Where did we come from?
-
Peace Br. OPF,
I am still unable to give much time to the forum, but I felt that I need to clarify this post. I am probably misinterpreting your intent, but are you saying that the believing couple goes through different process of creation than 7189? The believing couple also ask for a righteous child (37100-102). The point is that the process is the same upto asking for a righteous child, after the birth of whom, the believers and idolators are distinguished.
As salaam alaikum Br. Sharp,
I am sure you have read What is the Origin of Man?
The Answers of Science and the Holy Scriptures
Dr Maurice Bucaille -
http//ourbeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/admin2/2007/08/what-is-the-origin-of-man.pdf
-
Peace all,
Br. OPF,
I am still not following what you are trying to imply.
No, no. There are two issues - what would be the criteria needed for idolatry to be a valid act by a creature of any sort?
Criteria for idolatory to be a valid act? Assuming that by valid, you mean acceptable, there is no criteria as idolatory is not acceptable in any circumstance/criteria.
Can rocks commit idolatry?
No, but what do rocks have to do with creation, i.e. a self/nafs and its partner?
Who is addressed as physically senseless in 7195?
The idols, which probably are, the celestial bodies, study of numerology, astrology/horoscope etc.
As for asking of a righteous child, I dont think there is anything human-like about that - unless you want to say that God and the Earth are also human-like.
I have read this line of your over and over but I have no idea what you are trying to say here. Better if I ask you who else other than man, asks God for a righteous child? How would an implication that only humans asks God for a righteous child be construed to mean that God and Earth are human-like?
WAS, Sister farida,
It was kind of you to assume that I had read the aforementioned book. I had read it, although quite some time ago. Thanks to Br. Arnold Yasin for providing a link to it. I remember thinking very highly of the man primarily because he, to an extent, tried not ot get ahead of himself in the literature, staying within verifiable and accepted facts and not assuming or theorising, which is how he was able to refute Darwin's theory of evolution (Survival of the fittest, accidental/chance evolution). In fact, if you would kindly bear with my indulgence, I would like to reproduce an extract from his conclusions
"
....There is absolutely no scientific proof to suggest that man was born of the evolved forms of present day apes. On the contrary, everything argues against this outmoded theory. What science has shown is that, at a certain point in time, a human species appeared which gradually transformed itself into today's man. From a scientific point of view, the crux of the problem is that we do not know what man evolved from Was it from an autonomous lineage or from one that could be connected with another animal lineage? Whatever the answer, recent studies in genetics indicate that the process could not have taken place by any other method than the addition of new information governing the appearance of structures and functions specific to man. These phenomena fit perfectly into the pattern of an expanding genetic code, as suggested by the theory of creative evolution.
Science does not supply indisputable indications as to the actual moment that the transformation took place nor on the initial matter employed in the process Many of the ways in which the change occurred remain a mystery to us. What we can say is that a new life form resulted from it, which, as we have already seen, was different from the forms that most closely resemble man from a morphological and functional point of view. This is the very concept of the creation of man by God, which appears in general terms in the Scriptures of the three monotheistic religions. It is in absolute harmony with the ideas that may be formed from the firmly established data of science.
Moreover, it has been repeatedly stressed that the process of Creation must logically have taken place over the course of time through the increase in genetic information, which would appear to be the necessary explanation of the transformations undergone by living beings.
...."He asserts that science has only been able to show that a human species appeared at some point in time, with no scientific proof as to how it appeared and from that point various types of humans came into being, with physiological and other changes, the next generation replacing the previous one.
Br. OPF,
About your initial post... in whatever time I could manage, I have read the links that you posted and a lot of verses regarding creation, how He initiates it and then returns it and thought about it a lot. Honestly speaking, at the moment, I am very confused. On the one hand, we have the scientific observations which implies everything has come from something. From Prokaryotes came eukaryotes, from which came soft bodied life, from which came skeletal life and so on so forth. But then I read the verses and I perceive a contradiction.
198 - He said "My Lord, how can I have a son when my wife is infertile, and I have reached a very old age?"
199 - He said "It is such that your Lord has said. It is an easy thing for Me. And I had created you before when you were not even anything."God tells His servant, Zakariya that He can create his son just as he created Zakariya out of nothing. Similarly for Jesus (347)
7113 - "Why do you not seek God humbly."
7114 - ""While He created you in stages?"
7117 - "And God made you grow from the Earth like plants."
7118 - "Then He returns you to it, and He brings you out totally?"Does our creation in stages necessarily mean evolutionary stages or biological stages? Our creation being compared to plants' growth from the earth should give us an insight. HOw do plants grow from earth? First there is a seed, to which water is added with natural nutrients from the soil, out of which sprout shoots and roots, it (the same seed) grows going through different stages and matures. It would have been so simple for God to compare our creation and growth to the animals which as suggested have gone through "evolution" to reach their current stage. Time and again, I feel like man is a special creation of God.
228 - How can you reject God when you were dead and He brought you to life? Then He makes you die, then He brings you to life, then to Him you return.
229 - He is the One who created for you all that is on Earth, then He attend to the universe and made it seven universes, and He is aware of all things.
230 - When your Lord said to the angels 'I am placing on the earth a caliph,' they replied 'Will You put there who corrupts and sheds blood, when we exalt Your praises and sanctify You? ' He said 'I know what you do not know.'God created for Man all that is on the Earth and He made us a caliph here. So could he (Man) have been come from any other earthly creation, all of which has been made for us? or Was the creation autonomous as suggested by Dr. Maurice above?
Can He create whatever He wills? Yes. Did He? Yes. (347, 517). When it says that God can create whatever He wills, then does that include however He wills? Can't see a reason why not. I have read on this forum that some feel that there is a condition under which God carries out His will. He is governed by His own laws, which cannot change. Although, I feel that the verses quoted in support of those assertions are sometimes misquoted and out of context, but for the moment, considering that understanding, then there is a limitation to what God can do, no? A boundary of His own laws. Can one then honestly claim that God can create anything that He wills? The laws of the universe are for His creations, not for Him. He is free of any boundaries.
1748 - See how they cite the examples for you. They have gone astray, and cannot come to the path.
1749 - And they said "When we are bones and fragments, will we then be resurrected to a new creation?"
1750 - Say "Even if you be stones or metal."
1751 - "Or a creation that is held dear in your chests." They will Say "Who will return us?" Say "The One who created you the first time." They will shake their heads to you and Say "When is this?" Say "Perhaps it is near."694 - "And you have come to Us individually, just as We had created you the first time; and you have left behind you all that We have provided for you; and We do not see your intercessors with you that you used to claim were with you in partnership; all is severed between you, and what you have claimed has abandoned you."
On that day, we will be brought back no matter what form we are in and in the same form that we were created in the first time. By all the laws governing the universe, can anyone expect a life to be created from a stone or a metal? Resurrection defies the universal laws. Everything dies. Whatever has a beginning has an end. No laws support returning life from the end back to the beginning. Yet, that is what is indicated in the verses. Also, coming back in the way when we were first time created.
711 - And We created you, then We shaped you, then We said to the Angels "Submit to Adam;" so they submitted except for Satan, he was not of those who submitted.
Based on the prevalent understanding in this thread, how would this verse be interpreted in light of the previous verse. If our creation was the first stage and then our shaping was the second, then would be brought back as we were in the first stage, which is not present human form? Most here on the forum adhere to the understanding that "Adam" refers to collective human race, the reason for which I still haven't fully grasped yet. Whenever Adam is mentioned it is in the past tense. That means that either Adam is an individual or a group of early humans. But it was a group of humans, then why would God say to Adam, "You and your spouse" and not you and your spouses. I suppose it is a matter of interpretation, whatever comes to one naturally. Personally, the idea of Adam being a group seems forced upon me if I accept it at the moment. Also, considering 359,
359 - The example of Jesus with God is similar to that of Adam; He created him from dust/earth, then He said to him "Be" and he was.
It is a very specific similtude. We know from the Book that Mary was a virgin and yet she gave birth to Jesus. So to equate Adam to the collective human race would imply that the human race is created and procreated without the conception process. Hard to digest for me for the time being.
There are also numerous verses in the Book, which say the words, "originate creation and repeat/return", but few verses struck me as most pertinent and they are as follows
104 - To Him is your return, all of you, for God's promise is true. He initiates the creation then He returns it to recompense with justice those who believed and did good work. As for those who rejected, they will have a boiling drink, and a painful retribution for what they had rejected.
1034 - Say "Are there any from those whom you have set up as partners who can initiate the creation and then return it?" Say "God initiates the creation and then returns it." How are you deluded!
2919 - Did they not observe how God initiates the creation then He returns it? All that for God is easy to do.
2920 - Say "Roam the Earth and observe how the creation was initiated. Thus God will establish the final creation. God is capable of all things."What we see are three assertions about creation and its return/repetition.
(1) The creation is returned to recompense it for the good or bad it has done. (104)
(2) No one other than God can begin creation and then return it as well. (1034)
(3) We are told to roam the earth to observe only how creation was initiated, not how it is returned. That is how one will know how God will establish the final creation, i.e. how it will be returned. (2919 - 20)We have facts about how creation started, i.e. conducive conditions, water basis, earthly materials etc. Basically saying that there was nothing from which creation was initiated. We are informed to observe only that fact. Does the repeated/returned to the current state mean the evolutionary chain? Could it since we were not informed if we could observe the return/repeat, which is further supplemented by the verse that the return/repeat is to recompense the creation for the good or bad that it has done, meaning the final creation on the last day.
But since it seems to be supernatural and miraculous, this explantion is not acceptable to many here. Why is the concept of a miracle and a supernatural event so unacceptable?
5110 - God said "O Jesus son of Mary, recall My blessings upon you and your mother that I supported you with the Holy Spirit; you spoke to the people in the cradle and in old age; and I taught you the Scripture and the wisdom, and the Torah, and the Injeel; and you would create from clay the shape of a bird, then blow into it and it becomes a bird by My leave; and you heal the blind and the leaper by My leave; and you brought out the dead by My leave. And I have restrained the Children of Israel from you, that you came to them with proofs; but those who rejected amongst them said "This is clearly magic!""
Can one honestly say that the above were not miracles or supernatural events? Does the concept of God initiating miraculous or supernatural event discredit Him and His power? To some, yes. To me, it just strengthens my acceptance of His power, He creates whatever He wills.
Some say that what kind of God would He be if He made "mistakes", i.e. created something, destroyed it to create something better, then destroyed that, then created something even better etc. Again, it is a matter of perception. Only if one believes in common ancestory would that perception probably be justified. What if diffent types of creation processes were initiated at the same time from the same material?
Anyway, I am sorry that I have not posted so late in this thread. I am still thinking about the verse and the assertions made here by the people, because some understandings make sense but there are a lot of gaps which aren't filled yet with certainity. May God provide guidance.
Peace
-
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.
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.
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).
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 Quran, "These are stories of the bygones."
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.
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 Allahs Laws, but most of them choose the way of ignorance.
7146 The Law stands* that those who are proud on earth without justification will turn away from My revelations. Even if they went through the entire script, and saw clear evidence of the Truth, their arrogance will keep them from believing. When they see the right guidance, they do not accept it, but they readily accept straying. This is because they choose to pre-emptively deny Our Revelations and to remain unaware of the wisdom in them. (*The consequences according to the Law of Requital, Allah ascribes to Himself, such as Allah did it.”
3058 And verily, We have given numerous examples in the Qur'an for mankind. But even if you came with a miracle, those who are bent on denying would say, "You are only falsifiers."
3059 In this way does Allah seal the hearts of those who wish not to learn.
3060 Remain then, steadfast and remember that Allahs Promise is always True. So let not those who have no conviction disturb your mind.3714 And they turn to mockery every Wonder that they see!
3715 And of the Revelation they say, This is nothing but magical eloquence.
3716 What! When we are dead and have become dust and bones, shall we then be raised again?542 But if they see a Sign of the oncoming Change, they turn away and say,
A persistent bewilderment. (4611).
543 For they adamantly belie the Truth and follow their desires. Yet,
everything moves to its destination in stages.As the Quran contains no contradiction in its text or with Reality
482 Will they not then, try to understand this Quran? If it were from other than God they would surely have found in it much contradiction.
Thus we must study closely the Quranic message and its language. For example, the verse on Jesus and the "miracles" have been understood through the eyes of the Christians and not through the eyes of the Furqan
The healings of Jesus are meant metaphorically. Like the words used in 349, the word is abras, one suffering from lukoderma, a disease that discolours the skin, and not judham, leprosy. Probably under evangelical influences did it got confused with leprosy. Metaphorically, however, it means, to have ones misfortune added to another. Ibn Faris says that al-biras means, barren portions of the desert, whence the metaphorical meaning of misfortune, so Jesus cured misfortunes by teaching people the truth.
349.......Those of you who are spotted with sin, I will heal them, and I shall grant real life to those who are just dragging on without purpose/al-abrasa
The Quran compares moral crimes to diseases, and calls those guilty of them, deaf, dumb and blind, as in 218 and diseased of the heart in 210 and even dead as in 2780, that is why the scripture, which is the Truth, is called a healing in 4144.
349 .........The blind among you will begin to see the Truth.
218 Deaf, dumb and blind of Reason! They will not return to begin their journey in the right direction (unless they use their faculties of perception and reasoning. (822, 1676, 1736)
349 ....and bring the dead back to life by God's leave/and I shall grant real life to those who are just dragging on without purpose....
210 This negative attitude is a disease in their hearts that reinforces itself according to the Divine Law of Cause and Effect....
2780 But verily, you cannot make the dead (or the living-dead” hear, nor can you make the deaf of heart to hear the call when they turn back to retreat.
4144 Now if We had made it a Qur'an in a non-Arabic tongue they would surely have said, "Why is it that its verses have not been made clear? Why - a foreign tongue and an Arab?" Say, "For those who accept it, this is a Guidance and medicine for a wholesome life. But as for those who will not believe (Arabs or non-Arabs), in their ears is deafness, and so it remains obscure to them. They are like people who are called to from afar. (2620)
So through Tasreef/cross-reference we end up with this understanding
349 And he will be a Messenger to the Children of Israel. He will say to them, I come to you with Revelation from your Lord. If you follow me, I will raise you from dust to the heights of glory by the Command of Allah (7176). The blind among you will begin to see the Truth. Those of you who are spotted with sin, I will heal them, and I shall grant real life to those who are just dragging on without purpose; all by Allah's leave and according to his Laws. I am here to establish justice and equity. I shall see to it how much you hoard in your houses and how much you spend on the community. My teachings are sufficient signs for you to believe.
It is again, shown that people distort the metaphorical meanings, and don't take the Quran as its guide how to understand things. The Quran clearly says, that even with miracles, people still will not believe. Only the Truth can make people understand. Through Christian influences and commentaries written by Persians 300 years after the Prophet, the true Quranic message was hidden beneath superstition and illogical thinking. They took the Bible as a higher authority as commentary then the Quran itself.
Now let's try to understand the word Tair, which is commonly translated with Bird.
Lane's Lexicon says
Tay-Ya-Ra = flew, hasten to it, outstripped, become foremost, fled, love, become attached, famous, conceive, scatter/disperse, fortune.
Tair has multiple meanings besides to bird, as this is the traditional translation of this verse, that Jesus made a live bird out of clay. Tair it also means omen as in 7131, 2747, 3619, actions and register of deeds as in 1713, and it also means destiny or fortune, as in this verse. Jesus people were in a deplorable state 3112, and he raised them up out of that dust/low state.
See any other translation to confirm these meanings
7131 ........ they blamed it on the bad omen/yattayyaroo of Moses and his companions. Most people know not that there is no such thing as a bad omen or a good omen/ta-iruhum. People determine their destiny according to Allahs Laws. In that sense, then, omens are with Allah alone.
2747 They answered, "We consider you, and your companions a bad omen/ittayyarna for us." He said, "Your omen/ta-iru is determined by Allahs Laws. Nay, you are but a folk who are being tested."
3619 The Messengers replied, "Your destiny/ta-iru rests with yourselves, now that you have been reminded. (There is no such thing as a bad omen 1713). Nay, but you are a people who are wasting away your potentials. (1012).
1713 All deeds/ ta-ira of the humans are instantly recorded on their Self, as if the record book is fastened to their own necks. And We shall bring forth this record book wide open to them on the Day of Resurrection.
The Quran rejects unreasonable thinking as Allah always refers to reason and research (3191). Allah does not change His Laws in the Universe, as His fixed Laws express His Will in the world of Khalq, Creation. The need for miracles is a psychological escape out of Reality, and thus they remain in a state of illusion. It is a psychological state which is sustained as the mind cannot cope with Reality and is still in an infant state of denial.
The Quran is send to us to create the correct relation to Reality so we can use the Universe in the best way to attain Paradise in this Life. Through understanding Nature, which is demanded throughout the Quran, and the use of Tasreef, crossreference of words and subjects, we attain the correct understanding of verses
5110 When Allah will say, O Jesus, son of Mary! Recall My blessings upon you and your mother. I strengthened you with Sacred Revelation, enabled you to speak eloquently to the people while still in childhood, and also at a later age (345). I gave you revelation and wisdom including the Torah and the Gospel. Recall when you formed the state of your people's destiny and that you would raise them from dust up into the heights of glory by My leave (7176). You made people see the Truth otherwise given to blind following by My leave. You healed the wounds of inequity on people by My leave, and you gave a new meaning to life to those who were otherwise no better than dead by My leave (348, 3111, 6123). Recall, how I prevented the Children of Israel from harming you when you came to them with all evidence of the truth (4157). And those who were bent upon denying the truth said, This is nothing but clear deception.
Normally this verse is translated that Jesus makes a bird alive out of clay, which goes against the fixed laws of nature. For the first generations of Islamic scholars, it is understandable they understood it as a miracle understanding where Jesus really made a bird out of clay. There ignorance of the laws of nature and also the influence of Christian literature are the causes of these interpretations. Now through science we know this is nonsense, and through Biblical studies we also know now that the Christian literature cannot be trusted as an authentic source.
http//19.org/index.php?id=91,548,0,0,1,0&PHPSESSID=55cea3391a64107dee028f44613475f3
-
Peace,
...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.
... 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
Is not miraculous and spontaneous creation the same as that it creates life out of itself?
http//www.blackwellpublishing.com/products/journals/suppmat/NPH/NPH1330/NPH1330animation1.gif
What?s the difference if the process is accelerated or decelerated and what physical laws are broken?
Cases of suspended animation or deceleration/slowing down then acceleration as with the donkey?
1825 And they stayed in their cave three hundred years and add nine.
2259 Or like the one who passed by a town and it had tumbled over its roofs. He said "Oh! How will All?h ever bring it to life after its death?" So All?h caused him to die for a hundred years, then raised him up. He said "How long did you remain?" He said "I remained a day or part of a day". He said "Nay, you have remained for a hundred years, look at your food and your drink, they show no change; and look at your donkey! And thus We have made of you a sign for the people. Look at the bones, how We bring them together and clothe them with flesh". When this was clearly shown to him, he said, "I know that All?h is Able to do all things."
This is similar to taking a voyage at close to light speed and coming back magically still young.
2919 See they not how Allah originates creation, then repeats it truly that is easy for Allah.
Not tinkering with physical laws which we don?t fully comprehend anyway and what appears as magic is easy.
peace
-
Sharp001 Thanks for the reply.
Criteria for idolatory to be a valid act? Assuming that by valid, you mean acceptable, there is no criteria as idolatory is not acceptable in any circumstance/criteria.
I think you misunderstood. How complex does a creature have to be to commit adultery? If the case is that they have to be human then 41 could in no way mean a reference to anything other than humans because as you said, the quran states these same people committed idolatry.
No, but what do rocks have to do with creation, i.e. a self/nafs and its partner?
Hope the previous sentence makes that clearer.
The idols, which probably are, the celestial bodies, study of numerology, astrology/horoscope etc.
Good thinking. Numerology is an idol that still exists but at least the others have been relegated to the newspaper side column ;D
I have read this line of your over and over but I have no idea what you are trying to say here. Better if I ask you who else other than man, asks God for a righteous child? How would an implication that only humans asks God for a righteous child be construed to mean that God and Earth are human-like?
The quran uses personification a lot of the time and inanimate objects 'speak', so to say. For instance, in , God 'speaks' to the Earth and the Earth 'replies'. Same as in . Clearly when the quran refers to speech, it means communication, or exchanging information (as in ) which may be speaking but not always. Hence, in no way does the act of speaking imply that there is a human doing so.
An excerpt from your quote
Whatever the answer, recent studies in genetics indicate that the process could not have taken place by any other method than the addition of new information governing the appearance of structures and functions specific to man. These phenomena fit perfectly into the pattern of an expanding genetic code, as suggested by the theory of creative evolution.
See http//www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html.
New information is added into the gene pool. Some people suffering cystic fibrosis or sickle cell anaemia are examples of new information in the gene pool that we wouldn't count as "new information" because, obviously, those are bad conditions. If I remember, genetic mishaps made a few people in history superhuman in some way or other, wouldn't that be "new information"?
198 - He said "My Lord, how can I have a son when my wife is infertile, and I have reached a very old age?"
199 - He said "It is such that your Lord has said. It is an easy thing for Me. And I had created you before when you were not even anything."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?
God tells His servant, Zakariya that He can create his son just as he created Zakariya out of nothing. Similarly for Jesus (347)
7113 - "Why do you not seek God humbly."
7114 - ""While He created you in stages?"
7117 - "And God made you grow from the Earth like plants."
7118 - "Then He returns you to it, and He brings you out totally?"Does our creation in stages necessarily mean evolutionary stages or biological stages? Our creation being compared to plants' growth from the earth should give us an insight. HOw do plants grow from earth? First there is a seed, to which water is added with natural nutrients from the soil, out of which sprout shoots and roots, it (the same seed) grows going through different stages and matures. It would have been so simple for God to compare our creation and growth to the animals which as suggested have gone through "evolution" to reach their current stage. Time and again, I feel like man is a special creation of God.
Contrary to that, I believe those verses show a possible interpretation of either way. The correct interpretation is determined by who pays attention to THE reality we live in . If you make a reference to something out of this reality, and imply it is part of this world, it is invalid . Let's not fool ourselves and water down those verses, they aren't a reference to dead stones alone.
I don't understand where you found plants from, because every other translation I use mentions nothing of plants
071.014
YUSUFALI "'Seeing that it is He that has created you in diverse stages?
PICKTHAL When He created you by (divers) stages?
SHAKIR And indeed He has created you through various gradesYou have to keep in mind my knowledge of arabic is limited and also that I don't have the time to go through it and translate it word for word literally at present.
God created for Man all that is on the Earth and He made us a caliph here. So could he (Man) have been come from any other earthly creation, all of which has been made for us? or Was the creation autonomous as suggested by Dr. Maurice above?
Man is a unique creation of God, of course but let's not delude ourselves. and have a much better interpretation when grounded in evidence and reality (2262) alone. Furthermore, we are instructed to look around the Earth and see how creation comes about . Who does that? I don't remember hearing the words "Creationist Archaeologist" in my life, namely because that doesn't exist.
Can He create whatever He wills? Yes. Did He? Yes. (347, 517). When it says that God can create whatever He wills, then does that include however He wills? Can't see a reason why not. I have read on this forum that some feel that there is a condition under which God carries out His will. He is governed by His own laws, which cannot change. Although, I feel that the verses quoted in support of those assertions are sometimes misquoted and out of context, but for the moment, considering that understanding, then there is a limitation to what God can do, no? A boundary of His own laws. Can one then honestly claim that God can create anything that He wills? The laws of the universe are for His creations, not for Him. He is free of any boundaries.
1748 - See how they cite the examples for you. They have gone astray, and cannot come to the path.
1749 - And they said "When we are bones and fragments, will we then be resurrected to a new creation?"
1750 - Say "Even if you be stones or metal."
1751 - "Or a creation that is held dear in your chests." They will Say "Who will return us?" Say "The One who created you the first time." They will shake their heads to you and Say "When is this?" Say "Perhaps it is near."694 - "And you have come to Us individually, just as We had created you the first time; and you have left behind you all that We have provided for you; and We do not see your intercessors with you that you used to claim were with you in partnership; all is severed between you, and what you have claimed has abandoned you."
On that day, we will be brought back no matter what form we are in and in the same form that we were created in the first time. By all the laws governing the universe, can anyone expect a life to be created from a stone or a metal? Resurrection defies the universal laws. Everything dies. Whatever has a beginning has an end. No laws support returning life from the end back to the beginning. Yet, that is what is indicated in the verses. Also, coming back in the way when we were first time created.
I agree wholly with you. The difference is, I believe that God chose a specific way and finds no need to exhibit his power by intervention. As Arnold Yasin says, which god has more power, the one that says "Be" and it just becomes so, or the one that says Be and keeps making small changes here and there? By the way, when you say "No laws support returning life from the end back to the beginning", that's absolutely not true. The only true "laws" in this universe would be mathematical laws which have no reference whatsoever as to the actual outcome of the universe and in any case they refer to specific conditions. There is nothing in reality that prevents that from happening - it might sound silly and unimaginable, but until you can prove that it really is not possible, then you have to accept that may be so.
711 - And We created you, then We shaped you, then We said to the Angels "Submit to Adam;" so they submitted except for Satan, he was not of those who submitted.
Based on the prevalent understanding in this thread, how would this verse be interpreted in light of the previous verse. If our creation was the first stage and then our shaping was the second, then would be brought back as we were in the first stage, which is not present human form? Most here on the forum adhere to the understanding that "Adam" refers to collective human race, the reason for which I still haven't fully grasped yet. Whenever Adam is mentioned it is in the past tense. That means that either Adam is an individual or a group of early humans. But it was a group of humans, then why would God say to Adam, "You and your spouse" and not you and your spouses. I suppose it is a matter of interpretation, whatever comes to one naturally. Personally, the idea of Adam being a group seems forced upon me if I accept it at the moment. Also, considering 359,
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?
359 - The example of Jesus with God is similar to that of Adam; He created him from dust/earth, then He said to him "Be" and he was.
It is a very specific similtude. We know from the Book that Mary was a virgin and yet she gave birth to Jesus. So to equate Adam to the collective human race would imply that the human race is created and procreated without the conception process. Hard to digest for me for the time being.
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.
Also keep in mind the first part of the verse
He created him from dust/earth, then He said to him "Be" and he was.
Again, dual interpretations of that verse. The winners of the test will be those who pay attention to reality.
What we see are three assertions about creation and its return/repetition.
(1) The creation is returned to recompense it for the good or bad it has done. (104)
(2) No one other than God can begin creation and then return it as well. (1034)
(3) We are told to roam the earth to observe only how creation was initiated, not how it is returned. That is how one will know how God will establish the final creation, i.e. how it will be returned. (2919 - 20)We have facts about how creation started, i.e. conducive conditions, water basis, earthly materials etc. Basically saying that there was nothing from which creation was initiated. We are informed to observe only that fact. Does the repeated/returned to the current state mean the evolutionary chain? Could it since we were not informed if we could observe the return/repeat, which is further supplemented by the verse that the return/repeat is to recompense the creation for the good or bad that it has done, meaning the final creation on the last day.
But since it seems to be supernatural and miraculous, this explantion is not acceptable to many here. Why is the concept of a miracle and a supernatural event so unacceptable?
I believe your confusion comes from the translation you're using. Alternative meanings to 2919 -
029.019
YUSUFALI See they not how Allah originates creation, then repeats it truly that is easy for Allah.
PICKTHAL See they not how Allah produceth creation, then reproduceth it? Lo! for Allah that is easy.
SHAKIR What! do they not consider how Allah originates the creation, then reproduces it? Surely that is easy to Allah.029.020
YUSUFALI 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.
PICKTHAL Say (O Muhammad) Travel in the land and see how He originated creation, then Allah bringeth forth the later growth. Lo! Allah is Able to do all things.
SHAKIR Say 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.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.
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
5110 - God said "O Jesus son of Mary, recall My blessings upon you and your mother that I supported you with the Holy Spirit; you spoke to the people in the cradle and in old age; and I taught you the Scripture and the wisdom, and the Torah, and the Injeel; and you would create from clay the shape of a bird, then blow into it and it becomes a bird by My leave; and you heal the blind and the leaper by My leave; and you brought out the dead by My leave. And I have restrained the Children of Israel from you, that you came to them with proofs; but those who rejected amongst them said "This is clearly magic!""
Can one honestly say that the above were not miracles or supernatural events? Does the concept of God initiating miraculous or supernatural event discredit Him and His power? To some, yes. To me, it just strengthens my acceptance of His power, He creates whatever He wills.
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.
Some say that what kind of God would He be if He made "mistakes", i.e. created something, destroyed it to create something better, then destroyed that, then created something even better etc. Again, it is a matter of perception. Only if one believes in common ancestory would that perception probably be justified. What if diffent types of creation processes were initiated at the same time from the same material?
You just made a hypothesis. Now observe and bring the proof. Otherwise that has no basis in reality .
Anyway, I am sorry that I have not posted so late in this thread. I am still thinking about the verse and the assertions made here by the people, because some understandings make sense but there are a lot of gaps which aren't filled yet with certainity. May God provide guidance.
But God already did provide guidance. Just pay attention to reality and you'll be fine. !
-
Is not miraculous and spontaneous creation the same as that it creates life out of itself?
Rather mundane actually. Complex? Sure. Spontaneous? Ask someone with cystic fibrosis whether theirs came about spontaneously or whether it was in the family.
What?s the difference if the process is accelerated or decelerated and what physical laws are broken?
Cases of suspended animation or deceleration/slowing down then acceleration as with the donkey?
1825 And they stayed in their cave three hundred years and add nine.
2259 Or like the one who passed by a town and it had tumbled over its roofs. He said "Oh! How will All?h ever bring it to life after its death?" So All?h caused him to die for a hundred years, then raised him up. He said "How long did you remain?" He said "I remained a day or part of a day". He said "Nay, you have remained for a hundred years, look at your food and your drink, they show no change; and look at your donkey! And thus We have made of you a sign for the people. Look at the bones, how We bring them together and clothe them with flesh". When this was clearly shown to him, he said, "I know that All?h is Able to do all things."
This is similar to taking a voyage at close to light speed and coming back magically still young.
2919 See they not how Allah originates creation, then repeats it truly that is easy for Allah.
Not tinkering with physical laws which we don?t fully comprehend anyway and what appears as magic is easy.
Sleep is likened to death in some quranic verses. As we know, people in sleep who have barely woken up have an absolutely wrecked view of time and heavy sleepers like me sleep for very long but still come out as if it was an hour or so.
-
Sleep is likened to death in some quranic verses. As we know, people in sleep who have barely woken up have an absolutely wrecked view of time and heavy sleepers like me sleep for very long but still come out as if it was an hour or so.
Right...
1825 And they stayed in their cave three hundred years and add nine.
Suspended Animation Fact or fiction?
http//www.firstscience.com/home/articles/humans/suspended-animation-fact-or-fiction_37121.html
The Art of hibernation on-demand
After watching a documentary about underground caves on PBS, Roth got an idea about how to induce metabolic flexibility in humans. The television show explained how cave explorers risk encountering the gas hydrogen sulfide, which in high concentrations can immediately render a person unconscious.
Hydrogen sulfide is toxic flammable gas found not only in caves but is produced by volcanoes, hot springs, and bacterial break down of organic matter in swamps and sewers. One of its most notable features is the foul odor of rotten eggs.
Hydrogen sulfide binds with iron in cytochrome enzymes, disrupting a critical step in a process called oxidative phosphorylation, in which oxygen is burned to produce energy in the form of a substance called ATP. By blocking oxygen from binding to the iron, hydrogen sulfide stops cellular respiration and energy production completely. When energy production is inhibited, body temperature and metabolic rate are severely reduced.
Enzymes exist in the body that can detoxify hydrogen sulfide by oxidation to (harmless) sulfate. As a result, low levels of sulfide may be tolerated indefinitely. However, at higher levels it can poison several systems in the body although the nervous system is the most affected.
Roth hypothesized that perhaps he could prevent death in low oxygen situations by adding agents such as hydrogen sulfide that decrease metabolic activity by inhibiting oxygen utilization and induce suspended animation. Suspended animation refers to the state where all observable life processes are stopped but the animal can later resume its normal function.
-
Right...
1825 And they stayed in their cave three hundred years and add nine.
Suspended Animation Fact or fiction?
http//www.firstscience.com/home/articles/humans/suspended-animation-fact-or-fiction_37121.html
The Art of hibernation on-demand
After watching a documentary about underground caves on PBS, Roth got an idea about how to induce metabolic flexibility in humans. The television show explained how cave explorers risk encountering the gas hydrogen sulfide, which in high concentrations can immediately render a person unconscious.
Hydrogen sulfide is toxic flammable gas found not only in caves but is produced by volcanoes, hot springs, and bacterial break down of organic matter in swamps and sewers. One of its most notable features is the foul odor of rotten eggs.
Hydrogen sulfide binds with iron in cytochrome enzymes, disrupting a critical step in a process called oxidative phosphorylation, in which oxygen is burned to produce energy in the form of a substance called ATP. By blocking oxygen from binding to the iron, hydrogen sulfide stops cellular respiration and energy production completely. When energy production is inhibited, body temperature and metabolic rate are severely reduced.
Enzymes exist in the body that can detoxify hydrogen sulfide by oxidation to (harmless) sulfate. As a result, low levels of sulfide may be tolerated indefinitely. However, at higher levels it can poison several systems in the body although the nervous system is the most affected.
Roth hypothesized that perhaps he could prevent death in low oxygen situations by adding agents such as hydrogen sulfide that decrease metabolic activity by inhibiting oxygen utilization and induce suspended animation. Suspended animation refers to the state where all observable life processes are stopped but the animal can later resume its normal function.
I was replying to where it said the person believed he was only dead for a day. But suspended animation, hydrogen sulfide present in caves and well, people in a cave - fits together perfecly.
-
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