Where did we come from?
-
Peace Br. Arnold & Br. OPF
Thanks for the detailed post. I have tried to see from your eyes the interpretation of the Book from your eyes and also reviewed to a certain extent, your sources of information. My thoughts on your post are as follows
Peace,
As in the words of Paul Davies, a God that cannot design a Universe that can create Life on its own without interferring is not an intelligent God. To believe in miracles and spontanious creation is reducing God to one that cannot plan or design something perfect but something that needs management and constant interferring.
I looked up Paul Davies (his homepage, or at least it is asserted that it is, http//cosmos.asu.edu/). I don't know if you accept or are aware of his current views on "Intelligent Design", but he now says,
"... To set the record straight, I am a fierce opponent of so-called "Intelligent Design", and I devote a whole chapter of my book Cosmic Jackpot (published under the title The Goldilocks Enigma in the UK) to denouncing it. I campaigned strongly in Australia against ID; here is an article of mine about the dangers of allowing it to be taught as "science"."
Following that, naturally I looked up the term "Intelligent Design" to see what it is that he is so vehemently opposed to. It seems that it is basically an evolved form of creationism (no pun intended) which came about to reach a compromise with irrefutability of evolution. Apparently how the majority of the scientific community views their belief is summarised here http//www.talkdesign.org/cs/td_faq
In summary, true scientists consider this a "pseudo-science", because according to them, good scientific theories contain virtues like testability, parsimony, and explanatory power, and Intelligent Design movement tends to be lacking these virtues and many others.
So, what does this mean? Simply put there are and should be only two ways to go about it. One is natural, real, logical and rational, which is what science is and the other is not, which is creationism and/or Intelligent Design.
Just to clarify before analysing the assertion that I made in the previous paragraph, the above is not something that I thought up, this is what the majority of scientists, including Paul Davies, understand presently. (Please see http//www.talkdesign.org/cs/td_faq)
Anyway, since this topic is divided between the two approaches, I think it is better check what views both of them are actually upholding, with regard to creation and evolution.
There is no shame in having the same origins as a monkey or a bug. There are still many questions on Evolution, but the issue here is mainly not science but psychology. People equal evolution to atheism which is nonsense, Muslim invented the evolution theory. God has created the universe in such a way that it creates Life out of itself. God is the creator and designer of Laws, and as He is the Perfect Designer, there is no need for tinkering and interferring
506 Do they not look at the sky above them how We have built it and beautified it, and there are no flaws therein?
The above claim of the Universe having no flaws has only value when God doesn't need to interfer constantly.
Correct me if I am presumptuous but it seems that the scientific approach is denoted in the above post. Let's take evolution first. You say Muslims invented the theory of evolution, which must have been quite some time ago and it is pretty safe to assume that man's knowledge and techniques have advanced much more since that time. So what is the update on theory of evolution which scientists and biologists have postulated in these times? Evolution is a fact. How that process happens is not clear even now, but they are three basic theories of the mechanism of evolution
(1) Natural Selection
(2) Genetic Drift
(3) Gene FlowWithout any outside influence, these three ways, each contributing to a certain extent, are theorized to result in evolution.
The first one, Natural selection implies that life changes in response to changes in the environment. In the context of the earth, life forms changed with the changes the Earth underwent from its inception till now. A simplistically comprehendible explantion of the Origins of Life.
The second one, Genetic drift, contrasts against Natural Selection, because it is random changes in the living organisms and arise from the role that chance plays in what characteristics will be carried forward to the next form of life.
The third one, Gene flow, is the transfer of genes within and between populations, whether of the same species or otherwise.
All three are simplistic, logical and rational explanations, making inference from the fossils discovered and physical and other laws governing the Earth, but are still theories. However, that doesn't refute evolution in the least; it is still a fact, and is evident. Micro-evolution is an example which is observed and macro-evolution is simply the outcome of long periods of microevolution. All living things comes from previous living things.
So that leaves us with a question that since there must have been a first living thing, how did that come into being? Again, there are many theories regarding how that can have happened, and work is underway to replicate the theorised processes which may have resulted in the first life (Please see the following Wikipedia webpage for the said work http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life). Afterall, it is a natural process and it has happened before, so can happen again. Very logical and rational assumption, and considering as you said, the Creator has designed the Universe in such a way that it creates life out of itself, so given the right conditions life will generate itself in a laboratory, without His involvement at all.
The next question that scientists pose is about the laws themselves. Where did they come from? I read an article about the standpoint of scientists about one of such laws, i.e. Physical Laws (http//www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cosmo.html). It's conclusions are summarised as follow
"We are gradually learning that several of the laws of physics, those that seem the most universal and profound, are in fact little more than statements about the simplicity of nature that can almost go unsaid. The "laws" of energy, momentum, and angular momentum conservation have been shown to be statements about the homogeneity of space and time. The first law of thermodynamics, conservation of energy, results from there being no unique moment in time. Conservation of momentum follows from the Copernican principle that there is no preferred position in space. Other conservation laws, such as charge and nucleon number, also arise from analogous assumptions of simplicity.
For the mathematically inclined, the conserved quantities are generators of the symmetry transformations involved. A homogeneous universe, one with a high level of symmetry, is the simplest of all possible universes, just the kind we would expect to happen by accident. In such a universe, many conservation laws will automatically exist."
What is the conclusion from the scientific standpoint on Origin of Life, Evolution and Physical Laws? Summarily, all of these phenomena could have as easily come about "naturally" as from a Creator/Designer. Scientifically, there is no stamp of a Creator/Designer in anything we see around us, since everything is cause and effect. The presence of a Creator is a hypothesis which lacks testability among other virtues of good scientific theory and the burden of proof is upon hypothesists who make the claim.
As for miracles or the supernatural, the Quran denies itself
4153 (O Prophet) People of the Scripture ask you to bring a published book from the sky. They made a greater demand to Moses when they said, "Show us Allah face to face". And their psyche was such that when a bolt of lightning struck around them, they fell in fear (255). They had displaced the true belief with falsehood. After that, they chose the calf for worship although they had seen the Manifest Truth. Yet, We pardoned them and gave Moses evident authority (as a blessing for their guidance).
I was about to ask you what the aforementioned verse had to do with miracles and the supernatural, but then I looked up the verse myself. Many translations of that verse, but one word has been interpreted differently in almost all of them; "faakhathat-hum"
Punished/Took them (Literal)
Took them (Free Minds)
Seized them (Pickthal)
Struck them (Khalifa)
They were dazed (Yousuf Ali)
Struck around them making them fearful (QXP Shabbir Ahmed)I gathered that you prefer the last translation. So, I following the link for 255 (and the following verse 256) that was given in the post above. The various translations are as follows
Literal - And when you said "You, Moses, we will never believe to you until we see God openly," so the death/cry of torture took/punished you, and you are looking/watching. Then We revived/resurrected you from after your death/lifelessness , maybe you thank/be grateful.
Free Minds - And you said "O Moses, we will not believe you until we see God openly!" So the lightning bolt took you while you were still staring. Then We resurrected you after your death that you may be appreciative.
Pickthal - And when ye said O Moses! We will not believe in thee till we see Allah plainly; and even while ye gazed the lightning seized you. Then We revived you after your extinction, that ye might give thanks.
Khalifa - Recall that you said, "O Moses, we will not believe unless we see GOD, physically." Consequently, the lightning struck you, as you looked. We then revived you, after you had died, that you may be appreciative.
Yousuf Ali - And remember ye said "O Moses! We shall never believe in thee until we see Allah manifestly," but ye were dazed with thunder and lighting even as ye looked on. Then We raised you up after your death Ye had the chance to be grateful.
QXP Shabbir Ahmed - And recall when you told Moses, " We won't believe in you until we see Allah face to face." (This happened because you had programmed your minds into the primitive ways of the "age of worship" when humans could only appreciate the tangible. At that level of intellect, humans come to fear natural phenomena). Thus, when you saw the lightening thunder (and the challenges of life) you almost fell dead in fright. (Losing your reason (7155)). Then We revived you, and raised you from a dead to a living nation so that you might be practically grateful (by setting up the Benevolent Order).
Please indulge me as I reproduce one more verse (Just from QXP Shabbir Ahmed) for which a link is provided above
7155 - Moses planned for the future. He appointed seventy of his people as officers to prevent the nation from wavering. An earthquake shook them (255) and Moses said, "My Lord! You could have destroyed them and me before, if You so willed (when they asked to see God in physical form (255)). Would you destroy us for the actions of the ignorant among us? This must be Your trial for us. You have appointed Laws of straying and guidance. You are our Protecting Friend. Forgive us and have Mercy on us. You are the Best of forgivers.
As much as I respect the efforts of "QXP Shabbir Ahmed" to explain the "true" meaning of the Message, I am unable to understand his use of Tasreef for the aforementioned verses, particularly in terms of
(1) "faakhathat-hum" (4153) = Struck around them making them fearful & "faakhathat-kum" (255) = you fell in fear?
(2) Lots of explanations which the Book original text doesn't have, both within brackets and outside of them (Boldened).
(3) Link to 7155 for losing your reason?625 Some of them pretend to listen to you, but Our Law has already veiled their hearts from understanding and caused deafness in their ears. Blind followers fail to believe even when they see all kinds of proofs. When they come to argue with you, they say about the Qur?an, "These are stories of the bygones."
Our Law? Blind Followers (of whom/what)? Stories of the bygones?
I'll leave you to give me your understanding of the first two questions. About the "Stories of the Bygones" (asateerual-awwaleen). The word used for stories here is "Asateer", from the root word "Siin-Tay-Ra" having the following meanings
"To write, inscribe, draw, throw down, cut, cleanse, manage the affairs, ward, exercise authority, oversee, prostrate, set in. To embelllish stories with lies, falsehoods; stories having no foundation. To read, recite. To exercise absolute authority, to pay frequent attention to." (Source http//www.studyquran.co.uk/PRLonline.htm)
So to say just stories is depicting an incomplete picture, whereas, using Tasreef of the aforementioned words (831, 1624, 2383, 255, 2768, 4617, 6815 & 8313), "Asateer" are more like baseless stories/myths, as opposed to,
- "Anba'i" (e.g. 2099, 11120) from the root "Nun-Ba-Alif" &
- "Qasas" (e.g. 77, 123) from the root "Qaf-Sad-Sad"
of what happened before. So, just to clarify when I quote any "story" from the Book, I do not consider them "baseless or myths" but rather "narrations/news/information" provided by my Lord of the Unseen.
635 If their rejection is hard on you, know that even if you dug a tunnel in the ground, or climbed a ladder into the sky and brought a miracle for them, they still will not believe. If it were Allah's Will, He could assemble them to Guidance. But, He wants them to make free decisions (1098-99). Be not among those who are carried away to ignore the Law.
I agree with the above. Only if a person truly wants and asks to be guided to the Truth will (s)he be guided by the Lord, although I didn't need the added words to reach that conclusion. Also the addition of the Law. Just for my understanding of where that came from, I reviewed some of Dr. Shabbir's Book, which states that the Law is "Using the faculties of perception and reasoning, keeping an open mind - and freedom from prejudice, arrogance, and blind following will help people to recognize the truth. 7173, 7179, 1736, 2780-81, 3022, 37113, 4035, 5679". Again, aspects I agree with, but didn't know that they were given status of "The Law" by the Book.
6109 They swear by Allah that if a miracle comes to them, they would surely believe in it (the Book). Say, ?All miracles are with Allah (if you reflect on the Universe). What can make you understand that even if a physical miracle came to them, they will find other excuses and still not believe?
6111 Even if We caused the angels to descend to them, and the dead to speak to them, and We lined up all the miracles before them, they would not believe. People can be guided only according to Allah?s Laws, but most of them choose the way of ignorance.
I would have felt much more comfortable with using the word "sign" or "evidence" instead of "miracle" for "Ayat" in 6109, but we'll run with it, as it doesn't change the understanding of the verse that much. First up, the words in brackets.
(1) "... they will surely believe in it (The Book)."
(2) "... All miracles are with Allah (if you reflect on the Universe)."How do you understand that "it" refers to "the Book", when the subject in the verse is "the miracle"? Think about what unbelievers will do, put yourself in their shoes. They will say that if we see a miracle, say for example, the disappearance of a plane, we will believe in it that it is from your Lord. Let's say the miracle happens and the plane does disappear, what do you think the disbelievers will say? There must be a trick to it, maybe lights or even more lights, trap-doors, etc. If these are not excuses to not believe, then I don't know what are.
For the second, again, not comfortable with the brackets, no need to add to the words of the Lord. But I can understand where you are coming from, that reality and sciences are truth and signs from our Lord and only if one reflects on them, can one obtain true belief. But what if a person already believes the truth of the one and only Lord? These miracles would only serve to strengthen his faith and conviction.
Br. Arnold, I really appreciate your post in reply my previous one, as much as I want to, address each and every part of the post following your last quoted post, I am sure that you must have gathered which direction this is going. So, it might be superfluous if I continue further with this post. However, I will summarise my closing thoughts for clarity.
(1) Reality has played a very major role in strengthening my belief, e.g. one can always "see" and relate to different behaviours of different people, as described exactly in the Book. But I had a change of direction because I actually sincerely (although inadvertantly) asked for His guidance. So, for me, reality is one of many important signs of my Lord.
(2) Why I don't believe reality is the only sign is because we know that they are descriptions in the Book of uncomprehendables, e.g. 6103 and the Hereafter. I believe that we all are to return to Him in the end. So I do expect to meet my Lord and I hope to be like the person in 18110 who expects as such.
(3) As I mentioned in the beginning about the scientific approach, there are no half-way measures to objectivity like how the intelligent design movement has conducted itself, which has tried to prove the existence of an intelligent designer but have met with very valid criticism. (Please see links above).
(4) As for evolution, it is undeniable but is that knowledge of any consequence, considering the following verse
761 - Was there not a time in the past when the human being was nothing to even be mentioned? (Free minds)
Would the Book mention something which it itself says is something not even to be mentioned?
(5) Tinkering and interferrence by God - Can God interfere within the limits of nature and can he not interfere at all? (I think I got Br. OPF's view on that)
Anyway, thank you again for your post. I will look into your research in 19.org, but first I need to do some studying of my own before I can feel capable of effectively discussing any unclear issues that may arise.
Peace
-
Peace "sharp001",
You said amongst other thingsScientifically, there is no stamp of a Creator/Designer in anything we see around us, since everything is cause and effect. The presence of a Creator is a hypothesis which lacks testability among other virtues of good scientific theory and the burden of proof is upon hypothesists who make the claim.
JK- YES everything is cause an effect. Who is denying that? I never denied that. And yes eveyrthing could have come about by chance IF GOD i.e. THE RPIMARILY EVOLVED INTELLIGENCE WASNT THERE ALREADY WHO, "ONCE THERE", WOULDNT LEAVE ANYTHING UPTO CHANCE "ANYMORE". This is what ive been trying to make everyone understand time and time again. Please read this post onwards
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=15548.msg154256#msg154256
Since quantum flux was always present and all reserach has shown that in the quantum realm everything happens IMMEDIATELY in the true sense of the word, this means by the time the "first" quantum differentiation, also termed creation, wook place, the quantum flux would have already unified into a Supreme Intelligent Being defined by the Quran as Light of the heavens and earth or Allah. The existence of GOD is thus CAUSALLY INEVITABLE. Its really not that difficult to understand if one just gives it a bit of a thought. NOW the Quran IMO is written in a way WHICH ASSUMES THAT HUMANS ALREADY KNOW THIS and this ofcourse means that GOD in the true sense created everything and is actively doing everything(superstring theory i.e. all is quantum entanglement). Now for me it remains to discover when in the history of evolution did we first get to know this and when was it erased or ignored by us since the hindu scriptures appear to give the same concept of GOD. GOD Bless! -
Peace Br. jonny_k,
I am sorry but I will sound like a layman here, but two questions
(1) Can one "see" this quantum flux/light?
(2) More importantly, did quantum flux exist before the Big Bang, considering the fact, that even if we extrapolate the Big Bang back to the earliest definable time, the Planck time (10-43 second), no time earlier than the Planck time can be logically defined and thus, no evidence of quantum flux before time can reasonably be assumed?
-
Peace "sharp001",
Peace Br. jonny_k,
I am sorry but I will sound like a layman here, but two questions
(1) Can one "see" this quantum flux/light?
JK- Which quantum flux? It is there all over the universe. Or do you mean the Supreme Unified Quantum Network. That could be what is called the "Higgs Field" but i cannot yet say for sure. The only thing which can be said for sure, by logic, is that He must have always existed.
(2) More importantly, did quantum flux exist before the Big Bang, considering the fact, that even if we extrapolate the Big Bang back to the earliest definable time, the Planck time (10-43 second), no time earlier than the Planck time can be logically defined and thus, no evidence of quantum flux before time can reasonably be assumed?
JK- Quantum flux must have always existed and it covers infinite dimensions. As you know once one something reaches the speed of light all external causes and effects relative to it become infinite, thus it is so to say itself independent of time. The earliest definable time relative to us(and this is what the planck constant indicates since WE are the observers) can by no means mean that there was nothing before that because then logically the question arises "what caused that"? Thus one needs to assume that cause and effect itself had a start which contradicts logic. Once logic is contradicted the magical realm is opened and once that is opened everything becomes possible so once again the existence of GOD would be inevitable. Scientists like stephen hawkins realized this problem and he has now suggested a theory for everything
http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLprHMq4ZkM
GOD Bless! -
Peace again "sharp001",
Let me also explain it to you in another way assuming that quantum flux only came to exist after the big bang. So now ofcourse there had to be a time when there was ONLY QUANTUM FLUX/QUANTUM PARTICLES. But then this light must have as i mentioned earlier gone through an infinte number of cause and effects also BEFORE THE DIFFERENTIATION INTO THE FIRST ELEMENTARY PARTICLES BEGAN. This is because light on its own per the laws of relativity does not experience time. So again the existence of GOD would be inevitable. Hence also the planck's constant must refer to the point where the first elementary particle arose from the quantum flux because indeed before that time does not make sense as we know it. GOD Bless! -
Strangely enough, to me, your idea makes sense, yet makes absolutely no sense.
For one, there is no way information can be 'extrapolated' prior to that period in time simply because that is the smallest 'unit' of time possible. Anything else is pure conjecture, and as yet, unprovable. Secondly, there is no 'infinite' amount of time because light itself has no 'reference point' (unless you would care to tell us how to divide by zero and then apply it to a Lorentz transformation) and in any case, would be able to do nothing because again, information could not be transmitted in that period of time - since nothing could possibly have 'moved' in that time, from any reference point. "Quantum flux" and "quantum particles" would mean what exactly?
I accept that god is just not tangible, and never will be in such a way. In any case, the signs are there. Just because you can't see the wind doesn't mean that it's not going to blow a house down.
-
Peace "OPF",
Strangely enough, to me, your idea makes sense, yet makes absolutely no sense.
For one, there is no way information can be 'extrapolated' prior to that period in time simply because that is the smallest 'unit' of time possible. Anything else is pure conjecture, and as yet, unprovable.
JK- Smallest unit of time possible RELATIVE TO US. This is very important. One cannot make an absolute claim since this would be the same mistake as saying that we can reach a particle which can be no further divided. And one can most certainly not say that nothing caused something. By this scientists would be doing the same what creationists do i.e. block any further ideas/reaerch and worse they would defying causality and that does not make sense.
Secondly, there is no 'infinite' amount of time because light itself has no 'reference point' (unless you would care to tell us how to divide by zero and then apply it to a Lorentz transformation) and in any case, would be able to do nothing because again, information could not be transmitted in that period of time - since nothing could possibly have 'moved' in that time, from any reference point. "Quantum flux" and "quantum particles" would mean what exactly?
JK- If light did nothing as you state, then how did the first elementary particles arise/differentiated out of it? Again this does not make any sense. Quantum flux can be defined as pure motion or waves. You know that matter is infact created by motion and motion in turn can be defined as matter in movement as well. This mysterious feature is known as duality. And yes quantum flux has no OBSERVABLE reference point on its own. It could hence be though of making an infinite amount of "processes" ALL AT ONCE.
I accept that god is just not tangible, and never will be in such a way. In any case, the signs are there. Just because you can't see the wind doesn't mean that it's not going to blow a house down.
JK- There is no other way i can think of showing the existence of GOD. Everythng else on its own would fail miserably. Like in the case of ID people say that things look marvellous and designed hence GOD must have created them. But there is no TRACING them back to GOD on its own so it could have just created itself on its own through billions of years. How will you now give proof +ve for the existence of GOD? GOD Bless!
-
Peace again "sharp001",
Let me also explain it to you in another way assuming that quantum flux only came to exist after the big bang. So now ofcourse there had to be a time when there was ONLY QUANTUM FLUX/QUANTUM PARTICLES. But then this light must have as i mentioned earlier gone through an infinte number of cause and effects also BEFORE THE DIFFERENTIATION INTO THE FIRST ELEMENTARY PARTICLES BEGAN. This is because light on its own per the laws of relativity does not experience time. So again the existence of GOD would be inevitable. Hence also the planck's constant must refer to the point where the first elementary particle arose from the quantum flux because indeed before that time does not make sense as we know it. GOD Bless!Peace Br. jonny_k,
How did you concur that there had to be a "time" where there was only quantum flux/quantum particles? That is philosophical, mildly put... and also the very nature of quantum fluctuations is temporary and so cannot differentiate into anything
"Quantum fluctuation is the temporary appearance of energetic particles out of nothing, as allowed by the Uncertainty Principle. It is synonymous with vacuum fluctuation.... In classical physics (appliable to macroscopic phenomena), empty space-time is called the vacuum. The classical vacuum is utterly featureless. However, in quantum mechanics (appliable to microscopic phenomena), the vacuum is a much more complex entity. It is far from featureless and far from empty. The quantum vacuum is just one particular state of a quantum field (corresponding to some particles). It is the quantum mechanical state in which no field quanta are excited, that is, no particles are present. Hence, it is the "ground state" of the quantum field, the state of minimum energy.... particle pairs appear, lead a brief existence, and then annihilate one another in accordance with the Uncertainty Principle." Source (http//universe-review.ca/R03-01-quantumflu.htm)
Light does not experience time under relativity? Can you refer me to where you got that conclusion from?
There was a reason why I asked if you could see whatever that it you think God is (Higgs Field, Supreme Unified Quantum Network etc.). The parable of His light given in 2435 in realistic terms could be an indication of its intense brightness or in metaphorical terms of the ultimate nature of his guidance. Ponder over all the verse where the word "Noor" has been used. They are, I believe, in connection with Darkness. A source of Light in the surrounding Darkness. Physically speaking, the Moon has been described as the Light, not the Sun (105, 7116). Metaphorically speaking, Light (Guidance) amidst Darkness (Misguidedness). Misguidedness and disorder is the general theme in the grand scheme of things if left alone to themselves. Even the second law of thermodynamics attests to it "In a closed system, everything tends towards disorder (maximum entropy)".
Considering this, I think God's description in 2435 is a metaphor and includes an parable of that metaphor, because physically speaking, God has to be observable. Among other reason for my understanding, the general theme of all of the single-word descriptions attributed to Him are special, unique, thereby having a prefix of "Al" which is not the case in 2435. Also, "So do not give parables to God. God knows while you do not know." (1674) I know that people may interpret this verse differently but to me, it seems that we are not supposesd to coin comparisons or similitudes other than the ones that are mentioned in the Book. To me, saying that God is Higgs Field, Supreme Unified Quantum Network etc. is like saying, since 2435 says God is "the" Light of the heavens and the Earth and He must have been present before creation and since the only theoretical "light" plausible before creation is Higgs Field, Supreme Unified Quantum Network, Quantum Fluctuations, therefore,
God = Light (2435)
Higgs Field, Supreme Unified Quantum Network, Quantum Fluctuations = LightTherefore,
God = Higgs Field, Supreme Unified Quantum Network, Quantum Fluctuations.
Uh, uh... not happening for me. I am happy with the knowledge that my Lord is the Creator, the Sustainer, the Guide of all the Heavens and the Earth and whatever is between them. A very "Creationist" notion as opposed to the true scientists and biologists who are no longer in awe of the "perfection" in the creations just because they feel that given so much time to evolve, it would only be "natural" to expect such level of detail and complexity.
Br. OPF
Just to address some of your questions from your previous post
Who are the 'angels'? Who would be 'Satan'? Let's not allow biblical distortions to carry into the quran. Where did you get 'you and your spouse' from?
Biblical distortions? I'll let you convey your understanding to me about the "Shaitan", "Iblees" and "Malaika". Or do you accept the following view of Dr. Shabbir
"Take a panoramic view of your common origin. Life began as a single life cell from hydrated inorganic matter (2313) We made you Adam (Homo sapiens, male and female). And We made the angels (the Universal forces) subservient to you. Satan or Iblees, your own rebellious desires, refused to submit to your higher controls of judgment."
Anyway, "you and your spouse" I got from 235.
I boldened the very significant allegation you gave no reference for. If you refer to then you have to keep in mind the time element and that Moses had no mention of a father either. The translations I use say Mary concieved and also moved away.
....
Again, dual interpretations of that verse. The winners of the test will be those who pay attention to reality.Mary conceived and moved away (1922). Is that enough to imply that there was a man involved in the conception? What about 1932? "(He) hath made me kind to my mother, and not overbearing or miserable;" (Yusuf Ali). Why mention only his mother, not his father? Wait, don't answer that... Let me try to fill in the gaps of reality that were apparently omitted from the Book.
Mary had a visit from the "Malaika" (or insert any metaphor that you are comfortable with), who appeared to her as a man and gave her good news of a son, to which she replied how can I have a son, when I am still chaste and he said, it will be since it is easy for your Lord. After that, she (married someone and) conceived Jesus and moved to remote place to give birth (went back home to her husband only to find that he had died/left them), went back to her people with her child, who told them that he was a messenger of God and He made him kind to his mother."
I think I now understand how you are viewing the "test".
I believe your confusion comes from the translation you're using. Alternative meanings to 2919 -
These are more in line with reality, I find. I think there is no problem there? No need to look at supernatural events, that's for sure.
No confusion, really.
29020 - Say "Travel through the earth and see how Allah did originate creation; so will Allah produce a later creation for Allah has power over all things. (YUSUF ALI)
Are we told to travel throught the earth to "see" how Allah originates creation, or how Allah originates creation and repeats/returns it?
Why is "the concept of a miracle and a supernatural event so unacceptable?" Ockham's razor. Supernatural events aren't reproducible and hence not something we can verify with our own eyes . Besides, reality itself is even less believable than supernatural events at times. In we are told to observe. How do we observe if not with the methods in and that those who follow and use to observe come up with none other than evolution? I don't suppose you've taken a trip to the Galapagos lately? ;D
So, that means that there is a very thin line between distinguishing supernatural events and reality.
"No mechanical principle prevents the air emptying from a room when you open the door, killing everyone inside. Physics does not forbid a human from growing younger or the dead rising! All that has to happen for these "miraculous" events is that the molecules involved are accidentally moving in the right direction at the right instant. Of course these miracles are not observed to happen except in fantasies, but only because they are so highly unlikely." (Source http//www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cosmo.html)
What one defines as reality may be supernatural for the other and vice versa.
Miracle? Definitely. Supernatural events? The burden of proof is on you to prove it. A recent autistic savant learnt fluent Icelandic in a week. Why can an exceedingly special baby not do so? As for the next stages, clearly you can see that God does the 'miracle', not jesus alone. Everything but the clay-bird can be interpreted more abstractly as seen in other verses of the quran where polytheists and their idols are described as blind, deaf, lepers and spiritually dead. Look at the statement of the rejectors, who claimed it was magic - supernatural, trickery, etc.
That is the statement of the rejectors/disbelievers from among them, i.e. those who witnessed the favours that God granted to Jesus
5110 - "Then will Allah say "O Jesus the son of Mary! Recount My favour to thee and to thy mother. Behold! I strengthened thee with the holy spirit, so that thou didst speak to the people in childhood and in maturity. Behold! I taught thee the Book and Wisdom, the Law and the Gospel and behold! thou makest out of clay, as it were, the figure of a bird, by My leave, and thou breathest into it and it becometh a bird by My leave, and thou healest those born blind, and the lepers, by My leave. And behold! thou bringest forth the dead by My leave. And behold! I did restrain the Children of Israel from (violence to) thee when thou didst show them the clear Signs, and the unbelievers among them said 'This is nothing but evident magic.'" (Yousuf Ali)
Looking forward to your input.
Peace
-
Peace Br. jonny_k,
Light does not experience time under relativity? Can you refer me to where you got that conclusion from?
Uh, uh... not happening for me. I am happy with the knowledge that my Lord is the Creator, the Sustainer, the Guide of all the Heavens and the Earth and whatever is between them. A very "Creationist" notion as opposed to the true scientists and biologists who are no longer in awe of the "perfection" in the creations just because they feel that given so much time to evolve, it would only be "natural" to expect such level of detail and complexity.
Br. OPF
Just to address some of your questions from your previous post
Peace
I agree wholly with the underlined part. That in italics isn't really true because it's a gross generalisation.
On the bolded section, the 'reference point' of light is undefined because in special relativity, you convert everything you see into that of something someone else sees by means of the 'Lorentz factor' - 1 / sqrt(1- ). If v^2 = c^2 then you will have to divide by 0 - which is undefined. More specifically, it's not that light 'experiences no time', it's more so that you can't refer to "the point of view of light" or any other massless thing.
Biblical distortions? I'll let you convey your understanding to me about the "Shaitan", "Iblees" and "Malaika". Or do you accept the following view of Dr. Shabbir
"Take a panoramic view of your common origin. Life began as a single life cell from hydrated inorganic matter (2313) We made you Adam (Homo sapiens, male and female). And We made the angels (the Universal forces) subservient to you. Satan or Iblees, your own rebellious desires, refused to submit to your higher controls of judgment."
That's the view I tend towards.
Anyway, "you and your spouse" I got from 235.
Mary conceived and moved away (1922). Is that enough to imply that there was a man involved in the conception? What about 1932? "(He) hath made me kind to my mother, and not overbearing or miserable;" (Yusuf Ali). Why mention only his mother, not his father? Wait, don't answer that... Let me try to fill in the gaps of reality that were apparently omitted from the Book.
Mary had a visit from the "Malaika" (or insert any metaphor that you are comfortable with), who appeared to her as a man and gave her good news of a son, to which she replied how can I have a son, when I am still chaste and he said, it will be since it is easy for your Lord. After that, she (married someone and) conceived Jesus and moved to remote place to give birth (went back home to her husband only to find that he had died/left them), went back to her people with her child, who told them that he was a messenger of God and He made him kind to his mother."
I think I now understand how you are viewing the "test".
The issue is that any attempt to 'fill in the gaps' is denounced by the quran as conjecture. So I'll avoid that. But that's one of many rational explanations. Either way, Mary had a child, and there is no need to claim she was a virgin unless you can bring proof that humans can actually reproduce like that - the ball is in your court.
As for 235, I think you are mixing up your verses. 235 does not necessarily mean the same pair as mentioned in 41 unless you conclude Eve came from Adam's rib (!!?!?). In 41, there is a reference to the first creation, not necessarily Adam. Adam is noted as a successor, not a first creation and is given the special quality of being able to shed blood (isn't that wonderful?). No mention of 'Eve' in the quran either.
No confusion, really.
29020 - Say "Travel through the earth and see how Allah did originate creation; so will Allah produce a later creation for Allah has power over all things. (YUSUF ALI)
Are we told to travel throught the earth to "see" how Allah originates creation, or how Allah originates creation and repeats/returns it?
To observe both. Use the facilities of cross-reference with the quran, could it mean anything else? How about if we actually relate it to reality, don't a group of people already do that?
So, that means that there is a very thin line between distinguishing supernatural events and reality.
"No mechanical principle prevents the air emptying from a room when you open the door, killing everyone inside. Physics does not forbid a human from growing younger or the dead rising! All that has to happen for these "miraculous" events is that the molecules involved are accidentally moving in the right direction at the right instant. Of course these miracles are not observed to happen except in fantasies, but only because they are so highly unlikely." (Source http//www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cosmo.html)
What one defines as reality may be supernatural for the other and vice versa.
Statistically absurd. There is nothing supernatural about those events but the chances of them happening may as well be 0.
That is the statement of the rejectors/disbelievers from among them, i.e. those who witnessed the favours that God granted to Jesus
5110 - "Then will Allah say "O Jesus the son of Mary! Recount My favour to thee and to thy mother. Behold! I strengthened thee with the holy spirit, so that thou didst speak to the people in childhood and in maturity. Behold! I taught thee the Book and Wisdom, the Law and the Gospel and behold! thou makest out of clay, as it were, the figure of a bird, by My leave, and thou breathest into it and it becometh a bird by My leave, and thou healest those born blind, and the lepers, by My leave. And behold! thou bringest forth the dead by My leave. And behold! I did restrain the Children of Israel from (violence to) thee when thou didst show them the clear Signs, and the unbelievers among them said 'This is nothing but evident magic.'" (Yousuf Ali)
Looking forward to your input.
The unbelievers said it was magic, i.e. trickery, supernatural. What did the believers say? ;D
-
Peace "sharp001",
Peace Br. jonny_k,
How did you concur that there had to be a "time" where there was only quantum flux/quantum particles? That is philosophical, mildly put... and also the very nature of quantum fluctuations is temporary and so cannot differentiate into anything
"Quantum fluctuation is the temporary appearance of energetic particles out of nothing, as allowed by the Uncertainty Principle. It is synonymous with vacuum fluctuation.... In classical physics (appliable to macroscopic phenomena), empty space-time is called the vacuum. The classical vacuum is utterly featureless. However, in quantum mechanics (appliable to microscopic phenomena), the vacuum is a much more complex entity. It is far from featureless and far from empty. The quantum vacuum is just one particular state of a quantum field (corresponding to some particles). It is the quantum mechanical state in which no field quanta are excited, that is, no particles are present. Hence, it is the "ground state" of the quantum field, the state of minimum energy.... particle pairs appear, lead a brief existence, and then annihilate one another in accordance with the Uncertainty Principle." Source (http//universe-review.ca/R03-01-quantumflu.htm)
JK- Ofcourse the quantum vacuum is a much more complex entity. And quantum "particles" themselves dont have a minimum energy. They can forever be divided into more simpler quanta with yet lower energy. I supposed you meant the ground state of elementary particles like electrons perhaps? In that case yes thats true but what turned into the first quarks or electrons intially. It was the quantum vacuum. Now for your statement of the uncertainty principle as particles appearing out of "nothing". Here nothing is just a word filler BECAUSE IT GOES BEYOND OUR MEANS OF OBSERVATION AT THIS TIME. I however strongly disagree with using the the term "nothing" for just like those people who just say "GOD did it", this also causes a hindrance to further ideas. The point is no way can one at any point deny cause and effect. It would be absurd to do so.
Light does not experience time under relativity? Can you refer me to where you got that conclusion from?
JK- Perhaps i didnt phrase it correctly. When something approaches the speed of light time keeps slowing more and more down for that object relative to all the surrounding material. At light speed time as we know it is frozen. This means that at should one reach light speed one would experience ALL CAUSES AND EFFECTS AT ONCE, BE EVERYWHERE AT ONCE ETC.
There was a reason why I asked if you could see whatever that it you think God is (Higgs Field, Supreme Unified Quantum Network etc.). The parable of His light given in 2435 in realistic terms could be an indication of its intense brightness or in metaphorical terms of the ultimate nature of his guidance. Ponder over all the verse where the word "Noor" has been used. They are, I believe, in connection with Darkness. A source of Light in the surrounding Darkness. Physically speaking, the Moon has been described as the Light, not the Sun (105, 7116). Metaphorically speaking, Light (Guidance) amidst Darkness (Misguidedness). Misguidedness and disorder is the general theme in the grand scheme of things if left alone to themselves. Even the second law of thermodynamics attests to it "In a closed system, everything tends towards disorder (maximum entropy)".
JK- I wouldnt even try bringing in the 2nd law of thermodynamics for this universe couldve been and most probably is one of infinite universes which is created every now and then in the quantum vacuum as Stephen Hawkins is now suggesting as well.
Considering this, I think God's description in 2435 is a metaphor and includes an parable of that metaphor, because physically speaking, God has to be observable. Among other reason for my understanding, the general theme of all of the single-word descriptions attributed to Him are special, unique, thereby having a prefix of "Al" which is not the case in 2435. Also, "So do not give parables to God. God knows while you do not know." (1674) I know that people may interpret this verse differently but to me, it seems that we are not supposesd to coin comparisons or similitudes other than the ones that are mentioned in the Book. To me, saying that God is Higgs Field, Supreme Unified Quantum Network etc. is like saying, since 2435 says God is "the" Light of the heavens and the Earth and He must have been present before creation and since the only theoretical "light" plausible before creation is Higgs Field, Supreme Unified Quantum Network, Quantum Fluctuations, therefore,
God = Light (2435)
Higgs Field, Supreme Unified Quantum Network, Quantum Fluctuations = LightTherefore,
God = Higgs Field, Supreme Unified Quantum Network, Quantum Fluctuations.
Uh, uh... not happening for me. I am happy with the knowledge that my Lord is the Creator, the Sustainer, the Guide of all the Heavens and the Earth and whatever is between them. A very "Creationist" notion as opposed to the true scientists and biologists who are no longer in awe of the "perfection" in the creations just because they feel that given so much time to evolve, it would only be "natural" to expect such level of detail and complexity.
JK- GOD is also my Sustainer, Creator and everything else. But where is your proof then? Or how do you know that there is GOD? Your above statements only show that you wanna believe but not that you have any consistent arguments as to why you accept the existence of GOD. The mere statement that you cannot get intelligent beings out of random fluctuations is absurd to say the least because then one can easily say "well how did GOD, the most Intelligent, come into being" and one would only start giving arguments which show that one just wants to believe and has no proof or consistency whatsoever. I actually solved this problem, at least for myself, through the arguments ive presented here. I logically admit that intelligence not only can but inevitably arises out of random fluctuations with the addition of accepting an infinite number of cause and effects already passed thus making the existence of GOD CAUSALLY INEVITABLE. GOD Bless!
-
Br. OPF,
Just a few words about your post, after which I think it would be a stand-still for the time-being, until I get my head cleared.
I agree wholly with the underlined part. That in italics isn't really true because it's a gross generalisation.
Gross generalisation? Well, at least not by me...
"Intelligent Design advocates are very keen to give the impression that they have the support of scientists. It is true that a number of scientists support Intelligent Design, as indeed there are scientists who support Young Earth Creationism and many other pseudosciences. But they are a tiny number in relation to the total number of scientists, the vast majority of whom support evolutionary theory." (Source http//www.talkdesign.org/cs/td_faq)
The issue is that any attempt to 'fill in the gaps' is denounced by the quran as conjecture. So I'll avoid that. But that's one of many rational explanations. Either way, Mary had a child, and there is no need to claim she was a virgin unless you can bring proof that humans can actually reproduce like that - the ball is in your court.
I concede that apart from what the Lord tells us in the Book about Jesus, we can't add anything to it. I wanted to say that in similar fashion, we should not rule out virgin birth in the same way that we can't rule out the possibility of normal birth, but it is futile argument as virgin birth is already ruled out based on current reality. But I am unable to readily accept for reasons I think perhaps I will be unable to convey at the moment. Suffice to say, it is just how the verses are presented regarding Mary and Jesus... like the disbelievers saying that Jesus is the son begotten by God, not Jesus being born without a father or Mary's virgin birth. I suppose I'll let the verses sink in further before I come to a decisive conclusion.
As for 235, I think you are mixing up your verses. 235 does not necessarily mean the same pair as mentioned in 41 unless you conclude Eve came from Adam's rib (!!?!?). In 41, there is a reference to the first creation, not necessarily Adam. Adam is noted as a successor, not a first creation and is given the special quality of being able to shed blood (isn't that wonderful?). No mention of 'Eve' in the quran either.
Successor... to whom? The previous creations? Maybe the dinosaurs? ... Eve? Did I mention her? I apologize if I did, although I don't recall. Also, 3 verses
761 - Was there not a time in the past when the human being was nothing to even be mentioned? (Free minds)
41 - O people, be aware of your Lord who has created you from one soul and He created from it its mate and sent forth from it many men and women; and be aware of God whom you ask about, and the relatives. God is watcher over you. (Free minds)
4913 - O mankind, We created you from a male and female, and We made you into nations and tribes, that you may know one another. Surely, the most honourable among you in the sight of God is the most righteous. God is Knowledgeable, Expert. (Free minds)
Keeping in mind 761, would the Book mention something which it itself says is something not even to be mentioned?
Statistically absurd. There is nothing supernatural about those events but the chances of them happening may as well be 0.
... But they aren't zero and are nothing supernatural, right?
The unbelievers said it was magic, i.e. trickery, supernatural. What did the believers say? ;D
Maybe the believers said, "It is indeed a sign from the Lord"...
and how does trickery=supernatural?
I don't understand where you found plants from, because every other translation I use mentions nothing of plants
7117
Free Minds - And God made you grow from the Earth like plants.
JM Rodwell - And God hath caused you to spring forth from the earth like a plant;
Khalifa - And GOD germinated you from the earth like plants.Keep in mind the time factor. The statement is true but in no way contradicts evolution. God is proving his might by saying that at one point, he never existed (and as physics tells us, nothing tangible existed at one specific point in time), but he does now, and it's very easy to god alone. Are you implying Zakariya popped out of thin air?
What I am suggesting that everyone of us is "nothing" before our existence. Sperm and eggs... are they an entity, are they a conscience? They are of nothing, not even capable of guaranteeing a new existence, say, maybe, due to fertilization complexities.
Br. jonny_k,
Just one question for you? How do you think people of the times past proved God without quantum physics?
Peace all
-
Peace "sharp001",
Just one question for you? How do you think people of the times past proved God without quantum physics?
JK- Very simple. Although they didnt know quantum physics, rational people knew everything must have a prior cause to it so there must have been an infinite number of causes from any point in time. Also they must have comprehended that an infinite number of cause and effects would lead to the rise of an infinite unified intelligence Who then in turn leaves nothing more upto chance. This concept isnt really too difficult to grasp. GOD Bless!
-
Peace Br. jonny_k,
I think I would disagree. Earlier generation believed in a creator/creators, whether they were greek gods, idols, One God, Buddha, Krishna, whatever you want to call them. They knew the concept of Creator from their forefathers and their fathers before them, even without using their rationale. How? The Books tells of covenants of God with the earliest of mankind. If you were to ask them, what causes the seed to grow into a tree, they would have said their God(s). Who created the animals and the birds? Their God(s). Superstitiously or otherwise, they would always attribute everything to God, rational and irrational men alike. Nowadays, such people would be called creationists. It is only nowadays, that people, becoming more "knowledgeable" in matters of science, have begun to question existence of God(s) or His/their involvement in creation. "Cause and effect" implies that in a system, only if you input something (energy or the like) will you get any output, which is just a change of form of the input. Similarly, for the Universe, something must have been inputted for it to have been effected, and that something must be in the universe but in a different form. However, our best estimate today is that the total energy of the universe is zero (within a small zero point energy that results from quantum fluctuations), with the positive energy of matter balanced by the negative potential energy of gravity. Since the total energy is zero, no energy was needed to produce the universe. The absense of net energy in the universe, whether postive or negative, implies that there was no energy inputted into the Universe, therefore, there was no cause for the Universe's existence (effect).
Anyway, by your assertion, that must mean that there were more rational people in the days past long ago, including the dark ages and the age of ignorance, then in more recent times, in the light of the following verses
Yusuf Ali
567 - And ye shall be sorted out into three classes.
5610 - And those Foremost (in Faith) will be Foremost (in the Hereafter).
5611 - These will be those Nearest to Allah
5613 - A number of people from those of old,
5614 - And a few from those of later times.
5627 - The Companions of the Right Hand,- what will be the Companions of the Right Hand?
5639 - A (goodly) number from those of old
5640 - And a (goodly) number from those of later times.God Bless
-
Peace "sharp001",
Yes many from amongst the early generations did believe in a creator/creators because their forefathers told them so BUT NOT ALL. Just take a look at the hindu scriptures like the Vedas. They define GOD in almost the same way ive done and clearly state that Hes One. And there were some great philosophers back then who surely gave this a thought.
Regarding the universe and the total energy being zero again this seems to be based on a speculation with the gravitational force. With these kinna things one is only trying to avoid an infinite no of cause and effects(i dont know why the human brain wont just accept it) but one cannot. Why do you think steven hawkins went on to multiple universes? Also lets assume all cause and effects were always inside this universe. YET an infinite amount of cause and effects would have already taken place otherwise at some place one needs to assume that some particle just "came to be out of nothing" and this is a nonsense claim. It is often made when all observatory power we have cannot detect any cause. Consider yourself being in an artificial reality like a matrix where it has been programmed that the smallest observable particle is say 1mm in diameter. You just cannot go beyond that but does that mean there aint any other particles(electrons externally) which make up all this world including that small particle. What if particles around you suddenly started to move and you couldnt detect any cause i.e. paranormal FROM YOUR REFERENCE PT. Does it mean there is no cause? Ofcourse not since this cannot logically be. Ofcourse the external objects would "know" that the causes are due to electron flow in the system which is simulating the reality. GOD Bless! -
029.020 Travel in the earth and see how He makes the first creation, then Allah creates the latter creation; surely Allah has power over all things.
Who travels in the Earth and observes the first creation? Certainly not creationists. Paleontologists. And their findings are much different. The people who obey a quranic commandment say different things to people who claim to do so - and one side has evidence.
Those paleontologists find evolution. Evolution could be part or a method of creation. And I think that evolution is an intelligent process.
-
From OPF
I don't understand where you found plants from, because every other translation I use mentions nothing of plants
That's why you put NO faith in translations. The word used for plants in 7117 is nabata.
Nun-Ba-Ta = to produce (tree), germinate, grow, sprout (plant), grow up (child). nawaabit - offspring of human beings or cattle.
nabata vb. (1)
impf. act. 2320
n.vb. 337, 699, 758, 1024, 1845, 2053, 5720, 7117, 7815anbata vb. (4)
perf. act. 2261, 337, 1519, 225, 267, 2760, 3110, 37146, 507, 509, 7117, 8027
impf. act. 261, 1611, 2760, 3636
Lane's Lexicon, Volume 8, pages 7, 8http//www.studyquran.co.uk/PRLonline.htm
Make PRL your best friend, along with this incredible word for word translation
http//www.textinmotion.com/chapters.jsp
-
From OPF
That's why you put NO faith in translations. The word used for plants in 7117 is nabata.
http//www.studyquran.co.uk/PRLonline.htm
Make PRL your best friend, along with this incredible word for word translation
http//www.textinmotion.com/chapters.jsp
Thanks, the first link I already knew but the second link is just amazing, I've been looking (obviously not hard enough) for something like that. As for the word, my spidey-senses told me that 'growth' would be used in the translations as opposed to literally plants but I prefer going with established meanings for certain reasons. Still...
Peace "sharp001",
JK- Very simple. Although they didnt know quantum physics, rational people knew everything must have a prior cause to it so there must have been an infinite number of causes from any point in time. Also they must have comprehended that an infinite number of cause and effects would lead to the rise of an infinite unified intelligence Who then in turn leaves nothing more upto chance. This concept isnt really too difficult to grasp. GOD Bless!Can you explain how 'quantum physics' changes a thing?
Br. OPF,
Peace all
"Intelligent Design advocates are very keen to give the impression that they have the support of scientists. It is true that a number of scientists support Intelligent Design, as indeed there are scientists who support Young Earth Creationism and many other pseudosciences. But they are a tiny number in relation to the total number of scientists, the vast majority of whom support evolutionary theory." (Source http//www.talkdesign.org/cs/td_faq)
Still a gross generalisation...
I concede that apart from what the Lord tells us in the Book about Jesus, we can't add anything to it. I wanted to say that in similar fashion, we should not rule out virgin birth in the same way that we can't rule out the possibility of normal birth, but it is futile argument as virgin birth is already ruled out based on current reality. But I am unable to readily accept for reasons I think perhaps I will be unable to convey at the moment. Suffice to say, it is just how the verses are presented regarding Mary and Jesus... like the disbelievers saying that Jesus is the son begotten by God, not Jesus being born without a father or Mary's virgin birth. I suppose I'll let the verses sink in further before I come to a decisive conclusion.
As you wish ;D
761 - Was there not a time in the past when the human being was nothing to even be mentioned? (Free minds)
41 - O people, be aware of your Lord who has created you from one soul and He created from it its mate and sent forth from it many men and women; and be aware of God whom you ask about, and the relatives. God is watcher over you. (Free minds)
4913 - O mankind, We created you from a male and female, and We made you into nations and tribes, that you may know one another. Surely, the most honourable among you in the sight of God is the most righteous. God is Knowledgeable, Expert. (Free minds)
Keeping in mind 761, would the Book mention something which it itself says is something not even to be mentioned?
I think you're missing the meaning/implication of 761. What I see is that in this time mentioned, none but god alone could have known about humans and hence would be unable to mention us. Now look at it logically
a - Adam is mentioned (as successor on earth)
b - An entity and its partner of an opposing gender are mentioned as a first creation from which men and women also came about (not necessarily THE first creation, but the earliest common ancestors of humans)
c - The quran is fully detailed, complete, etcThen you can attempt to say Adam is the entity in b - but that cannot be reconciled with c because surely there would be the name of his partner - unless 'adam' is not specifically a name. Regardless, it is plain to see that b is separate from a. If you say that 'the human being is not to be mentioned' as a command in the past tense from god, then that's an erroneous statement in light of the fact that adam is mentioned, before his creation (when god details his plan to the malaika).
... But they aren't zero and are nothing supernatural, right?
The odds themselves are supernatural. You know what other odds are supernatural? The odds of us actually existing here and now in this universe. There are lots of theories floating around by atheists to explain such a thing (aspects of string theory produce/predict some 10^500 possible universes and they have the marvellous job of reducing it to ours, the "many worlds interpretation" is another such thing), but these have no falsifiability. So I'm not going to deny whatsoever that these ridiculously contorted dice can roll all sixes - because they already HAVE.
Maybe the believers said, "It is indeed a sign from the Lord"...
and how does trickery=supernatural?
I agree. Going over, it would seem that it was an argument as to who believed it was from God, not whether it was supernatural or not.
What I am suggesting that everyone of us is "nothing" before our existence. Sperm and eggs... are they an entity, are they a conscience? They are of nothing, not even capable of guaranteeing a new existence, say, maybe, due to fertilization complexities.
That, of course is a big difference.
Those paleontologists find evolution. Evolution could be part or a method of creation. And I think that evolution is an intelligent process.
I agree, if only because we happen to be here. There is a general agreement however that 'evolution' has no direction. But hey, through natural selection and trial and error and such, it has to produce good results.
-
Peace bro "OPF",
Can you explain how 'quantum physics' changes a thing?
JK- Although those previous generations probably knew what i mentioned earlier, there was one problem which remained with that. Ok so a Supreme Intelligence now inevitably exists somewhere BUT how do we know He created us? Wheres the link? He could be there but we were yet merely the product of isolated random evolutionary processes due to yet other causes and effects. Quantum physics solves this problem. As we know from relativity as we approach the speed of light the external processes begin to speed up relative to us or in other words time begins to slow down for us. For every move wed make being close to ls an outsider woudlve made many moves. If we would be at total speed of light this would make us be everywhere at the same time and this is exactly what light experiences. Even the so called speed of light is somewhat confusing. It is only experienced because of the limited power of the observers which includes all elementary particles. Otherwise light infact does NOT TRAVEL AT ALL. It is already everywhere. If we move back to the time where there was only quantum flux we would thus have only One Single Quantum Foam or more respectfully Cause so to say, since the quantum on its own does not even have isolated causes and effects. It truly is One. Only after differentiation can we as observers see bits and pieces of the whole Quantum Foam which we call quanta, and only from that point on would it be justified to call Him Supreme Quantum Network. This then solves the problem since now this initial Quantum Field already "experienced" every possible causal pathway, even through infinite dimensions, thus "gaining" infinite knowledge within an infinitesimal amount of what we know as time and initiated ALL differentiation into whatever elementary particles which then observed Him. Hence it is not possible for ANY elementary particle to not be created by GOD. I know this is kind of hard to absorb at first and so it was for me too. But i realized that it all fit together perfectly and is in line with quantum physics. GOD Bless!
-
Greetings jonny_k,
Very nicely put. Thanks for sharing this with us. It makes perfect sense; and just think -- in terms of this concept and the purpose of this separation/differentiation and how it changes how we can understand then the concept of 'tawhid'. Amazing, eh?
-
Peace bro "OPF",
JK- Although those previous generations probably knew what i mentioned earlier, there was one problem which remained with that. Ok so a Supreme Intelligence now inevitably exists somewhere BUT how do we know He created us? Wheres the link? He could be there but we were yet merely the product of isolated random evolutionary processes due to yet other causes and effects. Quantum physics solves this problem. As we know from relativity as we approach the speed of light the external processes begin to speed up relative to us or in other words time begins to slow down for us. For every move wed make being close to ls an outsider woudlve made many moves. If we would be at total speed of light this would make us be everywhere at the same time and this is exactly what light experiences. Even the so called speed of light is somewhat confusing. It is only experienced because of the limited power of the observers which includes all elementary particles. Otherwise light infact does NOT TRAVEL AT ALL. It is already everywhere. If we move back to the time where there was only quantum flux we would thus have only One Single Quantum Foam or more respectfully Cause so to say, since the quantum on its own does not even have isolated causes and effects. It truly is One. Only after differentiation can we as observers see bits and pieces of the whole Quantum Foam which we call quanta, and only from that point on would it be justified to call Him Supreme Quantum Network. This then solves the problem since now this initial Quantum Field already "experienced" every possible causal pathway, even through infinite dimensions, thus "gaining" infinite knowledge within an infinitesimal amount of what we know as time and initiated ALL differentiation into whatever elementary particles which then observed Him. Hence it is not possible for ANY elementary particle to not be created by GOD. I know this is kind of hard to absorb at first and so it was for me too. But i realized that it all fit together perfectly and is in line with quantum physics. GOD Bless!
As I said already, light has no reference point at all. There is no sense in saying "the point of view of light" because it's undefined and equivalent to dividing by zero which can be seen exactly so when you note that the Lorentz factor for an object at the speed of light is undefined, or asymptotic. 1/0 is not infinity. I would go as far as to say that light doesn't experience time at all.
Only after differentiation can we as observers see bits and pieces of the whole Quantum Foam which we call quanta, and only from that point on would it be justified to call Him Supreme Quantum Network. This then solves the problem since now this initial Quantum Field already "experienced" every possible causal pathway, even through infinite dimensions, thus "gaining" infinite knowledge within an infinitesimal amount of what we know as time and initiated ALL differentiation into whatever elementary particles which then observed Him. Hence it is not possible for ANY elementary particle to not be created by GOD. I know this is kind of hard to absorb at first and so it was for me too. But i realized that it all fit together perfectly and is in line with quantum physics. GOD Bless!
Your idea has been around for a century (look up "Boltzmann brains". It's a statistical absurdity that relies on either incredible luck or infinite time and you're trying to use the latter. What you are relying on is the statistical nature of things on the small scale. Which just isn't proven. In fact that's quite a huge problem since it's not known whether any of quantum mechanics actually describes what the hell is going on at that scale. Most of the mathematical formalism behind it is simply "here's the initial state, run it through the equation and get the chances of detecting your particle in this region". There is no actual description as to what's going on underneath and there's a simple reason for that, QM is barely a century old. In fact, there are some people working on a raw cause & effect based theory (ex.). To conclude anything here would have shaky grounds and quranically, your masjid al-haram should never have shaky grounds (9109).
But i realized that it all fit together perfectly and is in line with quantum physics.
In agreement with what of quantum physics? Quantum electrodynamics? Chromodynamics? Mechanics? Can you show any peer-reviewed studies that come to the same conclusion as you and don't rely on statistical silliness like Boltzmann's problem?
So, it doesn't help one bit at all. It's riddled with paradoxes, it isn't even known whether it actually describes anything and it definitely isn't in a position to be used for anything other than calculating where a particle will move.