as well, finding such a scenario unnecessary.

I believe that at the core of the human problems, is the image of God. Obviously, our image of God determines what we think of God, e.g. to what extent God is necessary or not in our world. We come to a conclusion, but it all depends of our image of God. It is assumed, in the general typical discussions among people, that if God exists, then God would be like the Religions describe "him" (whether openly or not). Naturally, we would normally not see the need for a pink unicorn in the sky, unless of course you're indoctrinated and entrained in a Religion.

So, whatever science finds out (as long as it is true) is part of reality (as we perceive it) and nothing real can contradict God and God cannot contradict reality, in this case what science finds (if it is true). If birds fly thanks to a mix of drag, lift, weight, surface areas, whatever etc, then this is how God holds them up. If clouds move due to sun energy, currents of air, temperature, densities etc, then again, this is how God moves the clouds. Why would we look for some Guy in the Sky who orders clouds around or has gazillions of hands to hold bird up? That would be madness. Why not let existence/creation/nature be the evidence/proof/sign that God is. "Since I am, therefor I know God is, by definition". Why not relax and simply say that "oh, so this is the mechanism behind this natural phenomenon... ok, so this is how God "does" it". Let everything be the proof of that God exists, and stop trying to paint the face of God.

Also, our view of reality is just one model, or one way of seeing it. Just because we know about lift, wings, weight, gravity and air, doesn't mean that 'God doesn't do it'. We assume a lot about what "to do" means when it comes to God.

I'm not sure I'm getting my point across. I just think that we assume too much about what God is and how God let's things happen. We also often think backwards when trying to prove or disprove God.

And in any case, it is futile to try to convince people about the existence of God. Whose God anyway are we talking about? Also some things are not possible to describe with the words we have today, especially in scientific terms... but even this claim, in the sentence I just wrote, is useless to make... cannot be proven or falsified.

Peace folks.

[Man_of_Faith]

I still remember brother Ahmad Bilal's suggestion of 'skyman'. rotfl

Be of one in God