Jump to content

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

42 minutes ago, Quisant said:

He is much better educated than me, for sure.

I find it interesting that science should be attempting to answer deep questions of fundamental human curiosity. Unfortunately,up to now, it has only been able to determine the truth in the Physical.
*

Not sure if you realize that We have not got the time to wait, at most people live 100 and few years and most have a much less lifespan. We can’t wait for any our desired/preferred ( does not  mean it is correct) method to get its act together so we can get real and consistent answers, which may or may not come. Whatever and whenever is not mine or your concern. What do you do Now?

If you existed in the time of Newton. Einstein, you would have said they know more than me so they are right and now you will follow the present scientist and the next generation will follow the new scientist. People would have and will follow transient and divergent results. It only leads to Agnosticism. Which will not serve anyone as we can’t just say - well we do not know, which SME  is right.

Science(Study /  investigation into fields what we term  Physics, Chemistry biology astronomy cosmology are they not only concerned with Physical objects and elements and organisms like us and what's around us. ( You, whatever in on this earth, and in the space as we know it) . Why would anyone expect it to find anything beyond Physical answers- It's not going to locate god, or take a snapshot or a voice recording or  point to his house as proof.

If you really pay attention to the arguments above in the article/book

Who is the designer of this Grand Design? Gravity- self existing self sustaining power/law/ whatever you want to terms it. that can produce Universes at will? 

What happens to the ‘ I am here by Chance theory”

If we shart to find other system like us, which can sustain life - what does that point to a pattern - which can’t be out of chaos or random events.

Mr. Chance and Mr.Random are out the door at this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, S.M.H.A. said:

Why would anyone expect it to find anything beyond Physical answers- It's not going to locate god, or take a snapshot or a voice recording or  point to his house as proof.

I have said this so many times:

If a God exists then its purest expression is reality itself
If the teachings of the faith are God’s revelation of the truth; science, the product of human reason, is the search for truth. 
The “correct faith“, therefore, cannot be opposed to “good science” because “truth” is the object of both.  
 

19 hours ago, S.M.H.A. said:

If we shart to find other system like us, which can sustain life - what does that point to a pattern - which can’t be out of chaos or random events.

Mr. Chance and Mr.Random are out the door at this point.

I think you should leave Mr Chance and Mr Random alone and until you can prove the existence of a supernatural entity you might consider joining the ' I don't know and neither do you' Club.

*
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Quisant said:

If the teachings of the faith are God’s revelation of the truth; science, the product of human reason, is the search for truth. 
The “correct faith“, therefore, cannot be opposed to “good science” because “truth” is the object of both.  

Science and Religion are 1, science is but discovering the laws that the "worlds' maker"(as a prominent thinker said once) had tuned. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, M.IB said:

Science and Religion are 1, science is but discovering the laws that the "worlds' maker"(as a prominent thinker said once) had tuned. 

Science and Faith are different forms of inquiry. 

Science operates by using evidence and reason. Doubt is prized, authority rejected. No finding is deemed "true" — a notion that's always provisional — unless it's repeated and verified by others. 
Truth is any aspect of reality that is independently verifiable by more than one individual. Ideally, the "truth" in question should be, in principle, independently verifiable by anyone. 

Religion is subjective, not transparent and it is not examinable. It relies on ...faith.

Science has, in the last 2-300 years, uncovered more of the universe's secrets (and in tangible, practical ways) than millennia of theology managed.

I see you are from the Lebanon, I was born in Saida, where are you from?
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Quisant said:

Science operates by using evidence and reason. Doubt is prized, authority rejected. No finding is deemed "true" — a notion that's always provisional — unless it's repeated and verified by others. 
Truth is any aspect of reality that is independently verifiable by more than one individual. Ideally, the "truth" in question should be, in principle, independently verifiable by anyone. 

Can you prove God doesn't exist using science?

27 minutes ago, Quisant said:

I see you are from the Lebanon, I was born in Saida, where are you from?

I am from the city of Jbeil or Byblos..

Edited by M.IB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Quisant said:

I have said this so many times:

If a God exists then its purest expression is reality itself
If the teachings of the faith are God’s revelation of the truth; science, the product of human reason, is the search for truth. 
The “correct faith“, therefore, cannot be opposed to “good science” because “truth” is the object of both.  
 

I think you should leave Mr Chance and Mr Random alone and until you can prove the existence of a supernatural entity you might consider joining the ' I don't know and neither do you' Club.

*
 

This topic is not about "THE GOD".

*****

It does not require a rocket scientist or a Phd to determine. Future overrides the past in What we call Science-hence transient and in constant flux and changing. 

For non believers in the revealed Religion. If the Scientist of the era are looked as the Best Knowledgeable person. They would have the belief of Newton, and Einstein and who ever is the top scientists in their opinion in 2017 and so on. It can be concluded that absent any Solid/Methodical/tangible/concrete/ Data based evidence that can be verified and Peer Reviewed has not been presented to date by Any Scientist ( Investigators) SME’s in their field of study of physical objects and organisms on Earth or in Space.  Regarding what they set out to Deny and disprove directly or indirectly , explicitly or implicitly.

It's all a product of “these” Scientists mind . A man made Religion/Theory about Universe and Life which leads their man made outlook of this world and their role. It is a Religion, one really made by man. As a Fact,  ( Correct mm if I am wrong) .

“ Science” or “Scientists” Why would people not ask this question and investigate the reason and bring it out let alone get offended by it. Why the rational. Logical and intellectual people with High School, undergraduate,graduate or doctoral level degrees and people who work in these fields are so gullible? ( Correct mm if I am wrong) . It seems that there is a double standard here.

Let’s get back to the actual stuff that needs to be addressed, if you would like to address it. You and others should demonstrate the same level of objectivity in questioning what was pointed out in the last post.

We have been presented with a Concept  of a Creator/sustainer that has not origins, no creator, self created and can create at will. A Creator that can be only observed by its effects. Can’t be seen or touched or reached or understood in its entirety by us limited beings. Nothing happened by Chance or is an Random event. We have not seen this Universe let alone Multiple Universe - We are been asked to believe in the Unseen.

Has a new Designer been introduced here for the Grand Design?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, S.M.H.A. said:

This topic is not about "THE GOD".

*****

It does not require a rocket scientist or a Phd to determine. Future overrides the past in What we call Science-hence transient and in constant flux and changing. 

For non believers in the revealed Religion. If the Scientist of the era are looked as the Best Knowledgeable person. They would have the belief of Newton, and Einstein and who ever is the top scientists in their opinion in 2017 and so on. It can be concluded that absent any Solid/Methodical/tangible/concrete/ Data based evidence that can be verified and Peer Reviewed has not been presented to date by Any Scientist ( Investigators) SME’s in their field of study of physical objects and organisms on Earth or in Space.  Regarding what they set out to Deny and disprove directly or indirectly , explicitly or implicitly.

It's all a product of “these” Scientists mind . A man made Religion/Theory about Universe and Life which leads their man made outlook of this world and their role. It is a Religion, one really made by man. As a Fact,  ( Correct mm if I am wrong) .

“ Science” or “Scientists” Why would people not ask this question and investigate the reason and bring it out let alone get offended by it. Why the rational. Logical and intellectual people with High School, undergraduate,graduate or doctoral level degrees and people who work in these fields are so gullible? ( Correct mm if I am wrong) . It seems that there is a double standard here.

Let’s get back to the actual stuff that needs to be addressed, if you would like to address it. You and others should demonstrate the same level of objectivity in questioning what was pointed out in the last post.

We have been presented with a Concept  of a Creator/sustainer that has not origins, no creator, self created and can create at will. A Creator that can be only observed by its effects. Can’t be seen or touched or reached or understood in its entirety by us limited beings. Nothing happened by Chance or is an Random event. We have not seen this Universe let alone Multiple Universe - We are been asked to believe in the Unseen.

Has a new Designer been introduced here for the Grand Design?

 

You are assembling your own consensus into a straw man in order to attack it.  

A 'straw man' is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent.

I'll move on and let you talk to yourself, have fun.
All the best.

*
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Quisant said:

 

You are assembling your own consensus into a straw man in order to attack it.  

A 'straw man' is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent.

I'll move on and let you talk to yourself, have fun.
All the best.

*
 

You have not addressed the Topic, and what arguments you have presented with evidence that you are entitled to say to say that I am refuting your(opponent's) argument. and calling it a" strawman".?

Read the Thread form the beginning, its about the delusions of the Atheists, and if you like to present an argument to refute against what has been presented,  do so with evidence. I think or he think is not Scientific Evidence. Its delusion of peoples minds with a Scientific wrapping. 

Otherwise, there was/is no compulsion for you to respond. Engage or disengage at will. If you do engage keep it to the topic and answer/refute with solid "Scientific" evidence, as your system is based on Verifiable data/results.

I am  not turning this into a personal issue with you or anyone else.. Nothing personal here. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Ron_Burgundy said:

@S.M.H.A. @Salsabeel @Quisant @Sindbad05 @M.IB

Lets go to basic physics 

If you look at formula of gravity and make a mass = 0 (since there is nothing) what would be the gravitational force? 

For mass, there is no gravity, since it's non-existent but for the one who is calculating it, the gravity has meaning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See the argument of Ibn Sina(Avicenna) an nice argument:

 

Avicenna's proof for the existence of God was the first ontological argument, which he proposed in the Metaphysics section of The Book of Healing. This was the first attempt at using the method of a priori proof, which utilizes intuition and reason alone. Avicenna's proof of God's existence is unique in that it can be classified as both a cosmological argument and an ontological argument. "It is ontological insofar as ‘necessary existence’ in intellect is the first basis for arguing for a Necessary Existent". The proof is also "cosmological insofar as most of it is taken up with arguing that contingent existents cannot stand alone and must end up in a Necessary Existent."

 

This is just a quote from Wikipedia, see the full argument, I am sure you can't be more knowledgeable than Avicenna, a Persian polymath who is regarded as one of the most significant physicians, astronomers, thinkers and writers of the Islamic Golden Age.

Edited by M.IB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sindbad05 said:

For mass, there is no gravity, since it's non-existent but for the one who is calculating it, the gravity has meaning.

But when mass = 0 is means gravitational force will be 0 as well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sindbad05 said:

it is obvious that for zero mass there is no gravity. For any mass > 0, gravity of earth is 9.8 m/s2.

But I am talking about when there was nothing nothing means mass = 0 so there would be no gravity as well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Ron_Burgundy said:

But I am talking about when there was nothing nothing means mass = 0 so there would be no gravity as well. 

Haha. I would rephrase my quote in other words, if you were not here on SC did SC exist for you?  Unless you discovered it. Though it existed but you weren't aware that doesn't mean that it does not exist for those who were it's members. It just didn't exist for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This will a test of how attentive we are,

Post your questions/comments/observation, and there will be  many, If you were watching it with focus. Pay attention to what is presented as Solid evidence and what is Theoretical and what is actually needed to Test this M Theory.

Some reading on string theory.

https://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/science/questions/superstring.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is how Hawkins describes the Origin of Universe.

http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-origin-of-the-universe.html

No one is cherry picking on statement, The entire Rational for his view / concept(s) based on multiple sources( written/video) is been questioned. The articles posted here, Video and this latest link form his website. Will give us some insight into the working of his mind. Which has become common and same questions are been asked by the followers. Read/Watch to get the sense of the Grand delusion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My understanding, from first fews minutes of the Video posted above.

Last book, “A brief History of Time” Describes His Picture of the Universe with unresolved Issue- Now he has written a new book the “Grand Design”.  

1( Transient Thoughts, New Book may have some unresolved issues so it is not the Gospel Truth/Ultimate Reality )

2: Based on Theoretical/ Unproven Ideas

Now he is trying to answer question like

1)How  can we understand the  world we find ourselves

2)What is the nature of Reality

3) How -  Origin of the Universe

4) Why- does Universe exists

5) Does the Universe need a Creator

6) Almost all of us must sometimes wonder Why are we here.

7) Where do we come from

( Where does he actually answers these questions ?)

According to his thinking, traditionally these are the question for Philosophy, but according to him- Philosophy  is Dead. Philosophers have not kept up with modern developments in what he calls “Science” in general and Particularly in Something he calls “ Physics”

“Scientists” have become the bearers of discovery, in our quest for something he calls “ “Knowledge”

Purpose  of the Grand design is to give the answers that are “Suggested” by the recent “Discoveries” They leads us to a New and very different picture of the Universe and our place in it. ( Transient nature this kind of investigation , is again operative here)

Laws govern the Universe. Due to the Complicity - Early civilization were not able to discern the Clear Patterns and Laws governing these phenomena(s).  ( Limited in Scope) but does Recognize  very observable Patterns and Laws. Can’t comprehend their significance in the overall picture.

Does not demonstrate any viable understanding of Human Nature, place of Humans and civilization and their needs. At their individual, family, social and political level  on this Earth. Where we are going?  

Stardust to Star dust- why all the struggle

- Procreate/eat/sleep and be happy an wait out the time here As this One  Universe is a huge place, everything is Material and Physical in nature and whatever the Grand plan is by The Gravity or The Laws and Patterns that that govern the Stardust and shapes it and whatever is the final shape or purpose of all this. It will disintegrate, its not eternal. . We are an after effect on this little rock.

So why the Quest?

I  clearly need his personal dictionary to understand the terminology like.

“Science” - Hard empirical or theoretical (unproven and may not be proven as it may be replaced by other Theories)- or  Hybrid Science .

“Physics” - Macro-Micro world- Because his Theory is still trying to recognize the Issues between two theories at the expense of what? ( read the link provided above post after the Video - superstring

“Knowledge” - His understanding of , what is Knowledge is very limited in scope.

“Discovery”- Is it proven in a Lab on paper or it needs a LHC the size of this Galaxy with the energy to Test M Theory.

These Laws and Origin of these laws

Multiple Universes

Laws are different in Different Universes).

String Theory is incorporating 10 + Dimensions- How many Dimension are proven and can be verified?

Space, Time, Mass, Gravity May or May not exist as we know them . have different realities  and may be subject to the laws in that particular Universe or Outside of our known  Universe.

So, no question can be formulate using these limited concept to understand the Ultimate Reality outside our domain.( Read the link )

Whatever is his Theory which is Suggested by the New Discoveries(?) - What Discoveries( proven or paper discoveries- may be overridden like the Newton and Einstein theories ) - No solid foundation to build a house here. Only a transient World view. Which leads to inconsistencies in views and understanding of Realities and always in flux. Hence the Chaos in almost everything related to Human issues...competing ideas - instability at its core.

At best it a Theoretical presentation So, how can he or anyone else using these arguments be so delighted to challenge other Ideas that he challenges ( which you a hear and read ) but at this point I like to stick to the basics and fundamental issues here.

I am a layman, in Religious issues, Philosophical and Scientific issues. But as an average person with average knowledge can and should ask the questions and have the abilities to understand the basics concepts, connections and answers.

Correct me if I am Wrong- As I am not a SME. (Subject Matter Expert)

If someone wants to answer, First Correct my understanding and provide answer/clarification for my and others benefit.

It seems it's all about The Material/Physical nature noting about the Humanity and its issues. As expected. This type of Science only deals with Material/Physical issues.

So, it's a branch of Knowledge  - but not the Complete Knowledge itself.

As he and others have clearly realized  that we an our thinking and resources are Limited. We are in this What we call " Universe" so we will always be governed by these particular laws for this Universe- Never will  be able to get out of its Domain to look at is from outside. Always a Tree looking at the forest from its position. Noe helicopter view. Hence complete Knowledge of the Universe will not be attained thru our instruments and methods. (Limitation).

 

Edited by S.M.H.A.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Roger Penrose, the leading British mathematician, who worked with Hawking on black holes is another critic of Hawking's theory. He said of M-theory:

It enjoys no observational support whatever. What is referred to as M-theory isn't even a theory. Indeed it's hardly science. It's a collection of ideas, hopes, aspirations… I think the book is misleading. It gives the impression that there is this new theory which is going to explain everything. It's nothing of the sort. I think the book suffers rather more strongly than many. It's not uncommon in popular descriptions of science to latch onto some idea, particularly to do with string theory, which has absolutely no support from observation. They're just nice ideas which people have tried to explore. It's an excuse for not having a good theory. And there's not just one M-theory, there are 10 to the power 500 variants.[58]

Paul Davies in his Templeton lecture said:

Some scientists have tried to argue that if only we knew enough about the laws of physics, then we would find the theory of everything. In other words, the nature of the physical world would be entirely the consequence of logical and mathematical necessity. There would be no choice about it. I think this is demonstrably wrong. There is not a shred of evidence that the universe is logically necessary.[59]

Davies maintains that the theory is not testable, not even in any foreseeable future; and for this reason, M-theory gets a lot of flak from within the science community.

John Lennox, who is Professor of Mathematics at Oxford, comments:

Nonsense is nonsense, even when it is spoken by world famous scientists.… Immense prestige and authority do not compensate for faulty logic.[60]

https://www.bethinking.org/does-science-disprove-god/the-delusion-of-atheists

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Hawking's theory is self-contradictory. Hawking wrote: "Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can, and will, create itself out of nothing." But his 'nothing' isn't nothing, rather it is something which contains the laws of gravity. According to Hawking the laws are there already, before a material universe exists. But where did they come from? And how does he know? Can the laws of gravity exist in the absence of matter? Other scientists maintain we can know nothing before the Big Bang. Where does Hawking get his information from? Also isn't Hawking confusing physical laws with agency. It is surely a mistake to think that the laws of physics are agents. Physical laws like gravity don't initiate actions and events. They merely describe the physical universe. Physical laws cannot create anything. A theory can't bring anything into existence.

Apparently no empirical evidence is required, because there is not a shred of evidence for any of this, and since the existence of other universes could never be proved, we are not dealing here with science. The distinction between science and science fiction has become blurred. It was Newton who discovered the laws of gravity; but this didn't lead him to atheism, but to greater belief in God.

One of Britain's most distinguished scientists and a former Astronomer Royal isMartin Rees. He is a long-standing friend and colleague of Hawking's at Cambridge. He was asked, in an interview in The Independent, what he thought of Hawking's views on the existence of God. He replied:

I know Stephen Hawking well enough to know that he has read very little philosophy and even less theology, so I don't think we should attach any weight to his views on God.[57]

https://www.bethinking.org/does-science-disprove-god/the-delusion-of-atheists

Add the anthropomorphic view, you have the neo darwinist/ neo atheists who are bent on using the  "Wishful Science" as a counter to the Church. 

If the most learned in the specific field of study, have little knowledge on other subjects they are trying to make policy decisions, and an anthropomorphic view and many possible misunderstandings. 

The layman Atheists/Agnostics are taking advantage of this to further their cause. We can be overwhelmed by their constant push, with the banner/flag of "wishful science or half baked theories or partial truths" . 

If the proponents of "Wishful Science" are really true to their claim" - why do they not follow the information they have gathered from Current Knowledge? What does Evolution, whatever their definition/concept is - asks them to do in their life. How should they live their lives, to stay physically, mentally, socially fit to succeed/adapt. 

Quote

(Survival of the fittest, and best adaptable need an Overall  guidance system otherwise the impact/effects can be damaging to self or society - We will leave this part of the argument for another time)

Let's look at the proponent's this theory, and see  if their are really advancing this theory for the purpose of the benefit if the humanity or their is another purpose. Implementation of this knowledge that we have acquired will tell us the real motive.

The people you met, who enlightened you to the new realities. See what is their real purpose and effort behind this dawah/invitation of their way of life.

If we were to look at it from this perspective, the following facts can’t be denied.

No alternative lifestyle

Perfect health

No Substance abuse( alcohol, drugs)

No crime/jail terms

No diseases of all kinds acquired/transmitted or through unhealthy food consumption.

Perfect psychological health.

Procreation- Prime directive.( All activities must support this Prime directive)

Protection of what we procreate

See it comes to fruition and next procreation cycle

In a secular sense, what above means is that you are to live in accordance with the knowledge you have gained through discovery(Science) .

 

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235054035-what-if-god-was-fictitious/?page=2&tab=comments#comment-3096320

The fact that they who support these ideas just to escape the responsibility and accountability implies that if there were asked to follow the finding and outcome in real practical life, they will abandon this support and find some other reason to oppose Divine Religion or Nature/Science. 

Any thoughts from the Atheist/Agnostic on why you do not follow what you preach.?  If you can't explain or articulate your view of life, world vision based on what you preach- Claim stand corrected that you are using "Wishful Science" as an excuse to have a life free of obligation/accountability= Its all an excuse. Its just fluff, no substance to the claim. 

We layman, are fully aware that you will avoid this kind of engagement, and will only engage in certain topic , attacking/creating doubt, regarding  the "Nature of the Cause " but this is becoming  very obvious. 

Because no one has denied their limits, no one has denied that they or what's around them does not exist. No Learned man of Science has denied limits. So that fact that we are the effect, Cause has been established. So, this mixing of "The existence of Cause" which is undeniable. with who and what is the nature or are the attributes is reaching a point of diminishing return. 

Let's have a meaningful discussion on your views here...instead of the usual drive-by's.(Which create a credibility issue)

Edited by S.M.H.A.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sermon 1: Praise is due to Allah whose worth cannot be described….

In this sermon he recalls the creation of Earth and Sky and the creation of Adam and in it he mentions the Hajj

ومن خطبة له (عليه السلام) يذكر فيها ابتداءَ خلق السماءِ والاَرض، وخلق آدم عليه الصلاة والسلام

(فيها ذكر الحج)

(وتحتوي على حمد الله، وخلق العالم، وخلق الملائكة، واختيار الانبياء، ومبعث النبي، والقرآن، والاحكام الشرعية)

The Creation of the Universe

خلق العالم

He initiated creation most initially and commenced it originally, without undergoing reflection, without making use of any experiment, without innovating any movement, and without experiencing any aspiration of mind. He allotted all things their times, put together their variations gave them their properties, and determined their features knowing them before creating them, realising fully their limits and confines and appreciating their propensities and intricacies.

أَنْشَأَ الخَلْقَ إنْشَاءً، وَابْتَدَأَهُ ابْتِدَاءً، بِلاَ رَوِيَّة أَجَالَهَا، وَلاَ تَجْرِبَة اسْتَفَادَهَا، وَلاَ حَرَكَة أَحْدَثَهَا، وَلاَ هَمَامَةِ نَفْس اضطَرَبَ فِيهَا. أَحَالَ الاْشياءَ لاِوْقَاتِهَا، وَلاَمَ بَيْنَ مُخْتَلِفَاتِهَا، وَغَرَّزَ غَرائِزَهَا، وَأَلزَمَهَا أشْبَاحَهَا، عَالِماً بِهَا قَبْلَ ابْتِدَائِهَا، مُحِيطاً بِحُدُودِها وَانْتِهَائِهَا، عَارفاً بِقَرَائِنِها وَأَحْنَائِهَا.

When Almighty created the openings of atmosphere, expanse of firmament and strata of winds, He flowed into it water whose waves were stormy and whose surges leapt one over the other. He loaded it on dashing wind and breaking typhoons, ordered them to shed it back (as rain), gave the wind control over the vigour of the rain, and acquainted it with its limitations. The wind blew under it while water flowed furiously over it.

ثُمَّ أَنْشَأَ ـ سُبْحَانَهُ ـ فَتْقَ الاْجْوَاءِ، وَشَقَّ الاْرْجَاءِ، وَسَكَائِكَ الَهوَاءِ، فأَجازَ فِيهَا مَاءً مُتَلاطِماً تَيَّارُهُ، مُتَراكِماً زَخَّارُهُ، حَمَلَهُ عَلَى مَتْنِ . الرِّيحِ الْعَاصِفَةِ، وَالزَّعْزَعِ الْقَاصِفَةِ، فَأَمَرَها بِرَدِّهِ، وَسَلَّطَهَا عَلَى شَدِّهِ، وَقَرنَهَا إِلَى حَدِّهِ، الهَوَاءُ مِنْ تَحْتِها فَتِيقٌ، وَالمَاءُ مِنْ فَوْقِهَا دَفِيقٌ.

Then Almighty created forth wind and made its movement sterile, perpetuated its position, intensified its motion and spread it far and wide. Then He ordered the wind to raise up deep waters and to intensify the waves of the oceans. So the wind churned it like the churning of curd and pushed it fiercely into the firmament throwing its front position on the rear and the stationary on the flowing till its level was raised and the surface was full of foam.

Then Almighty raised the foam on to the open wind and vast firmament and made there-from the seven skies and made the lower one as a stationary surge and the upper one as protective ceiling and a high edifice without any pole to support it or nail to hold it together.

Then He decorated them with stars and the light of meteors and hung in it the shining sun and effulgent moon under the revolving sky, moving ceiling and rotating firmament.

ثُمَّ أَنْشَأَ سُبْحَانَهُ رِيحاً اعْتَقَمَ مَهَبَّهَا، وَأَدَامَ مُرَبَّهَا، وَأَعْصَفَ مَجْرَاها، وَأَبْعَدَ مَنْشَاهَا، فَأَمَرَها بِتَصْفِيقِ المَاءِ الزَّخَّارِ، وَإِثَارَةِ مَوْجِ البِحَارِ، فَمَخَضَتْهُ مَخْضَ السِّقَاءِ، وَعَصَفَتْ بهِ عَصْفَهَا بِالفَضَاءِ، تَرُدُّ أَوَّلَهُ عَلَى آخِرِهِ، وَسَاجِيَهُ عَلَى مَائِرِهِ، حَتَّى عَبَّ عُبَابُهُ، وَرَمَى بِالزَّبَدِ رُكَامُهُ، فَرَفَعَهُ فِي هَوَاء مُنْفَتِق، وَجَوٍّ مُنْفَهِق، فَسَوَّى مِنْهُ سَبْعَ سَموَات، جَعَلَ سُفْلاَهُنَّ مَوْجاً مَكْفُوفاً، وَعُلْيَاهُنَّ سَقْفاً مَحْفُوظاً، وَسَمْكاً مَرْفُوعاً، بِغَيْر عَمَد يَدْعَمُهَا، وَلا دِسَار يَنْظِمُها.

ثُمَّ زَيَّنَهَا بِزينَةِ الكَوَاكِبِ، وَضِياءِ الثَّوَاقِبِ، وَأَجْرَى فِيها سِرَاجاً مُسْتَطِيراً، وَقَمَراً مُنِيراً: في فَلَك دَائِر، وَسَقْف سَائِر، وَرَقِيم مَائِر.

 

Praise is due to Allah whose worth cannot be described by speakers, whose bounties cannot be counted by calculators and whose claim (to obedience) cannot be satisfied by those who attempt to do so, whom the height of intellectual courage cannot appreciate, and the divings of understanding cannot reach; He for whose description no limit has been laid down, no eulogy exists, no time is ordained and no duration is fixed. He brought forth creation through His Omnipotence, dispersed winds through His Compassion, and made firm the shaking earth with rocks.

الحَمْدُ للهِ الَّذَي لاَ يَبْلُغُ مِدْحَتَهُ القَائِلُونَ، وَلاِ يُحْصِي نَعْمَاءَهُ العَادُّونَ، ولاَ يُؤَدِّي حَقَّهُ الُمجْتَهِدُونَ، الَّذِي لاَ يُدْركُهُ بُعْدُ الهِمَمِ، وَلاَ يَنَالُهُ غَوْصُ الفِطَنِ، الَّذِي لَيْسَ لِصِفَتِهِ حَدٌّ مَحْدُودٌ، وَلاَ نَعْتٌ مَوْجُودٌ، وَلا وَقْتٌ مَعْدُودٌ، وَلا أَجَلٌ مَمْدُودٌ. فَطَرَ الخَلائِقَ بِقُدْرَتِهَ، وَنَشَرَ الرِّيَاحَ بِرَحْمَتِهِ، وَوَتَّدَ بِالصُّخُورِ مَيَدَانَ أَرْضِهِ.

https://www.al-islam.org/nahjul-balagha-part-1-sermons/sermon-1-praise-due-Allah-whose-worth-cannot-be-described#creation-universe

Edited by Ashvazdanghe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Newton's First Law

Newton's first law of motion is often stated as:

An object at rest stays at rest and an object in motion stays in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.

Sir Isaac Newton first presented his three laws of motion in the "Principia Mathematica Philosophiae Naturalis" in 1686. His first law states that every object will remain at rest or in uniform motion in a straight line unless compelled to change its state by the action of an external force. This is normally taken as the definition of inertia. The key point here is that if there is no net force resulting from unbalanced forces acting on an object (if all the external forces cancel each other out), then the object will maintain a constant velocity. If that velocity is zero, then the object remains at rest. And if an additional external force is applied, the velocity will change because of the force. The amount of the change in velocity is determined by Newton's second law of motion. 

Can't we conclude that this "external force" was God? I want to get your opinion.

 @Quisant @iCambrian

u2l1a1.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, M.IB said:

Newton's First Law

Newton's first law of motion is often stated as:

An object at rest stays at rest and an object in motion stays in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.

Sir Isaac Newton first presented his three laws of motion in the "Principia Mathematica Philosophiae Naturalis" in 1686. His first law states that every object will remain at rest or in uniform motion in a straight line unless compelled to change its state by the action of an external force. This is normally taken as the definition of inertia. The key point here is that if there is no net force resulting from unbalanced forces acting on an object (if all the external forces cancel each other out), then the object will maintain a constant velocity. If that velocity is zero, then the object remains at rest. And if an additional external force is applied, the velocity will change because of the force. The amount of the change in velocity is determined by Newton's second law of motion. 

Can't we conclude that this "external force" was God? I want to get your opinion.

 @Quisant @iCambrian

u2l1a1.gif

I would be hesitant to...say, as an example, whatever is causing space objects to move apart is an external force, and is therefore God.  Because then you might end up figuring out that what causes the spreading, and it may not be a force that is materialistically different than any other force. Then people sort of push God back. 

Its like the whole God of the Gaps thing. God shouldnt be confined to some sort of abstract beginning force that nobody can explain. Because then when we do find out how to explain it, God gets pushed back.

I think the question should be approached differently, where God isn't necessarily absent or beyond forces around us, that currently operate.

Someone the other day shared a video with some young earth creationists in it. And they said, theistic evolution is a pseudo deism, where God created, then sat back and watched without intervening.  But, would that not mean that God is also absent from something like...the birth of your son or daughter? Would it not mean that God is absent from...love? Or relationships?

Just because God is not actively transforming reality before our eyes in wild and crazy ways, it doesn't mean that God should be assumed as absent. 

And I think when God is described as an "external" force, you are pushing God, to the outside, like God isn't present within and around us. And it turns into a situation where the true deists are the ones arguing in favor of the existence of God, using kalam style arguments.

So i think the question should be framed differently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×