The scientific approach

selfsame
+1
#1
I have written this thread in the "alternate theory", so that none may object.
I want others to let me complete a few posts, then if they want to object or agree .. no problem.

Many of us see some TV programs: one speaks, supposed to be a scientist, and he asserts: The universe started 6 billion years ago, there was a big bang, and such and such things happened, and an asteroid came and hit the earth, and life appeared in such way, and man and other beings evolved gradually until they reached the present forms of life.

So he speaks about such mysterious and remote incidents as if he is absolutely certain about them! And of course he lies to the public by saying such things and ascribing them to science! He is an atheist and belongs to some organizations and follows some programs.

The correct scientific view:
It is to say: it could be and it might have happened like that, we don't know for certain; it is only one of the present theories.
But to assert some theories as facts: this is not any science, but only cheating of others.

==================================================

Science depends on experiments and researches: it grows more and more to reach new scopes, and does not stick to any present data; it may be wrong or need modification; but can never stop and satisfies with what they have discovered; there may be better explanations and more correct information.

Science is good and very good and it is essential for man; but to take some theories as absolute and impose them on the public on the pretext that they are science; this is the wrong, and in fact some atheists and others exploit such defective knowledge for cheating the public and promote their atheistic programs and parties.

================================================== ====

Examples of scientific achievements in the past:
In the time of Ptolemy, scientists thought the earth is the center of the universe and the earth together with the stars of the sky rise in the east and set in the west around the earth.
This at its time, was science, although we now it is wrong.

Another example: a medical drug used to treat patients for ten or twenty years, then they discard it, because they discover it is harmful! So people used it for tens of years, then all of a sudden the science tells them it is harmful!
Of course the science in the past told them the drug was useful to some extent, but then the new science tells them it is harmful.
The same is true for certain vaccines against some diseases. They used some vaccines, then they discard them; so the use of the vaccine is according to science at a time, and the discarding of the vaccine is according to a newer scientific achievement.

There will be one or more posts
 
CDNBear
+7
#2  Top Rated Post
It is more likely than not, to have happened that way, as dictated by the disciplines of science.

As opposed to a blind faith, dictated by a book whose origins are suspect at best.

This argument, yet again, is pointless.

The devout will ignore science, and the educated will mock the devout.

It's Christmas day, can I just get to mocking you now? It would be an awesome Christmas gift.
 
selfsame
#3
The example of Bing Bang theory:
It is the outstanding theory now, while most of people view it as absolute: who said the universe started as such; it could be correct, I don't refuse it completely, but one cannot affirm this; there may be and in fact to me: I am certain that it is 99% may not be so correct, because how can man with his limited intellect find how the vast (about limitless) universe started since so billions of years, and how can anyone assert this unless he blinds himself like the people at the time of Ptolemy.

The example of the theory of Evolution:
Most people now assert this theory as an absolute one: how can anyone assert this in any scientific approach? Did anyone see with his own eyes that man evolved from preliminary creatures, and in the same ways other species resulted from preliminary forms? A man at most can say: it could be (while others may say: it is not logical and only imaginary.)

The exploitation of science to promote atheism and blasphemy:
This is so obvious in the example of Evolution, and what propaganda has been made about it until they convinced even many scientific people to accept it as a belief, in spite of the many flaws and defects in this theory.

================================================== =====

Now, I bring you to that which some consider as the thorn in the throat: the Quran.

This is the first soora revealed to the Prophet: the soora 96 in the book of the Quran: which means:
Soora 96

(In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful)

{1. Recite [O Mohammed] in the name of your Lord Who created [the universe from non-existence.]

2. [Who] created man from the 'larva-like structure' a.

3. Recite [O Mohammed], and your Lord is the Most Generous [more than all the generous.]

4. Who taught [the writing] with the pen [so that heavenly revelations, the religious knowledge and others might be written.]

5. He taught man [some knowledge and some sciences] that he did not know [before that.]}
.................................................. ...

a Which is the larva of the mosquito, that has been explained in the interpretation of the Quran, the sooras or chapters 22, 23, 75 and also in chapter 40: 67.

================================================== ====

{ 6. [Moreover, man longs to know the forefuture and the metaphysics.]
No, [We shall not teach him that; for then] man will surely rebel
a.

7. If he knew [the metaphysics or the forefuture], he would forgo [the religion and the heavenly scriptures and would deny the existence of the Creator.] b

[Then God – be glorified – started to threaten this associater who denied the ‘sending to the Next Life’ and the ‘Judgment’, so He said:]
8. Finally, the return [of the unbeliever c] will be to your Lord d,}
.................................................. .......

a i.e. will blaspheme and will be arrogant.

b i.e. he would say: I do not need the religion.
It is also narrated that the Prophet – salam to him – said: “Think about creatures, but do not think about the [essence of the] Creator.”
c After his separation from his material body.

d Then We shall punish him for his unbelief, association and denial of the ‘sending to the Next Life’ and denial of the Judgment.

[VIDEO]https://

Have you considered what a punishment will be for Abu-Jahl who forbids



10. The servant [of God] when he prays? a

11. Have you considered [what reward will be for him] if he follows the guidance [of God] b ?

12. Or [what reward will be for him] if he bids piety [rather than forbidding the prayers]?

13. Have you considered, if he disbelieves [in the Quran] and turns away [from the truth, what punishment he will have in the Fire]?

14. Does he not know that God does see [his deeds, for which He will accordingly admit him into Hell]?

15. No, indeed, [he will not be delivered from the Fire]; surely if he refrains not, We shall [let the Fire] strike him on the forelock c.

16. The forelock of a liar [and] sinful [man.]

:
[When Abu Jahl came and spoke to God’s messenger, the Prophet – salam to him – scolded him; so Abu Jahl said: “Do you scold me, Mohammed, while you know how many men are with me!?”
Therefore, His saying – be glorified – was revealed:]


17. So let him call [then] on his counsel [henchmen.]

18. We will call out the stout [angels of punishment to take him.]

19. Nay! d Obey not his [words], but yield [to the command of your Lord], and draw nigh [to God by obeying Him.]}
.................................................. ......

a The meaning: Have you, Mohammed, considered the one who forbids people from the prayers: what punishment will be for him!?

b Instead of following the misguidance.

c And scorch him with its flame.
The fire of the Barzakh (or the Afterlife) is the volcanoes in which he will be chastised; while the fire of Doomsday is the Sun, after which Saqar will be.

d He cannot escape from the 'stout angels of punishment'.

The interpretation is by Mohammed-Ali Hassan Al-Hilly.
Last edited by selfsame; Dec 25th, 2015 at 06:38 AM..
 
MHz
-1
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

It is more likely than not, to have happened that way, as dictated by the disciplines of science.

As opposed to a blind faith, dictated by a book whose origins are suspect at best.

This argument, yet again, is pointless.

The devout will ignore science, and the educated will mock the devout.

It's Christmas day, can I just get to mocking you now? It would be an awesome Christmas gift.

Since the blow-back for mocking is unpleasant why would you do that to yourself on the day that celebrates when Jesus was conceived?
The Bible is word for word from the day it was 'inspired', one thing sure about any science book is that there will be an update somewhere along the line, several updates in some cases.

Your reply is even more pointless as you couldn't follow the 1st request. Bears rush in where fools fear to enter. (before the proper time, like when the door is opened)
 
selfsame
#5
Now, I have completed the main idea of the thread.
 
MHz
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by selfsameView Post

The example of Bing Bang theory:
It is the outstanding theory now, while most of people view it as absolute: who said the universe started as such; it could be correct, I don't refuse it completely, but one cannot affirm this; there may be and in fact to me: I am certain that it is 99% may not be so correct, because how can man with his limited intellect find how the vast (about limitless) universe started since so billions of years, and how can anyone assert this unless he blinds himself like the people at the time of Ptolemy.

We could be smarter than they were back then but that would mean we would be smarter than the 'sons of God' from Ge:6 were back in the day. That isn't the way the Bible paints things when you consider that Revelations describes their abilities is being what we would consider to be 'supernatural'. Ge:1-3 and Re:20-22 can be used to support the old earth theory which puts the sun shining light on the earth as being 4,000,000,000BC years ago and the exit from the Garden as being 4,000BC. 6 easy steps for us if we apply powers of 10 to the problem. If Noah's time was more advanced than we are then powers of 10 would have been a common theme. could the flood have been 360,000 tears instead of 360 literal days is a question that would have to be explored before you could see if it applies or not.
That would mean from the flood until we can apply that factor then the book would have been a mystery as we take the people back then as being in the stone-age as far as being as advanced as we presently are. The pyramids and other places show somebody was doing some impressive things using higher math functions. We should cover Ge:1 and the flood in more detail so you get a better view of just how the theory goes.

Quote: Originally Posted by selfsameView Post

The example of the theory of Evolution:
Most people now assert this theory as an absolute one: how can anyone assert this in any scientific approach? Did anyone see with his own eyes that man evolved from preliminary creatures, and in the same ways other species resulted from preliminary forms? A man at most can say: it could be (while others may say: it is not logical and only imaginary.)

By exploring the old earth theory it would appear that there are 3 species. Air water and land has 3 lines of life developing and adaptation could explain the diversity after they were first introduced on different days of creation. Those 3 lines are never crossed.

Quote: Originally Posted by selfsameView Post

The exploitation of science to promote atheism and blasphemy:
This is so obvious in the example of Evolution, and what propaganda has been made about it until they convinced even many scientific people to accept it as a belief, in spite of the many flaws and defects in this theory.

That depends on how accurate the above theories are, if they are more logical than our current beliefs then we are flawed rather than the Bible. (in my case as that is my guide book and the explanations are self-contained if you know where to look. That would be clear after hearing about the old earth theory)
 
JLM
+2
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

It's Christmas day, can I just get to mocking you now? It would be an awesome Christmas gift.

You f**king sh*t disturber!
 
darkbeaver
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

It is more likely than not, to have happened that way, as dictated by the disciplines of science.

As opposed to a blind faith, dictated by a book whose origins are suspect at best.

This argument, yet again, is pointless.

The devout will ignore science, and the educated will mock the devout.

It's Christmas day, can I just get to mocking you now? It would be an awesome Christmas gift.

There is no chance whatever that it happened that way. Which of the four Big Bang theories do you favour, which of the three Black Hole theories ? Both of those modern Scientistic Laws has been disproven scientifically.Scientism is the religion of this century and the last.

Verse 24.35
Allah is the Light of the heavens and the earth. The similitude of His light is as a niche wherein is a lamp. The lamp is in a glass. The glass is as it were a shining star. (This lamp is) kindled from a blessed tree, an olive neither of the East nor of the West, whose oil would almost glow forth (of itself) though no fire touched it. Light upon light. Allah guideth unto His light whom He will. And Allah speaketh to mankind in allegories, for Allah is Knower of all things.
 
Jinentonix
+1
#9
We have seen the universe in it's earliest days. Have you actually, visually seen God with your own eyes?


Science: Man observes the universe and all its wonders. Develops theories, some of which become laws as more experiments, information and observations prove their validity.


Religion: A set of rules written by men, generally along the same vein as the cultural mores of the time when they were written. The laws are then attributed to God, an invisible and as yet unseen divine being whose existence hasn't even come close to being proven, except by idiots who think(pardon the exaggeration) their religious text is all the proof they need.


Now your general claim among the "Big 3" theistic religions is God wrote his words through man. Now, here's your assignment for the week. Without referencing the Koran as your source, prove that it is indeed God's word.
 
MHz
#10
Prove that you exist first before asking others to prove things..
 
lone wolf
+1
#11
Dunno.... It's sort of like beating on a twelve-year-old because he/she's learned the truth in Santa
 
MHz
#12
What do you mean by 'the truth about Santa'?
 
lone wolf
+4
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by MHzView Post

What do you mean by 'the truth about Santa'?

Reindeer are decorations. The sled's Hemi powered
 
Tecumsehsbones
+3
#14
The difference with science is that it corrects itself. Religion does not, and cannot.
 
selfsame
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaverView Post

Verse 24.35

This is the interpretation of this great aya of the Quran, by the late interpreter of the Quran and the Bible, Mohammed-Ali Hassan Al-Hilly:

Quran 24: 35, which means:
{God is the light a of [guidance for those who are in] the heavens and the earth b.
The likeness of His light [of guidance] is as a niche c wherein is a lamp; the lamp [enclosed] in a glass d,

[Then God – be glorified – explained about the power of that glass in protecting and defending the lamp:]

the glass [with its transparency] as it were a protective [shining] meteor e;
lit
f [with oil derived] from a blessed tree: an olive g [tree] that is neither in the East nor in the West h, whose oil i is about to shine, eventhough no fire touches it.
Light upon light
j; God guides to His light whom He will k.
And God mentions examples for men [to let them understand], and God has full knowledge of everything
l.}
.................................................. ........

a The ‘light’ means the guidance.

b It means: God is the Guide of those who are in the heavens and the earth; that is by means of the messengers (or apostles) whom He sends to people in order to guide them to the way of the truth.

This is like His saying – be glorified – in the Quran 24: 40, which means:
(And to whomsoever God assigns no light, no light has he.)
It means: Anyone to whom God assigns no guide, there will be none to guide him.

c The word in the aya, translated as ‘niche’: it is a room over the other rooms or over the passage in the middle of the house, or it is by the side of the street. So when a lamp is put in it, the house will be lit, and so people of the house will find their way at night with its light; and if the niche is by the side of the street, then the lamp will give light to the pedestrian so they will find their way with its light.
[The translator – it is like the lighthouse.]

Therefore, this is a parable which God said to people, so He likened Mohammed to be like the lamp, Mecca like the niche and the angels like the glass which protects the lamp from external factors.

Then God – be glorified – explained that He assigned guards to guard the messenger against his enemies out of the genie and the devil:

d Protecting it from external factors; the ‘glass’ implies the angels who surround the prophet and guard him like the glass which protects the lamp. This is indicated by His saying – be glorified – in the Quran 13: 11, which means:
(For him [: the guide], there are pursuing [angels] from before and behind him, who guard [that guide] from the am'r of God);
they guard the prophet from genies and devils.

e The meaning: The glass protects the lamp and averts the external factors from it [like the wind and others]; as does the meteor drive away the devils, and prevent them from ascending up to the heaven. So it is the meteor that inflames at night [in the sky.]

God said in the Quran 37: 6-7, which means:
(We have adorned the nearest heaven [to your earth] with [meteors, like] the adornment of the [other] planets. And that [meteors] may guard against every rebellious devil.)

Therefore, God – be glorified – explained in this aya that He guides people to the way of the truth by means of the messengers (or apostles), and that He sent Mohammed to them to guide them to the way of the truth, according to which they should move, as does the lamp in the niche shed light for them and they walk with its light by night.

Then He explained to them that they cannot kill him, because God assigned for him some angels to guard him from his enemies, as does the glass protect the lamp from the wind so that it will not be quenched.

Then God – be glorified – explained about the source of the revelation which Mohammed receives: that it comes to him from heaven, not from people as do they claim:

f i.e. this light shines and glitters from a tree,

g Which is the olive tree from which God – be glorified – spoke to Moses, the son of Amram. And it is ‘blessed’: because Moses blessed it when God spoke to him out of it, in the Valley of Towa in the Wilderness of Sinai.

h i.e. its site is neither to the east nor to the west of Mecca.
Therefore, the tree here resembles the Islamic nation, who is neither to the West nor to the East.
The meaning: Mohammed brought to you the truth from your Lord, and it is neither according to the desires of Christians who believe in the Trinity, nor according to the desires of Jews who denied both the prophet-hood of the Christ and the prophet-hood of Mohammed.

That is because the countries situated in the east of Mecca were entirely Christians like Abyssinia, Italy and others; while in the west of Mecca, Palestine is situated which was the habitation of Jews.

i The oil is its fruit; because the olive is bitter, which cannot be eaten unless after some procedure done to it, and the product of the olive is the oil.
The fruit of this tree are the believers who believe in the messengers and in the revelation which Gabriel receives from this tree.

The meaning: The believers in Mohammed are about to shed light on the World with the light of their guiding, and to save people from the ignorance with their knowledge and lead them to the way of the truth, with leave of their Lord.

j i.e. the ‘light of God’ upon the ‘light of His angels’ upon the ‘light of His messenger’: i.e. the guidance of God plus the guidance of His angels plus the guidance of His messenger.

k i.e. God guides, to the religion of the Islam and to the teachings of the Quran, anyone who is prepared for guidance, according to his good manners and his kindness to the poor.

l Therefore, He chooses to the apostle-hood, the one who is suitable for the mission and is capable of carrying it out.
 
coldstream
+1
#16
You're questioning the accepted Truths of the New Creation Myth Selfsame.. when you call the Big Bang a theory.. It, like its various corollaries (AGW somewhere down the line) must be accepted on the basis of faith.. and require NO experiments or proofs. You'll have to get with the program if you want your doctorate and tenure.
 
lone wolf
+1
#17
Accepted truths are subject to question. Absolute ones aren't - and that's where the fun begins.

I dare ya to deny gravity
 
darkbeaver
#18
Quote:

=selfsame;2221632]This is the interpretation of this great aya of the Quran, by the late interpreter of the Quran and the Bible, Mohammed-Ali Hassan Al-Hilly:

It means what it says, God is light. This is the most common fact shared by most of the earths religions. The light is everything and no thing is without its guidance. The Sun is the Hand of God, if you like. Nothing else needs to be said. You turn to it five times a day and pray. Why do you think you do that EA?
 
selfsame
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by TecumsehsbonesView Post

The difference with science is that it corrects itself. Religion does not, and cannot.

This is a fallacy.
Science in fact corrects itself: this is what I said: Science can be wrong and can there be afterwards the correction of such mistakes.
But the religion of God is unchangeable; the word of God is the truth which is correct and it cannot be changed or altered in any way.

Quran 6: 115, which means:
{Your Lord's word [of promising you, Mohammed and the believers with victory] has been fulfilled a in truthfulness and justice b.
None can change His words [of promising His messengers with victory c];
He is the All-Hearing [of their words], the All-Knowing [of their acts.]
}
.................................................. .

a By helping the Muslims against the disbelievers; i.e. the victory with which He promised you, has now been fulfilled.
So the 'word' here means the sentence.

b It means: His words are truthful, not disorganized and not changeable; and they are fair including not any injustice.

c It means: none of people can, neither can any party alter the word of God with which He promised His allies and messengers: to give them victory, whatever large may the number of disbelievers be, and whatever small may the number of believers be.
 
darkbeaver
#20
God is Gnosis
 
MHz
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by TecumsehsbonesView Post

The difference with science is that it corrects itself. Religion does not, and cannot.

Religion is supposed to be error free from the start, that certainly is the qualification the Bible is promoting. Would it take much to describe the living conditions that Noah lived in if it covered 360,000 years and the flood included a 450 ft rise in ocean levels above the 5ft the Bible covers in a period of 360 days. If that was one continuous freeze then the climate would be the same except for the start and end. That would seem to favor Israel being naturally wetter to the extent the Jordan was 2km wide and the Dead Sea was a body of fresh water, that would also put the Nile at about 50ft higher and if that is the case there it could also apply to the Mississippi as far as the weather on a global scale goes.
 
selfsame
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaverView Post

God is Gnosis

God is the All-Knowing or the Omniscient, and He has all the knowledge.
 
darkbeaver
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by TecumsehsbonesView Post

The difference with science is that it corrects itself. Religion does not, and cannot.

I would agree with you in one sence only, the modern practice of religion cannot correct itself. In the beginning, religion was science.
It's latin meaning is, binding back to the origin, which was recognized as the Sun. Those earliest religious adherants build great works very hard to confuse with practitioners of magic mumbo jumbo.
 
MHz
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolfView Post

Accepted truths are subject to question. Absolute ones aren't - and that's where the fun begins.

I dare ya to deny gravity

Would making an anvil lift skyward do the trick for you?? Let me introduce my two assistants, Mr. Gun and Mr. Powder.
 
JLM
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by selfsameView Post

God is the All-Knowing or the Omniscient, and He has all the knowledge.

We don't KNOW that God is anything before we can determine that he IS!
 
selfsame
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by MHzView Post

Religion is supposed to be error free from the start, that certainly is the qualification the Bible is promoting. Would it take much to describe the living conditions that Noah lived in if it covered 360,000 years and the flood included a 450 ft rise in ocean levels above the 5ft the Bible covers in a period of 360 days. If that was one continuous freeze then the climate would be the same except for the start and end. That would seem to favor Israel being naturally wetter to the extent the Jordan was 2km wide and the Dead Sea was a body of fresh water, that would also put the Nile at about 50ft higher and if that is the case there it could also apply to the Mississippi as far as the weather on a global scale goes.

We should take the Bible : the Torah + the Gospel in consideration, but we should be cautious and don't take all of it for certain, on account of the much distortion and alteration that afflicted the Torah and the Gospel, which is so obvious.

Therefore, the mistakes in the Bible will lead man to fall in the enthusiasm contrary to consecrating or dedicating the religion to God alone.
Moreover, such mistakes and alterations led a large number of people to disregard the religion and to fall in the atheism.
Last edited by selfsame; Dec 25th, 2015 at 01:03 PM..
 
darkbeaver
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by selfsameView Post

God is the All-Knowing or the Omniscient, and He has all the knowledge.

Where there is no light there is no knowledge. You will see the light or you will stay here in Egypt for another turn of the wheel. Some like you are stubborn and insist on New Age religions like Islam or Christianity. You will be judged and found wanting and you will be condemned to repeat another cycle in the flesh from a slightly different angle, or you will see the light and accend into that light as reward for your progress through flesh pits. The usage of the word light in all languages contain and carry the truth about God.

Every living thing is a lamp of God.
 
selfsame
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaverView Post

I would agree with you in one sence only, the modern practice of religion cannot correct itself. In the beginning, religion was science.
It's latin meaning is, binding back to the origin, which was recognized as the Sun. Those earliest religious adherants build great works very hard to confuse with practitioners of magic mumbo jumbo.

You think that the religion was an invention of man, in the past, then it evolved to become as it is now.

Not so, but God the Creator sent His apostle to guide people: from the time of the creation of Adam (and before Him) to guide people to worship Him alone and to be just among themselves and not to transgress on each other and to the rest of the commandments.

Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaverView Post

Where there is no light there is no knowledge. You will see the light or you will stay here in Egypt for another turn of the wheel. Some like you are stubborn and insist on New Age religions like Islam or Christianity. You will be judged and found wanting and you will be condemned to repeat another cycle in the flesh from a slightly different angle, or you will see the light and accend into that light as reward for your progress through flesh pits. The usage of the word light in all languages contain and carry the truth about God.

Every living thing is a lamp of God.

Did God tell you this in any revealed book, or do you yourself think as such?
 
darkbeaver
#29
The Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) was launched June 30, 2001, from Cape Canaveral in an attempt at understanding some unusual telemetry returned by COBE in 1992. Big Bang theory does not account for the areas of anisotropy seen first by COBE because matter and energy should be evenly distributed. The WMAP survey verified COBE's results.

In a previous Picture of the Day, we quoted EU theorist Wal Thornhill (external - login to view):

"If Arp and others are right and the Big Bang is dead, what does the Cosmic Microwave Background signify? The simplest answer, from the highly successful field of plasma cosmology, is that it represents the natural microwave radiation from electric current filaments in interstellar plasma local to the Sun... Instead of the Cosmic Microwave Background, it is the Interstellar Microwave Background. That makes sense of the fact that the CMB is too smooth to account for the lumpiness of galaxies and galactic clusters in the universe."

So, in reality, there is no temperature fluctuation from the earliest days of the universe shining in microwaves down from the heavens. However, the problems with CMB measurements from COBE and WMAP are far greater than we considered in that previous article. Coupled with previous observations by Thornhill and others, the CMBR appears to get most of its energy signature from a rather surprising place: Earth itself.

According to papers (external - login to view) recently published by Pierre-Marie Robitaille of Ohio State University's Department of Radiology, many oversights and offhanded errors crept in to the data from WMAP (external - login to view). The team did not fully calibrate the FIRAS spectrophotometer before launch, many possible error sources in the calibration protocol were zeroed out, and no account was taken of thermal emissions from Earth's oceans—which turns out to be the likely source of so-called "cosmic" microwave radiation.

Quote: Originally Posted by selfsameView Post

You think that the religion was an invention of man, in the past, then it evolved to become as it is now.

Not so, but God the Creator sent His apostle to guide people: from the time of the creation of Adam (and before Him) to guide people to worship Him alone and to be just among themselves and not to transgress on each other and to the rest of the commandments.



Did God tell you this in any revealed book, or do you yourself think as such?

Both, God the Sun in the first instance before I could walk or talk, and books in the second where I began to look for the works which denied God and supported my budding atheism. There is no milk or honey without the intervention of the Sun and the Bees.
 
selfsame
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by coldstreamView Post

You're questioning the accepted Truths of the New Creation Myth Selfsame.. when you call the Big Bang a theory.. It, like its various corollaries (AGW somewhere down the line) must be accepted on the basis of faith.. and require NO experiments or proofs. You'll have to get with the program if you want your doctorate and tenure.

This is the proving of the 'non-scientific approach', like the people at the time of Ptolemy were glad to know, but they did not know they were wrong.
I don't say such theory is wrong or correct, but the scientific approach demands man to think about probabilities, and how can man - with his limited intellect - grasp the knowledge about the origin of the creation? And when was that, and what had been before that?
This is like a child in the kindergarten and you tell him about the logarithms or the other complicated equations .. his capability is less than he can grasp; in other words: as we sit here in this corner of the universe with out tiny and about trivial capabilities : how can we know things much greater than our scope and level of intelligence .. it can't be.

Quran 17: 85, which means:
{They ask you [Mohammed] about [Gabriel:] the Spirit [of revelation a.]
Say: "[Gabriel] the Spirit [of revelation] is [one] of my Lord's am'r [: or ethereal creatures
b.]
And, of the knowledge, you [people] have only been given so little.
c "}
.................................................. ...

a And about his description.

b i.e. say he is one of my Lordís spiritual creatures, but you do not see them because your seeing is limited, and you donít know about them, because you are now in a primary school, and you will see them when you will go to the secondary school, i.e. to the Next Life.
So the word Amír indicates every spiritual creature, and it has been explained in many sites of the Quran interpretation.


c It means: your knowledge about the material things is limited, then how can you know about spiritual beings of whom We have many kinds!?
 

Similar Threads

10
Scientific hoaxes
by CDNBear | Feb 23rd, 2007
1
US Scientific With Hunt??
by passpatoo | Aug 30th, 2005
no new posts